Literature DB >> 16553067

Text legibility and the letter superiority effect.

James E Sheedy1, Manoj V Subbaram, Aaron B Zimmerman, John R Hayes.   

Abstract

Effects of font design and electronic display parameters upon text legibility were determined using a threshold size method. Participants' visual acuity (inverse of the minimum detection size, representing the threshold legibility for each condition) was measured using upper- and lowercase letters and lowercase words in combinations of 6 fonts, 3 font-smoothing modes, 4 font sizes, 10 pixel heights, and 4 stroke widths. Individual lowercase letters were 10% to 20% more legible than lowercase words (i.e., lowercase words must be 10%-20% larger to have the same threshold legibility). This letter superiority effect suggests that individual letters play a large role and word shape plays a smaller role, if any, in word identification at threshold. Pixel height, font, stroke width, and font smoothing had significant main effects on threshold legibility. Optimal legibility was attained at 9 pixels (10 points). Verdana and Arial were the most legible fonts; Times New Roman and Franklin were least legible. Subpixel rendering (ClearType) improved threshold legibility for some fonts and, in combination with Verdana, was the most legible condition. Increased stroke width (bold) improved threshold legibility but only at the thinnest width tested. Potential applications of this research include optimization of font design for legibility and readability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16553067     DOI: 10.1518/001872005775570998

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Factors        ISSN: 0018-7208            Impact factor:   2.888


  10 in total

1.  Scientific Posters: A Plea from a Conference Attendee.

Authors:  Adam M Persky
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2016-12-25       Impact factor: 2.047

2.  Waking up your lecture.

Authors:  Teresa Chapman
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2018-08-18

3.  A comparison of the effects of different typographical methods on the recognizability of printed drug names.

Authors:  Calvin K L Or; Hailiang Wang
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 4.  Does print size matter for reading? A review of findings from vision science and typography.

Authors:  Gordon E Legge; Charles A Bigelow
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Bolder print does not increase reading speed in people with central vision loss.

Authors:  Susana T L Chung; Jean-Baptiste Bernard
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Learning Experience Design in Health Professions Education: A Conceptual Review of Evidence for Educators.

Authors:  Joann Pan; Jessica Sheu; Lauren Massimo; Kevin R Scott; Andrew W Phillips
Journal:  AEM Educ Train       Date:  2020-10-13

7.  Utilising psychophysical techniques to investigate the effects of age, typeface design, size and display polarity on glance legibility.

Authors:  Jonathan Dobres; Nadine Chahine; Bryan Reimer; David Gould; Bruce Mehler; Joseph F Coughlin
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 2.778

8.  Construction and validation of logMAR visual acuity charts in seven Indian languages.

Authors:  Kalpa Negiloni; Deepmala Mazumdar; Aditya Neog; Biman Das; Jnanankar Medhi; Mitalee Choudhury; Ronnie Jacob George; Krishna Kumar Ramani
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.848

Review 9.  Reading in the presence of macular disease: a mini-review.

Authors:  Susana T L Chung
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2020-01-11       Impact factor: 3.117

10.  Age-related differences in the legibility of degraded text.

Authors:  Benjamin Wolfe; Jonathan Dobres; Anna Kosovicheva; Ruth Rosenholtz; Bryan Reimer
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2016-12-12
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.