- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:41:40 +0200
- To: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>, "David MacDonald" <befree@magma.ca>
- Cc: "WCAG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi, At 11:05 25/09/2007, Lisa Seeman wrote: >Hi David > >(...) > > >---------- >From: David MacDonald [mailto:befree@magma.ca] >Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 2:05 AM >To: 'Lisa Seeman' >Subject: RE: Cognitive > >Hi Lisa > > > >Any luck on research? With regard to serif versus non-serif fonts: * Aries Arditi and Jianna Cho: "Serifs and Font Legibility". Vision Research. Volume 45, Issue 23, November 2005, Pages 2926-2933. Abstract from ScienceDirect: Using lower-case fonts varying only in serif size (0%, 5%, and 10% cap height), we assessed legibility using size thresholds and reading speed. Five percentage serif fonts were slightly more legible than sans serif, but the average inter-letter spacing increase that serifs themselves impose, predicts greater enhancement than we observed. RSVP and continuous reading speeds showed no effect of serifs. When text is small or distant, serifs may, then, produce a tiny legibility increase due to the concomitant increase in spacing. However, our data exhibited no difference in legibility between typefaces that differ only in the presence or absence of serifs. (You can get the full text in www.sciencedirect.com after free registration. According to ScienceDirect, no articles cite this article.) * Jonathan Ling and Paul van Schaik: "The influence of font type and line length on visual search and information retrieval in web pages" International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. Volume 64, Issue 5, May 2006, Pages 395-404. Abstract from ScienceDirect: Most web sites are heavily text-based. Previous research has indicated that the way in which this text is presented may have a significant impact on usability. This paper reports findings from two experiments that explored the influence of font type and line length on a range of performance and subjective measures. Experiment 1 used a visual search task and Experiment 2 examined information retrieval. Overall, there was little impact of font on task performance, although the effect of line length was significant, with longer line lengths facilitating better scanning (Experiment 1) and shorter line lengths leading to better subjective outcomes (Experiments 1 and 2). Implications of these results for the design of web pages are discussed and recommendations given. Comment: The article also contains the following paragraph: "For example, Bernard et al. (2003) compared serif and sans serif fonts in 12- or 14-point size in a task where participants had to detect substituted words in text. They found that 14-point fonts were more legible, led to faster reading, and were preferred to the 12-point fonts. However, they also found that even though participants performed tasks more quickly with serif fonts, they still preferred sans serif fonts." * The article by Bernard et al is: Michael L. Bernard, Barbara S. Chaparro, Melissa M. Mills and Charles G. Halcomb: "Comparing the effects of text size and format on the readibility of computer-displayed Times New Roman and Arial text." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. Volume 59, Issue 6, December 2003, Pages 823-835. Abstract from ScienceDirect: Times New Roman and Arial typefaces in 10- and 12-point, dot-matrix and anti-aliased format conditions were compared for readability (accuracy, reading speed, and accuracy/reading speed), as well as perceptions of typeface legibility, sharpness, ease of reading, and general preference. In assessing readability, the 10-point anti-aliased Arial typeface was read slower than the other type conditions. Examining perceptions of typeface legibility, sharpness, and ease of reading detected significant effects for typeface, size, and format. Overall, the 12-point dot-matrix Arial typeface was preferred to the other typefaces. Recommendations for appropriate typeface combinations for computer-displayed text are discussed. Comment: It is unfortunate that the researchers chose Arial instead of a sans-serif with a better reputation ("A Hate-On for Arial": http://www.flickr.com/groups/anti-arial/; "The Scourge of Arial": http://www.ms-studio.com/articles.html; ...). * Sarah Morrison and Jan Noyes: "A Comparison of Two Computer Fonts: Serif versus Ornate Sans Serif" <http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/52/UK_font.htm>. This article compares the serif font Times New Roman and the ornate sans-serif font Gigi. I haven't read this completely, but if there's a distinction between ornate sans-serif fonts and other sans-serif fonts, it may not be much good to refer to sans-serif fonts generically in the proposed technique. There's more research than this, but I currently don't have time to delve deeper. Best regards, Christophe > > >Thanks. > >David > > > >access empowers people... > > ...barriers disable them... > > > ><http://www.eramp.com>www.eramp.com > >From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:lisa@ubaccess.com] >Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:25 AM >To: 'David MacDonald' >Subject: RE: Cognitive > > > >Hi David > > > > > >This is a hard one. I know there is research >somewhere but I am having trouble laying hands >on it - I will try again after the Jewish new year. > > > >I am wondering however about the affect of this >as bay itself without short sentences and >paragraphs, or decent structure. Long text >spanning pages will not help if you can not >remember the previous sections. I am wondering how much this is thought though, > > > > > >Lisa > > > > > > > > > >---------- >From: David MacDonald [mailto:befree@magma.ca] >Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 1:28 AM >To: 'Lisa Seeman' >Subject: Cognitive > >Hi Lisa > > > >I’ve been trying to push forward a SC on >readability for cognitive, learning and language >issues to the group. It’s hard slugging as you >might imagine. However, I have a tentative yes on the following SC. > > > >1.4.8 : The visual presentation of text does not >contain identified obstructions to readability. > > > >The following techniques are necessary to >satisfy this Success Criteria (inclusive): > >· Providing a mechanism to select >foreground and background colors/hues. (HTML, CSS) > >· Presenting text in sans serif font or >providing a mechanism to achieve this (CSS) > >· Providing controls on the Web page >that incrementally change the size of the text (cross link) > >· Presenting blocks of text not more >than 500px wide or providing a mechanism to achieve this. > >· Avoiding text that is fully justified >(to both left and right margins) in a way that >can cause space greater than 2 "M" width space >between words, or characters or providing a >mechanism to remove justification (future link) [LC-1253] [LC-569 (add)] > >· Providing sufficient inter-line and >inter-column spacing or providing a mechanism to achieve this. [LC-569 (add)] > > > >Do you have any data in the form of research >papers that justifies each of these above >techniques? Or could you get access to any research papers on this. > > > >Regards > >David MacDonald > > > >access empowers people... > > ...barriers disable them... > > > ><http://www.eramp.com>www.eramp.com -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442 B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 16:42:03 UTC