Better body typeface?

Hey Josh, what a coincidence, I had the exact same remark! Indeed the font is too thin, while certain characters have distracting elements. I'm not familiar enough with the technical terms of typography, but the "arms" of some characters have rather heavy ends, compared with the thinner parts.

Another thing that they could do, is using a slightly bigger font-size.

Besides that: Great book, and awesome customer service :-)

Chiming in and dropping my 2 cents on this topic.

The body typeface is a bit peculiar. While I'll say it's not hard to read, it is a bit distracting.

Love the header typeface, cover designs, and chapter openings!

Lou, what typeface is the body set in?

Specifically, the upper serif on the "p, m, r, n" for instance, is quite thick. While the crossbar on the "e, a" is too thin. It's awkward, at worst. The contrast between the two, in the word "mental" let's say, is very obvious. The "e" and "a" are too thin compared to the thick stems of the "m, n, t, l." Do you see it?

I've also noticed that the footnotes use the same typeface, but a smaller size. These little differences aren't as noticeable or distracting at the footnote size. In fact it looks attractive.

Perhaps a slightly larger body text would be nice. I'll 2nd (or 3rd) that emotion.

I'm not a typographer, so I claim no expertise. But merely a type aficionado with an opinion.

Keep up the great work! Thanks! =)

I'm finding the type used in the digital version (not sure if it's the same as in the printed version) hard to read on-screen. It seems like the compression/optimization technique used to reduce the PDF's file size may also be reducing the visual fidelity of the typeface. Zooming out helps reduce the distraction, but I do like the larger text.

Good to hear; it's interesting how compression can affect readability, regardless of how carefully chosen the typeface is. Looking forward to 2009's books!