As required, here is a text-only copy. Please don't use unless necessary--it
loses much of its readability in this format. Readability of Body Text in
Computer Mediated Communication: Effects of Type Family, Size and Face. RI
can make an ugly document very easily...I own a computer and layout softwareS
(White, 1992). Unfortunately, while the quote may make one smile, low cost
computer technology has allowed many individuals to become publishers over
interactive computer networks such as the World Wide Web; many publishers with
little or no comprehension of typography. Numerous studies have been done
determining both legibility and readability of type in printed materials in mass
communication settings (Tinker, 1963, McVey & Weigeshaus, 1973 and Felici.)
However, a great many of the classic studies in readability and legibility are
from the 1920-1940 era. Starting in the 1980Us with the advent of the personal
computer and in particular in the 1990Us with the increased usage of the
Internet for transferring large amounts of information via the computer, it is
necessary to see if many of the basic rules of legibility and readability of
type hold true for computer monitor presentation. Review of Literature Good
design for mass media is communicative design. It presents information in a
clear, easy to use way. Type and good typography is an essential part of that
design. Especially with interactive media, where the reader may jump from site
to site, type can be used as a consistent design factor to give identity to a
page. Good design enhances the transfer of information, both in the style of
the type and through the ability to read the type. The reader shouldnUt have
to strain or be aware of the act of reading. Type readability, particularly
for longer pieces of text, is dependent on numerous factors. In general, type
sizes over fourteen point size are reserved for headings, subheadings and other
display purposes. Type for extended reading should generally not be smaller
than nine point and not larger than fourteen point whether for print or computer
monitor (Spiekermann, 1993; Lynch, 1994). Recent research indicates that nine
and even ten point type has poor legibility on screen and should be used with
caution (Geske, 1996). Typography and design on the computer screen has
always been difficult due to the low resolution of the screen compared to a
printed page. When graphics based fonts first started appearing in graphical
interfaces such as Macintosh and later Windows applications, they were almost
always stored and displayed in bitmap format. A typical computer monitor has 72
pixel resolution (or 72 pixels by 72 pixels in each square inch of screen.) The
minimum stroke width is one pixel wide or high. The next possible stroke width
is double that or two pixels wide. Especially in smaller size fonts (such as
those used for body copy) this allows for very little fine variation in
displaying fonts. More recently, outline font technology has come to the
personal computer. Here the letter is outlined using a mathematical formula to
create straight lines and curves. Once the outline is complete it is filled in
solid. One problem, however, is that this method is much slower to produce a
page full of text than bitmapped fonts. To solve this problem, once the font
has been formed, it is converted to a bitmap form and saved or RcachedS in the
computer memory. This conversion is known as rasterization. Conversion takes
some time, but once completed the display fonts can be as fast as the display of
bitmapped fonts. Unfortunately, in the rasterization process some rounding
off of numbers occurs. Some letters, such as an H, which should have two
vertical strokes of about the same width may end up with one a pixel larger. On
large display type or when using a 300 dot per inch printer it may be hardly
noticeable. On screen, however, with only a 72 dot resolution and when using
small type faces the problem can be dramatic and severely affect readability
(Petzgold.) Sans serif type faces, with less difference in stroke widths may
have less problems than serif faces with pronounced differences in stroke
widths. To compound the problem, when the computer creates bold face type it
generally doubles the vertical stroke width of the letter but leaves the
horizontal stroke of the letter at the original height. This helps solve the
problem of letters filling by not adding additional pixels on the horizontal
stroke, but alters the character and design of the type on a fundamental level.
