[Dr. Sivana]

Times New Roman is so pre-2007. It's a relic. It's also a serif font which is meant for printed documents, not for viewing on a computer screen.

Times New Roman goes to 1937 and the Times of London. It being a "relic" is a feature, not a bug.

Modern screens are of high resolution, and 14 point in PDF will be plenty legible. The documents are printed as well, so a print friendly typeface is NOT a bad thing.

Calibri is a Microsoft product that dates to the early 2000s. It looks too much like the typeface used on highway signs that proved to be a bad idea.

[T.B. Yoits]

Modern screens are of high resolution, and 14 point in PDF will be plenty legible.

The "modern" screen is often a smartphone or tablet. Whether a smartphone, tablet, television screen, or computer monitor, a sans serif font shows up clearer when pixilated. Serif fonts are made for paper.

[T.B. Yoits]

Times New Roman goes to 1937 and the Times of London. It being a "relic" is a feature, not a bug.

Such fonts were made for typesetting dies in printing presses, not for modern printing and computer monitors. Why start at 1937? If it's about history, why not go back to fonts that look like ancient manuscripts?

[T.B. Yoits]

One reason Calibri was chosen was that text-to-voice software could read it better than Times New Roman. The State Department is going to find itself on the wrong end of lawsuits from groups in particular that represent those with impaired vision.