On a slow news day, no doubt,The Times reports a change of font by the UK's Supreme Court, with Times Roman giving way to Calibri (ranged left, too, not justified). Not that interesting, you'd think, although it was an opportunity for a pun: "Lawyers say ditching old typeface is a breach of human writes".
I left this comment: "Whatever we subjectively think, research has mostly failed to show significant differences in legibility between the kind of typefaces we normally encounter for text – this includes serifs vs sans serif; justified vs ranged left; and so on. An important reason why people get hot under the collar about typography is that it conveys a tone of voice. If you want your law to convey gravity then you may prefer a traditional layout with justified columns, centred headings in upper case, and seriffed type. If you want it to look friendly and approachable you may choose a sans serif, with the column ranged left. Much more important, though, is how argument structures are revealed through clear headings and layout (and diagrams, even), to allow quicker scanning and searching. Over the last ten years a new field known as legal information design has been growing, and is represented in government as well as many law firms. One of its main concerns is access to justice and the understanding of law - if this is the Supreme Court's movitation, then I applaud it."
