Comic Sans of course.

A condensed typeface will use less paper; a lighter typeface will use less toner.

I'm not sure about your budget, but one of my favorite space-saving designs is this...

http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/berthold/laudatio-bq/light-cnd/

The large x-height makes smaller sizes more easily readable—at least for old coots like unto myself...

Not Comic Sans Pro?!

For me, this is a place where brand standards would guide these decisions. The font or fonts you choose would reinforce the brand look and feel, and many times a brand guide will specify a brand text font. I guess this decision will depend a lot on how coherent your brand is, and what impressions are central to it's message.

Not a straight answer, but you may find it useful.

http://www.typographyforlawyers.com/

Century Expanded and Georgia would seem like good typefaces for this kind of work.

Georgia is sturdy, and looks great on screens, on both Mac and PC. Gets my vote.

Cristobal: Typography For Lawyers is a fine book, but it is almost exclusively dedicated to the "litigation" arts--but Butterick does have much good general advice.

Trevor: I am going to revisit Georgia. It was my usual preference before Cambria and Calibri came out.

Andrew, the Typography for Lawyers web site makes http://specific recommendations for fonts, as well as ones to avoid and alternatives. For example he recommends Miller in place of Georgia—both Matthew Carter fonts. Georgia is great for screen, but not so great in print. Miller is better for print.

I think your decision really depends on the mood you want, and also what size, measure and leading you will use them at. For example, Miller is more elegant and formal, whereas Williams Caslon Text is warmer and a bit easier on the eyes in print—at least in my prejudiced view :)

The problem is, essentially, balancing screen readability, for which only a few fonts excel, with printed readability (and attractiveness), for which many excel--and they seem to be mutually exclusive.

Typography for Lawyers really focuses on print, but in the contracts world you really have to make it be very readable on screen--especially since I will be one of the main readers! And it has to be compact enough to keep the page count down, but not so sense as to put off the customers.

The problem is, essentially, balancing screen readability, for which only a few fonts excel, with printed readability (and attractiveness), for which many excel--and they seem to be mutually exclusive.

Right, but you're overlooking one key issue. The Microsoft system fonts (Georgia, Calibri, Cambria, et al) are designed & engineered to look great on screen in Windows applications that use Windows text rendering, like Word. But PDF is a Postscript-based format and PDF readers use their own text rendering. (For instance, Adobe Reader uses a technology called CoolType. Why? So ensure consistent text rendering between platforms.)

Therefore, in PDF, the MS system fonts have no screen-legibility advantage over print-optimized fonts. And since any PDF could also be printed, your best bet is always going to be a print-optimized font (like Miller) not an MS font (like Georgia).

For a longer version of this answer, with screen shots proving the point, go here:

http://typo.la/efile1
http://typo.la/efile2

Matthew, thanks for the point about the advantage of PDFs.

I have a question about screen fonts and contracts. Contracts have complex, demanding language, and I would think that even lawyers, who are expert in reading them, would want to blow them up to relatively large size for reading on screen—or they would actually print them out. In other words, because they are not the kind of casual narrative or brief snippet for the web, they would not have the same requirements for screen reading as, say, typophile.com. Is this correct?

Contracts have complex, demanding language

True, though that's nearly always due to flabby, imprecise writing, not necessity.

In other words, because they are not the kind of casual narrative or brief snippet for the web, they would not have the same requirements for screen reading as, say, typophile.com. Is this correct?

I don't frame the typography question in terms of "how will readers use this document?", because you can't control that. Rather, I frame the question as "how does this document invite readers to use it?" because that's within your control.

For example, when a software installer puts 2500 words of teeny text in a small scrolling box, the typography sends a message. That message is: "I'd prefer you didn't pay attention to what's in this box." When half the words are in caps, that message is even louder.

For another example, I was writing a font license last week. My view is that someone buying a font should read the license.

As research, I read about 25 font EULAs from other foundries. But a lot of those licenses — no disrespect to the people behind them — are crazily long and dense. I have a law degree, and I still had to make little pencil diagrams to follow what was going on in some of them. I've no idea what the average MyFonts customer is supposed to do with them. But I know what the average MyFonts customer actually does: ignores them. Because they beg to be ignored.

