SV: [Sigia-l] Re: large font use

[Adam Korman]

This is one of my favorite pieces of "research" (and I think it's made 
the rounds of this list or the CHI-WEB list before) -- questionable 
parameters and methods (remember, the question they propose to answer 
is "So, What Size and Type of Font Should I Use on My Website?") and 
conclusions that aren't supported by the data.

Some of my favorite parts:

+ While they make a point of mentioning the screen resolution 
(1024x768), they don't give the size of the monitor used, the PPI or 
any other details. That the screen was set to 1024x768 is irrelevant 
without this info.

+ "Thus, if a website is to have anti-aliased text, then it is 
recommended to be 12-point Arial." After comparing two fonts at two 
sizes is it appropriate to make this kind of recommendation? To start, 
how do they know that 11pt or 13pt wouldn't have scored better? How do 
they know that Arial would score better when compared to any of the 
thousands of other fonts that could have been tested?

+ Although they admit there was no significant difference in the 
detection of errors, they missed what seems obvious to me as I look at 
the data -- that there wasn't much difference in:
   - reading time, except for the 10pt anti-aliased Arial (again, what 
size was the monitor?)
   - rating of perceived legibility
   - rating of perceived "font sharpness"

It seems to me that all they have shown is that the rank-ordered 
preference participants chose (assuming the method used and conclusions 
they draw about this are valid) had almost nothing to do with 
legibility. Based on their data I'd say their answer to the question 
"So, What Size and Type of Font Should I Use on My Website?" should be 
"Like, I dunno."

Adam
....
Adam Korman
adam at flexID.com
www.flexID.com

On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 12:29  PM, Michael Brown wrote:

> and sub-section 6.4.5 Text
> there is the following:
> "Research on font usability can be found at
> http://wsupsy.psy.twsu.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm "