Re: Study: The effect of serifs and stroke contrast on low vision reading


And to follow up my previous post I wonder if misunderstandings relating to the meaning of “font-stroke-contrast" versus actual "visual contrast" is what led to this weird myth that seems to persist on the internet today, claiming that "some people need low contrast text”.

???

I have been searching for credible research that might affirm the assertion “some people need lower contrast” but I'm not finding much relevant … And I am increasingly thinking, that some may have read "low contrast font” in some paper but are misinterpreting it to mean low contrast colors, when it actually means having a font with a more uniform stroke width.



> On Jan 2, 2023, at 11:40 AM, Andrew Somers <andy@generaltitles.com> wrote:
> 
> 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:
> 
> <Screen Shot 2023-01-02 at 11.35.14 AM.png>
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 27, 2022, at 8:17 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com <mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Fyi:
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691822003250 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691822003250>
>> 
>> Kind Regards,
>> Laura
>> 
>> -- 
>> Laura L. Carlson
>> 
> 

Received on Monday, 2 January 2023 20:04:19 UTC