W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 2010

Font recommendation for Accessible Presentations

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:32:24 -0500
Message-ID: <4BAD27E8.90700@w3.org>
To: Cliff Tyllick <CTYLLICK@tceq.state.tx.us>
CC: eowg <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Thanks for this, Cliff!

I know there is research on readability of fonts, certainly online and in print - I'm not sure about projected. Before we provide specific guidance, it would be good to have the research to back it up.

Does someone want to gather research on font face readability and provide a summary?

Also, I wonder if "stroke width" itself is enough, or if some people would need more explanation of what that means?


Cliff Tyllick wrote:
> I have a thought about this exchange between Shawn and Liam on "Use an 
> easy to read font face":
> Liam: Sans is not *always* easier to read than serif - too much of 
> a generalisation. Suggest mentioning a few commonly available fonts 
> by name instead.
> Shawn: um - I wonder if that would be more complicated on our end. Maybe 
> just saying "Use an easy-to-read font face. Avoid fancy fonts that 
> are difficult to read." is enough given the scope of this document/page?
> Liam: Yes, much better.
> Cliff's thought: I wonder if this be even better: "Use an easy-to-read 
> font face, especially a font with a constant or nearly constant stroke 
> width."
> Here's my thinking: It seems to me that the main reason serif fonts are 
> generally less readable than sans serif fonts has to do with stroke 
> width. Especially among the older serif fonts, the stroke varies quite a 
> bit. It's rather thin in the horizontal portions of characters and is 
> much thicker on the vertical portions. By contrast, the older sans serif 
> fonts have a stroke thickness that is uniform, or nearly so, throughout 
> each character.
> As a result, when the image is out of focus, text can still be readable 
> in such a sans serif font while portions of the letters in a serif font 
> have disappeared. Of course, the image is always out of focus for people 
> with low vision, but we can simulate this experience by slowly taking a 
> projected image of the same passage in three different fonts -- Times 
> New Roman, Arial, and Georgia -- out of focus.
> Times New Roman and Georgia are both serif fonts; Arial is sans serif.
> The stroke width varies quite a bit in Times New Roman varies; the 
> stroke width is constant or nearly constant in Georgia and Arial.
> As you take the image out of focus, the passage in Times New Roman will 
> become illegible when the passages in Georgia and Arial are both still 
> readable. The passages in Georgia and Arial eventually become illegible 
> at about the same time.
> So a person at the back of the room could still read slides in Georgia 
> or Arial when they couldn't read slides in Times New Roman. Either 
> Georgia or Arial is a good choice; Times New Roman is not a good choice. 
> By no means would I consider Times New Roman to be either "fancy" or 
> "difficult to read," but if you were to clue me in to the importance of 
> the stroke width, perhaps I would look at it more carefully and make a 
> more careful choice.
> Is this analysis on target?
> Cliff Tyllick
> Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
> t: +1 (512) 239-4516
> e: ctyllick@tceq.state.tx..us <mailto:ctyllick@tceq.state.tx.us>
> w: www.tceq.state.tx.us <http://www.tceq.state.tx.us>
Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 21:32:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:44 UTC