I've paired Hoefler Text with Helvetica with some degree of success. I like how Hoefler Text reads over long bodies of text, which might help those 300 pages fly by :)

I think you should assume most people are going to read this on screen. So pick your body font with on-screen reading in mind. (Meaning a sans would be fine, but NOT HELVETICA.)

Cheers,

T

Much thanks to both of you.

Dannis- I really agree with you that Hoefler looks really great with Helvetica.

Thomas- Unfortunately, keeping with the Helvetica is a requirement.

So I propose a few options that perhaps you and anyone else could give me some feedback on:

1. Yes, I assume most people will be reading this on screen, and personally, I find a sans body font to be easier on the eye when starring at a monitor. Is that just me? Is a serif better for lots of body text to be viewed on a screen?

2. The digipak (a nicer cardboard alternative to a jewel CD case I had to sell my soul for in order to get purchasing to agree) has already been designed using Helvetica Neue Thin throughout and sent to the printer. So if I didn't feel a bit stuck with the Helvetica before, I definitely do now.

On the other hand, considering that this is going to people that most likely don't know/care what a serif is as they still use various shades of Comic Sans in their e-mails, would I be able to get away with something else in the report... perhaps Whitney HTF light?

3. I am totally pushing it with my textual babble, but this is the last one, I promise. On a somewhat irrelevant note, I have been considering going with a custom size (approx 10.5x9 or so) for best viewing through acrobat. I know a small handful will print this out, so is this a good idea or should I stick with the standard letter size?

Once again, thanks for all your help and quick responses.

I would recommend using Helvetica for you headings, and possibly subheads and captions. Use another screen-friendly type for your body copy. Georgia could be a good option.

> having the entire font family should suit all my needs

It would suit my needs too. I could burn the whole lot at
the stake and be done with that village idiot of a typeface.

hhp

I was speaking solely to the body text. Personally, unless I couldn't make ends meet, I would reject doing a design job that required Helvetica for lengthy body text. Seriously. Can you tell me who to tell that they're an idiot to do an entire annual report in Helvetica Neue Light?

For headings or even subheads, not a problem. But body text on screen? That's just user hostile. Unless of course, the point is that they don't want anybody to read it.

Cheers,

T

Either you have a choice, or you don't. If you don't have a choice... don't sweat it! much design work involves compromise. It's part of the limitations inherent to our craft, and we find ways to shine in spite of them (and occasionally because of them).

Personally, I feel that readability of screen fonts is largely a function of particular size. I think the size is the first thing to consider. Some fonts look good 12px, but not at 13px. The proof is in the proof.

Personally, I don't have a thing against mixing and matching, but I also respect the consistency approach. I would note that many well-designed web publications (nytimes, wsj) mix and match.

Keep the helvetica in the headers as everyone suggest.

I'd go with Droid serif for good onscreen body text. It's tight lockup and crisp styling are a good stylistic fit IMO (See below) -- I believe the Apache open source license allows you to use it for free, but someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

Barring that, Cambria.
Barring that, Georgia.

Edit: something wonky happened in the screen capture process. The hinting is better than that!