So how do I get someone to read a font license? I decided that it should be one short, inviting 8.5" x 11" page. The customer can print it if they want, but it also had to be legible on screen. The text of the license had to fit on the page without any typographic trickery (tiny font, condensed font, etc.) That, in turn, put some constraints on how the license was written. But I finished it, and the first customer who got it said "Wow, that's a very clear license."

That's a long way of saying that the answer to your question depends on whether you assume that contracts can learn nothing from the "casual narratives" or "brief snippets" that we usually see on the web.

Commercial Type has a good license! And @butterick: In any case, straight renders better than round, and thick better than thin. This goes for just about any screen and rendering method out there. So, in short: be careful with high contrast faces with very thin strokes.

Matthew, I don't assume that contracts can't be better written. And if they are, wonderful.

But count me as a skeptic that in general they WILL be written better. And unless you are the writer, typography is about making existing copy accessible, among other things. When you read those complicated EULAs, I bet you printed them out first, or at the very least viewed them large.

So, in short: be careful with high contrast faces with very thin strokes

In shorter: let your eyes be the judge.

unless you are the writer, typography is about making existing copy accessible, among other things

I couldn't tell if your hypothetical related to a contract that was in your control, or not. I do hear sometimes from designers who ask "why did my lawyer write such a long contract for me?" To which I say: your lawyer works for you. Insist that your lawyer deliver what you need. Or get a different lawyer.

I didn't print the EULAs. Usually I don't print documents unless I'm being asked to edit or rewrite them, in which case I like to mark them up with my special pink pen. For reading, screen is fine.

Thanks for the clarification Matthew. I am aware of the PDF issue you describe but I note that in my business of negotiating contracts for equipment finance PDF's are normally not viewed (at least not critically viewed) onscreen during negotiation. There is almost always an exchange of Word documents during the negotiation process followed by signature copies sent by PDF and FedEx. This is why I am trying develop some insight into the balancing of the readability on *both* screen and paper. And while I myself tend to give a bit more importance to screen readability, I think the good screen fonts just don't look very good printed. Thus this thread. [PS, your book is terrific, and is going on my shelf along with Garner and Adams.]

=====

William, you make a good point. There are a lot of methods for dealing with the small-print-being-difficult-to-read problem. In the old, old days there was often nothing to do but tough it out. But then came copiers that could enlarge the small print--a godsend. (Long ago my company used preprinted forms in 6pt that were often faxed around!)

Nowadays with editable word processing files it's easy enough to use the zoom function on the computer, this being especially useful if a document is formatted in columns--with "draft" view you see only one column at a time and there is no horizontal scrolling. And, of course, there's always the expedient of temporarily increasing the font size to 12 or 14 points during editing.

Sometimes though, a PDF, fax, or hard copy is the only version provided for review (bad form, I say, so I always ask for an "editable" copy if possible). In this case I've resorted to OCR'ing the document so that I can reformat it to read it (and to search and use text comparison software).

=====

Matthew, have you looked at typography.com's EULA? I recall reading it recently and thinking it pretty good for clarity and brevity.

And while I myself tend to give a bit more importance to screen readability, I think the good screen fonts just don't look very good printed.

What you're describing is a print-optimized font that's been engineered to render well on screen in Windows, also known as a hinted TrueType font. I can't hope to speak for the TrueType-hinting geek squad at Typophile, so I'll let others post names of foundries that sell hinted TrueType fonts that started life as print-optimized fonts.

The other issue that comes up when you're moving word-processing files around is font embeddability. Most commercial fonts can't be embedded in a word-processing document. The Adobe Originals are an exception, but they don't have any TrueType hinting.

Is any foundry offering print-optimized, TrueType-hinted fonts that also permit editable embedding? I can't think of any, but perhaps others will enlighten me.

have you looked at typography.com's EULA

I won't single out any one EULA for criticism or praise. Some are better than others, but they all have room for improvement. And they could all be shorter.