[Sigia-l] Re: large font use

[Listera]

"InfoArchitect" wrote:
 > The study was of a subjective nature,

This is such a soft ball :-) I won't bother with it.

> used to determine children's _preference_ in type face/size.

It's a ridiculously limited, subjective and uneducated 'study'.

> This is why, when designing for a specific audience, we gather what
> information we can from prior studies/learnings, develop a hypothesis, design
> accordingly, then test it with our target audience.

A good designer with experience and wisdom can do oodles better than this
'study'.

>> 1.   14 pt type "was considered to be easier and quicker to read".
>> Compared to what? 12 point type. So?
> As you would be well aware, any study that involves too many variables
> can be considered moot.

So can a contrived 'study' with not enough variables, or variables of the
dubious kind.

> The authors gave clear justification for their choice of font types by
> stating that "This study examined fonts that are commonly seen in
> children’s text. 

Utter nonsense. Rubbish. "Commonly seen in children’s text" my foot. When
was the last time you ever saw a children's book (let alone a website) done
in Courier New, for instance? That's 1/4 of the 'study' right there. Pick up
a random selection of a dozen illustrated children's books in any bookstore,
if the majority or even more than just one or two is done in any of those
horrible fonts, I'll eat all the dozen books.

> The study was performed to discover which fonts children prefer to
> read _online_.

Let me quote you directly from the website, the CONCLUSION:

"Generally the larger, 14-point font size was considered to be easier and
quicker to read, as well as being more attractive and more desired to be
used in *schoolbooks*. In addition, the Comic font type was perceived as
being easier to read and more attractive, as well as being more desired to
be used in *schoolbooks* than the other font types."

Notice the repeated word, 'schoolbooks'? [Emphasis mine.]

Now let me quote you the TITLE of the web page to the 'study' directly from
the website:

"Which Fonts Do Children Prefer to Read Online?"

Confused yet? You want me to trust these people?

> That's the difference between a 'subjective study' (as this was
> clearly stated and further emphasised by the continued use of the
> word 'perceived') and an 'empirical study'.

Sorry, this just doesn't rise above *anecdotal* for me.

> The study proves that 27 participants aged between 9 and 11 with 20/20
> vision, tested on a Pentium II based PC computer, using a 60 Hz, 96dpi
> 17" monitor with a resolution of 1024 x 768, in general, subjectively
> preferred to read Comic Sans 12- or 14-pt, or Arial 14-pt over Arial
> 12-pt, Courier 12- or 14-pt, and Times 12- or 14-pt online.

And I'm wearing green underpants :-)

Let me refer you to the title of the 'study' again:

"Which Fonts Do Children Prefer to Read Online?"

Sounds authoritative, doesn't it? It almost promises to tell us which fonts.

> The point of providing this example was simply to let you know that
> there are studies out there which can be a nice starting point for a
> design hypothesis.

You see this is the part that gets me. If you ever sit in on a discussion
between good designers experimenting, discussing and deciding on what fonts
to use where, you'll gain infinitely more insight and, I might add,
assurance and peace of mind that the right choice will be made than reading
a poorly conducted, overarching, academic exercise as this one.

> All I ask is that people maybe do a little research before they tell us all
> what the 'average user' wants.  It's good to have a little substance to an
> argument... ;-)

Do you really think designers just close their eyes and pick a font out of
the dark recesses of their presumptions?

Best,

Ziya
 

P.S. I don't mean to badger you for having picked this 'study' (OK, may be
after you post for a while, I will :-) but I see a lot this kind of poorly
conceived and executed 'studies' in the name of usability 'engineering'
that...well, I won't go there just now.