Well, motion pictures are still called "films". And letters still have serifs on them, despite the original reason for it (easier to engrave in stone) no longer being valid.
I'd really like a citation for serifs being easier to engrave in stone. That really doesn't make sense to me. I'd expect things like runes -- entirely straight lines, minimal decoration -- to be easier to carve.
Comments
Well, motion pictures are still called "films". And letters still have serifs on them, despite the original reason for it (easier to engrave in stone) no longer being valid.
I'd really like a citation for serifs being easier to engrave in stone. That really doesn't make sense to me. I'd expect things like runes -- entirely straight lines, minimal decoration -- to be easier to carve.
when you're using a chisel on stone. you need to hit it straight down, creating a divet (the serif) to get the cut started.
If you put the chisel diagonal and hit it with a hammer right off the bat, it just slides across the stone, and you usually hurt your thumb ;)
That doesn't seem all that implausible, but I'd expect the divot wouldn't need to be any wider than rest of the line.