Exercise 3: Correcting "Serif Fonts Aren't Legible on Screens" — Possible Solution ==================================================================== This chapter's own research directly contradicts the colleague's "established fact" framing. Real studies are genuinely mixed - one found serif typefaces were actually more legible on screen (even though users didn't prefer them), while another found sans-serif only slightly faster for individual word comprehension. Typography researcher Alex Poole's own real conclusion was that most reasonably designed typefaces in mainstream use are equally legible - not that sans-serif has a clear, settled advantage. The real historical reason sans-serif became the practical default online wasn't proven superior legibility - it was that at small pixel sizes, a serif's own finer details rendered poorly on lower-resolution displays. Modern high-density screens have significantly reduced that specific constraint, which is part of why serif body text has become more common on the web again. A more accurate way to phrase the real tradeoff: legibility depends far more on the specific typeface's own design quality and how it's actually set (size, line height, contrast) than on whether it has serifs at all - "switch to sans-serif because it's more legible" isn't a settled fact, and the actual choice should be based on the specific fonts and context being considered rather than a blanket rule. ANSWER: The colleague's claim overstates the real research, which is mixed rather than settled - some studies favor serif, others favor sans-serif only slightly, and the leading expert view is that most well-designed typefaces are equally legible either way. The real historical reason sans-serif dominated online was rendering at low resolution, not proven legibility. The more accurate framing is that legibility depends on the specific typeface and how it's set, not on serifs versus sans-serif as a blanket rule. WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER ------------------------------ This correctly reproduces the chapter's own real, mixed research findings and its historical rendering explanation, replacing the colleague's overstated "established fact" framing with the actual, more nuanced picture rather than simply asserting the opposite claim.