On 6 Aug 99 at 6:00, Edward Burke wrote:
> Hmmm, this is getting more confusing. Even by dictionary definition
> the terms 'legibility' and 'readability' are interchangable.
No, not quite. I've not been following this thread with great care,
but I've watched it. And, as sometimes happens, yesterday over
breakfast  I had an insight.
"Readable" has broader implications than the merely visual, the
purely typographic. For example, we say that a certain author's
books are readable, meaning that his prose is well-constructed and
the mind absorbs it easily. "Legible" OTOH is strictly concerned
with the visual. A totally unreadable book (say, almost any of
Liberty Hyde Bailey's horticultural tomes) may be perfectly legible.
One can print readable prose in illegible type -- and vice versa.
Now, this insight doesn't resolve the dispute we have been having,
which is concerned with "readibility" in a typographic context. But
this insight -does- suggest that "readable" is more concerned with
the overall process of reading and absorbing content, while "legible"
is more concerned with micro-issues.
Another, hypothetical example: consider a book well printed (ah,
those Dutch!) in an alphabet and language one does not know. Legible?
Certainly. Readable? No, not at all.
 After 30 years in Canada I think I've discovered the secret of
dealing with insipid, underspiced Canajun breakfast sausage: add
pepper and the sage to the frying pan with a generous hand!
"The paper said today that Canadians eat more donuts per capita than any other nation."