General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTeen Discovers Gov't Could Save $400M a Year by Not Using Times New Roman
Teen Discovers Govt Could Save $400M a Year by Not Using Times New Roman
This is the one and only time it literally pays off to be a typeface snob: a sixth-graders science fair project revealed that the government could save up to $400 million a year on ink, by simply switching the fonts it uses.
Suvir Mirchandani, a 14-year old student from Pittsburg, was trying to come up with creative ways for his school district to save money when he realized that printer ink is hella expensive. Ink is two times more expensive than French perfume by volume, he told CNN, which is actually true. (Its even more expensive than fine champagne.) After analyzing a random sample of school printouts and measuring how much ink various fonts use, Mirchandani discovered that by simply switching from Times New Roman to the thin-stroke Garamond, his district alone would cut down their annual ink costs by 24%, and in turn save as much as $21,000 annually.
Seeing the astounding results, Mirchandanis teacher encouraged him to submit his work to the Harvard-based Journal for Emerging Investigators, who were highly impressed by Mirchandanis work and wanted him to think bigger: how much money, they asked, would the federal government save if they switched over to Garamond?
Using the Government Services Administrations estimated annual cost of ink $467 million Suvir concluded that if the federal government used Garamond exclusively it could save nearly 30% or $136 million per year. An additional $234 million could be saved annually if state governments also jumped on board, he reported.
-snip-
More here: http://www.mediaite.com/print/teen-discovers-govt-could-save-400m-a-year-by-not-using-times-new-roman/
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)It is my font of choice.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)TNR has been around a long time and has been widely used in printed work for the better part of a century. It's current ubiquity in the desktop publishing world is largely due to the fact that Microsoft, Apple, and Adobe selected it as the default system and serif fonts back when its heavier strokes made it more legible on early low-resolution computer monitors. Garamond was hard to read back in the EGA/VGA monitor days.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Garamond has, at least in the display fonts one uses on a computer, rather loose kerning, and the tracking is wide. Unless you adjust these features (deep in the bowels of Word--it used to be more upfront), it is rather strung out visually. And it's "weight" is lighter.
Times New Roman, which I kind of hate but always use for my work because I can catch details and errors more readily, has more variation in thicknesses, with lighter and heavier areas. Boring, somewhat ugly, but necessary for what I do in general.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)But, yes, it's imperfect.
Garamond is an elegant and easy to read typeface for the printed world. Times New Roman is the practical but unrefined alternative that works just about anywhere.
Generally, if I'm creating a document that will be primarily viewed in print, I'll use Garamond. If I'm creating a document that will be primarily viewed on a screen, I'll use Georgia. If I don't give a damn, or if I need something that will work equally well in both, I'll bite my tongue and use TNR.
underpants
(182,879 posts)Times New Roman is my email font.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Ugh
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)But how does the wispier Garamond type face hold up through multiple photocopyings or faxings? I realize that those procedures are going the way of the hoop skirt and the buggy whip, but documents are still being printed on paper, getting photocopied and faxed. And we are talking about printing here. Does Garamond retain its legibility like Times New Roman? If so, great. But if a document becomes illegible after being faxed or copied a time or two, we might be penny-wise (ink costs) and pound foolish (printing costs) to make the change.
mikemcl350
(10 posts)there are free "Eco - fonts " that make microscopic holes in the font to save ink, up to 28% they claim, un-noticeable to the eye just on the wallet!
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Some recipients are 'clever' enough -and curious enough- to translate. Most are not.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I think its sad that the GPO pretty much just blew him off, saying their plan is to switch to web content. That is a fine plan, but why not do both. I realize can't just switch overnight, but do a bit more research, switch a small department, and give it a try.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)It just looks sharp doesn't it...
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)XemaSab
(60,212 posts)For the second edition, the publisher picked this tiny sans-serif font that a lot of people found REALLY hard to read.
I wonder if it was to save on the cost of ink.
[font color="green" size="12 point" face="Garamond"]Garamond is cool.[/font]
certainot
(9,090 posts)pffshht
(79 posts)If that is really the case.
Instead of switching fonts, they need to switch to laser printers.
You could make your own toner out of burnt $1 bills and it would still be cheaper than an inkjet.
Initech
(100,102 posts)IronLionZion
(45,528 posts)Any enterprise would purchase the toner in bulk at far below retail prices, even a small shop would do so. And the toner cartridges can be refilled.
And on a related note, I have years of experience with federal gov. and we can often use Arial or TNR, in fact I would default to Arial since I like it better. I've seen official docs in Garamond and Calibri too.
Revanchist
(1,375 posts)we had a contract that covered all aspect of computer and IT maintenance. We weren't even allowed to change the toner cartridges ourselves, we had to put in a service call. I'm afraid to find out what we were charged for a cartridge.
vanlassie
(5,683 posts)I heard about it years ago.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)in our local government office. We also use high volume laser printers and limit color printing. The biggest waste of money, government is guilty of is the money it spends on private contractors for shoddy work.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)They could save 100% on ink costs.
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)Sorry, but there's economizing, and then there's CHEAP!
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Just dots and dashes.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)good on him
blogslut
(38,016 posts)Down with serifs!
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)I refuse to mingle with the hoi polloi of lesser fonts.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)is when I due QMS audits. The QMS guy insists on Ariel
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)adieu
(1,009 posts)I rarely ever printing anything out except those that are absolutely necessary to be printed. If I can just fill out a PDF and email that back, I would, instead of printing and then faxing or mailing the completed document.
Of course, the government can't do that because there's a need to maintain an honest paper trail.
Little_Wing
(417 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)>.>
<.<
Yes I am trolling
deafskeptic
(463 posts)I want to give my printed documents an old fashioned flavor.
I will have to remember this so I can save money on ink.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)$40,000, maybe.
Half a billion, no way.
Harvard's really gone downhill.