[Sigia-l] Re: large font use

[Boniface Lau]

> From: sigia-l-admin at asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin at asis.org]On
> Behalf Of InfoArchitect
> 
[...]
> and some assumptions that can best be described as naive.

Care to explain to us why you think they are naive?

Since you are so into research studies, care to cite a couple to back
up your claim that those assumptions are naive?


> 
> In my first post to this list, 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,

Most semantic data are from experience and informal observations.
Research studies account for just a minute fraction. People refer to
research studies because they are often reproducible and verifiable.
But that doesn't mean assumptions not backed by research studies are
invalid.


> "Which Fonts Do Children Prefer to Read Online?".  In testing
> twenty-seven 9-11 year olds (10 males, 17 females) with 20/20
> vision, they concluded that: "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..."

That study compared two font sizes (12- and 14-point) and concluded
that children did better with the larger size. No one here disputed
the benefit of a larger size.

The issue discussed here was that the font used by the help page was 
not just larger than usual, it was huge.

Do you have a study saying children do better with a giant font?


Boniface