[Sigia-l] Re: large font use

[Bill Darnall]

Perhaps you would care to comment, after reading the report:
http://wsupsy.psy.twsu.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3W/fontJR.htm

Bill D.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Listera" <listera at rcn.com>
To: <sigia-l at asis.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Re: large font use


"InfoArchitect" wrote:

> In my first post to this list,

Welcome.

> I'd like to suggest that if assumptions (or even loose 'heuristics') are
to be
> applied, they at least be backed by semantic data such as Bernard, Mills,
> Frank & McKown's (2001) study,

I wasn't going to say anything else on this subject, but this 'study' pushes
another one of my buttons, so here goes.

1.   14 pt type "was considered to be easier and quicker to read". Compared
to what? 12 point type. So? Does that mean 16 pt or 26 pt will be "easier
and quicker to read" than 12 pt type? Or 14 pt type? Is the study declaring
14 pt type the 'optimal' size for online reading? Is this a joke?

2.   The selection is just four fonts you can find pre-installed on a
Windows PC. Is this a 'study' of which type category (serif, sans, mono,
etc) in general or which specific typefaces in each category happens to be
better, on a Windows PC? After all, I can easily argue that in each category
the typeface selected (Times/serif, Arial/sans, etc) is not the best choice
in that category, for legibility. Thickness of the serifs, strokes,
x-height, intra-letter spacing and other attributes of a typeface make a
difference in legibility, especially on low-resolution devices such as
monitors. In other words, I could come up with a 12 pt type with a large
x-height that could be "easier and quicker to read" than a given 14 pt
typeface. What does that prove?

3.   As seen in the screenshots, the type is not (properly) anti-aliased at
all. For serif faces, that makes a huge difference in legibility. Comic Sans
naturally overpowers others whose thin strokes pretty much disappear under
poor/no anti-aliasing. What does that prove?

4.   I kept reading references to schoolbooks. What's that got to do with
online reading? Issues on optimizing type for low-res PC monitors vs.
high-res print seem to escape the authors. What's good for one may not be so
for the other. So how on earth "I would like my schoolbooks to have this
type of print" get into this study? Talk about influencing.

5.   I find some of the questions really naïve: " I feel that I can read
fast with this type of print." Yeah, how fast? As fast as 'necessary'?
What's the benchmark? Is a difference of, say, 52 milliseconds statistically
significant? Significant enough to chose one typeface over another? Gimme a
break. And "The story¹s print was nice looking." How nice.

6. I'd better stop here, before I get angry. For someone who has spent
countless hours designing and hinting type for PC and video screens
character by character, I don't know what this 'study' shows/proves.

I just hope it wasn't funded by taxpayers' money.

Best,

Ziya

------------
When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
*Plain text, please; NO Attachments

ASIST Annual Meeting:
http://www.asis.org/Conferences/AM02/index.html

ASIST SIG IA website: http://www.asis.org/SIG/SIGIA/index.html
Searchable list archive:   http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
________________________________________
Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l at asis.org
Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l