Which population though? There are differences in age groups. People who grew up only with print won't lean toward a sans. People who grew up only with screens will lean toward sans, etc.
If you go with that metric of doing a survey, then the answer is Times New Roman and Arial, not because they are superior (though they have excellent hinting) but due to long-term familiarity and exposure.
I don't have a problem with providing what people are comfortable with, but comfort does not necessarily translate to better. It's subjective.
Companies commissioning their own fonts, is not due to a desire to get improved quality, but simply to not have to pay a licensing fee for usage.
The best population to sample would probably be the readers of your content.
>If you go with that metric of doing a survey, then the answer is Times New Roman and Arial, not because they are superior (though they have excellent hinting) but due to long-term familiarity and exposure.
I don't know the answer to this because I didn't do any studies. I'm probably reasonable to assume you didn't either, and thus should be careful about making such assertions.
>I don't have a problem with providing what people are comfortable with, but comfort does not necessarily translate to better.
I don't know what you define as "better", or what you're trying to get at.
>Companies commissioning their own fonts, is not due to a desire to get improved quality, but simply to not have to pay a licensing fee for usage.
Could be. This is a pessimistic take, and I'm sure it's right sometimes and wrong other times.
Yes but you can survey a fraction of a population and make strong statistical claims such as, “most people found so and so font more readable”.