I've got a book, Imago Stelae, about Victor Segalen's work, which uses Georgia throughout. It's a home-published affair, so no wonder, but the result is surprisingly elegant and legible. My point being: of those three fonts, Georgia is the most legible of all on paper.

Do note that Georgia, Verdana, and Trebuchet are all very nice typefaces. Specifically designed for on-screen viewing but thought and effort was also put into their outlines for print. I've seen some very nice use of Georgia on paper (it's bold italics is quite fresh, IMHO). I've used Trebuchet myself and I'm really liking Bitstream's Vera family (though I actually think they are better suited for print than screen use ironically).

Indeed it is interesting to see Verdana and Georgia in print. Like mentioned ablove, they were all designed for screen by our beloved MC. I have to disagree though when somebody says that verdana is a good font for print. For my personal taste it is heavy and clumsy. However - I have recently compared Georgia to some of the classic typefaces and the outlines are not bad at all. What Carter said in one of his interviews was that he paid much more attention to the space in between the letters than on the letters themselves. This is a standard typographic procedure (since a punch cutter had to cut the counter punch first - which was the space) but often neglected. If you look at Georgia in detail, you will se certain slightly odd features, which are adjusted with excellence, but still visible. I think it is completely fine to use it for smaller - 'homegrown' - printed matter, but for continuous text I suggest to look somewhere else.

Trebuchet however is not a nice face at all. The lowercase 'e' stands there with an open mouth, the 'i' amd 'j' have very strong upper serif-terminals and the lowercase 'g' has got a really big upper bowl. I think - again because of personal taste - it is kind of 'all over the place'. Maybe good for screen, not good for print.

But what is interesting is that we might be talking about something that is soon irrelevant anyway. OS X has introduced to its font smoothing capabilities and the fonts we are talking about are mainly designed to work as pixelated faces. So let's see what comes next.

I'm a non-print, web design guy. I do occasionally design for print and have used georgia in some of my experimental print designs.

What would be some better examples of fonts to do even on a home-grown project.

Hi 'Foreign'.
It REALLY depends on what you are designing. Long Text, Short Text, What format, what paper, what colour, what purpose, etc. Of course also what message you want to get across. Do you want to stick to a 'free' font, supplied with the system? Or do you have a selection of fonts already on your computer?
A possible alternative from the system fonts folders (PC) is Garamond (for continuous text). This particular version is not my favorite, but it works. If you're interested in font history the guy is worth being checked out. Equally interesting is Perpetua for long text. Eric Gill was its creator. I am in general not too sure about the cuts of the system font sections, but those are the ones I would recommend. If you have a grand selection of fonts, let me know and I can give a bit more information about what I would use.

Paulus

To continue this talk of converting screen typefaces for print applications, I would like to add the thought about whether this is of any use. I have a few comments:

There are a multitude of typefaces to choose from – needless to say – (nearly) all designed for specific reasons. If a font is designed for screen based work then why feel the need to use it in print? I acknowledge the 'split' of designer / non-designer work, and the perceived attitude that 'we are all designers', but those with knowledge of type and design should not fall from their pillar into non-designed territory.

Concerning issues of legibility and readability,there is currently an interesting article by Phil Baines in the latest issue of Eye magazine. Coming under 'Agenda', it looks at guidelines issued by organisations such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind (UK), and responds with reference to debates of legibility that have been the concern of type designers for over 500 years. Government's and certain organisation's views over factors of readability seemed far removed from what type designers and graphic designers have been studying for centuries. Reading the article in conjunction with views from John Tarr (writing in the Penrose Annual of 1949) and Zuzana Licko (in Emigre), presents an arguement that ebbs and flows in design circles. Who controls / states what is legibile or readable? (It might be of interest to note that in Dutch these two terms come under one word. As indeed I believe the words 'handwriting' and 'printing' use the same basic term in the German langauge).

Verdana or Georgia should remain where they are – on the screen. The adage 'we read best what we read most' (Licko) holds true. But as designers we should try to honour for what purpose type was designed for. Otherwise we should all just use Helvetica for everything!

Mr Sudlow

A notable, recent example of a screen font used in print - big print:
Kerry Edwards.

I agree with all comment, we should remember that 'typography' (the art of of setting and arranging types and printing from them – founded Mr J G), was originally indicative of calligraphic script, lest we not forget the origin of the Serif. Printed type is loaded with historical whimsy, but recent changes in technologies have completely opened up the idea of what type can be, and how it can be. Agreeing with Mr Sudlow, It exists in two arenas, the screen and the page, and we should honour historic intention. An article by Evert Bloemsma in TypoGraphic 59 underlines the fact that 'there is no other discipline that replies so heavily on familiarity', so perhaps in 50 years or so, given the use of computer technology, we may see subtle hints of a form unknown to us yet in Verdana for printed documents?

I would be quite happy to use Georgia, because when I spoke to Matthew Carter about this some years back, his philosophy was to create outlines that would separate the typefaces from 'plain vanilla'. Using Scotch as an inspiration, he really didn't try to wrap an outline around the original bitmaps that had been developed before; he created something distinctive and usable, knowing Georgia would have a life beyond the screen (just as Bitstream Charter had a life beyond low-res printing environments). Hence, I am not surprised that Raph had a fairly pleasant reading experience with Imago Stelæ. Verdana and Trébuchet I would think twice about, just because I can think of alternatives, and not because there is too much inherently wrong with either.

Has anyone seen the new typefaces, previewed presently, for Windows 'Longhorn'? These are set to replace the core families, and all begin with c. They've all been designed by the top type designers: Luc(as) de Groot, Gary Munch, and others.

I wonder how it will take the general public to abuse them.