[Sigia-l] Re: large font use

[InfoArchitect]

Boniface Lau wrote:
> 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?

I said that the assumptions are naive because they are just that,
assumptions (def: 1. the act of supposing or taking for granted), and
often 'reactions' (as I have observed on this list) with a basis of
emotional attachment - not verifiable data.

It seems that a couple of you may have taken this as a personal
attack.  This was not the intention.  I was just asking that people
back up their statements with fact instead of reacting to what others
say in an "I'm right, you're wrong coz I say!" manner.  Logical
discussions leading to better designs should prevail over pride.

> Research studies account for just a minute fraction. People refer to
> research studies because they are often reproducible and verifiable.

Exactly.  Reproducible/verifiable studies/learnings (heuristics) are a
valuable starting point for design - but not the 'be all and end
all'.  An effective design methodology should involve iterative user
testing to verify the 'educated guesses' (based on heuristics) that
are made by the designer.

> But that doesn't mean assumptions not backed by research studies are
> invalid.

No, it doesn't but how would one then validate these assumptions?
Release an untested product on the public and hope for the best?
Forrester's report (April 2001) 'Get ROI from Design'
stated: "Haphazard Design Produces Poor Results.  Global 3,500
companies and their customers agree: User experience is
critical to online success."  Further, it relayed that "42% of US Web
buying consumers made their most recent online purchase because of a
previous good experience with the retailer".  User experience design
is not based merely upon assumptions - the theories are tested before
a product goes to market.

In this time of high competition I suggest that it would be commercial
suicide for most to attempt releasing an untested design.  I specify
*most* as some critical applications still slip under the radar as a
number of vendors still have the client by the proverbials (mostly
from being locked in with legacy systems), and do not feel that they
need to invest in creating a usable application.

As I have repeatedly stated, assumptions have to be tested if they are
to be validated.

> 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?

No.  Even though I have no commercial interest in what size font or
style of typeface that children find easier to read online at this
time, I thought that I may offer a starting point for a clear
discussion.  I have also stumbled upon some research conducted on font
size and legibility for children 'offline' (ref:
http://hubel.sfasu.edu/research/develread.html ) which may be another
point of reference - but any conclusions gleaned from a study
conducted using a reflective, high definition, tactile medium would,
of course, have to be tested for use on a VDU.

I was merely using the originally cited study as an *example* and a
starting point for further discussion/research - not a definitive
answer to all questions regarding children's ability to read online.
Please note that I went on to say:
> Further, heuristics and assumptions are still purely theoretical
> unless tested against the localised, target audience. All of us may
> have a view on the subjective opinions of children and the resultant
> metrics of font 'readability', but only testing the intended
audience
> can verify or invalidate our arguments.

Cheers,

Ash Donaldson
User Experience Designer


----------------
Get your free email address from www.ourbrisbane.com