Thank you Laura, that's a very interesting study, and directly echoes my personal viewpoint on this particular subject.
I want to make a note here for anybody that reads this study:
The study uses the term "stroke contrast". It's very important to recognize that in the context that they are using it, stroke-contrast relates to the variation in stroke within a particular glyph.
And the effect is exactly opposite of the actual visual contrast.
In other words in the context of font contrast as in the stroke-contrast within a glyph, e.g. Times New Roman has very high stroke contrast.
But the visual contrast of Times is lower than that of Helvetica. Helvetica, having a uniform stroke width therefore has a low stroke contrast but (perhaps counterintuitively) that results with its visual contrast as higher.
Here's an example:
> On Dec 27, 2022, at 8:17 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fyi:
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691822003250
>
> Kind Regards,
> Laura
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