Doubling the vertical pixels also has the effect of extending the serifs and
causing them to run together. Even sans-serif types can have a problem with
letters crowding or running together in a bold face. Sans serif type faces,
with less difference in stroke widths may have less problems. One type designer
(Chuck Bigelow, designer of the Lucinda Family or type) recommends sans serif
because Rwhen printed, the serifs on typefaces are only a tiny percentage of the
typeface design. But on-screen, in order to display the serifs using the
limited number of available pixels, they take up a much bigger proportion of the
information than they do in print. Serifs should be small thingsQbut on screen
they become big...noise or distracting chunks of interference (Will-Harris,
1996). RItalicS type also has inherent problems on screen. In fact, rather
than true italic, most monitors actually display an oblique or slanted form of
the standard face. Again, especially in smaller font sizes that are using
letter strokes only one pixel wide, this slanting letter can take on a very
jagged and difficult to read appearance. Finally, computer screens are luminous
while most previous readability work was done on reflective or print material.
With a luminous screen, the light tends to spread out and cause the letter
strokes to lose a bit of weight. Because of these reasons, type faces must
always be judged by their appearance on-screen, not by their esthetic appeal
when printed. It can be concluded that computer screen monitors present unique
challenges to the typographer and designer. Many of the assumptions made for
print legibility and readability may not hold true for on-screen type. The very
nature of type construction and display on the screen bring into question
legibility factors that may affect the readability and the comprehension of
material presented on computer screens. Research Question As more traditional
media look to computer mediated delivery systems, the question of how to provide
large amounts of information in the most legible, readable form becomes an
important factor. Today, with the increasing popularity of the Internet, books,
magazines, newspapers, advertising and even videos appear on the computer. One
fundamental question is to look at type readability on screen to determine type
styles and type sizes that maximize readability and comprehension of the
material being presented. This study looks at type size and the use of bold
type as basic factors affecting type readability. Plus, since the review of
literature indicates there may be particular problems associated with serif type
faces on screen, a comparison of serif and sans serif type in legibility and
comprehension will be explored. Hypotheses Based on both previous research in
print materials and common sense Rrules of thumbS provided by typographers, the
following hypotheses are proposed. The first three hypotheses deal with speed
of reading material, while the second set of three deal with comprehension of
material. The last two deal with the use of bold versus normal
type. Hypothesis One: Fourteen point type will result in faster reading times
than twelve point type. Hypothesis Two: Twelve point type will result in
faster reading times than ten point type. Hypothesis Three: Fourteen point
type will result in faster reading times than ten point type. With ease of
reading, subjects should be able to comprehend the text and process information
more easily. Therefore: Hypothesis Four: Recall of reading selection will be
higher for text set in fourteen point type than text set in twelve point type.
Hypothesis Five: Recall of reading selection will be higher for text set in
twelve point type than text set in ten point type. Hypothesis Six: Recall of
reading selection will be higher for text set in fourteen point type than text
set in ten point type. Previous research indicates that bold type is more
legible on screen, therefore: Hypothesis Seven: Bold face type will result in
faster reading times than normal face type. Hypothesis Eight: Recall of
reading selection will be higher for text set in bold type than text set in
normal type. Methodology For this experiment, paragraphs of copy were selected
that were of a non-involving nature and all selected from the same book and
author. Each paragraph had approximately 225 words and was measured and
corrected to have a similar Flesch reading difficulty score for grade 7.5 (plus
or minus 0.2) to provide similar reading material. Readings were randomly
assigned to test variables. Selections were randomly assigned reading
order. Reading material was incorporated into a Web site so subjects would read
the material on screen. Screen windows were adjusted so line lengths were
approximately 2 1/2 alphabets in length for the median type size. Black type
on a gray background was used for all samples. Subjects controlled the start
of testing by using the mouse to click on a button. When finished reading,
subjects would click a button to take them to a blank screen. Subjects were
given several examples to adjust to the procedure and methodology before the
test began. Subjects were measured (to the nearest second) for the amount of
time it took to read each selection. Then students were asked to answer five
simple multiple choice questions about the reading. Each question had five
possible answers, including an option that the reading did not include this
information. The test was to encourage subjects to read the material carefully
for content and not to skim the reading material. The multiple choice test
should be viewed as a measure of short term memory of the reading. Subjects
were assigned to Form A or Form B as they entered the testing lab with Form A
using a common serif type face, Palatino, and Form B using a common sans serif
type face, Helvetica. Subjects chosen were students at a major midwestern
university in the United States. College students were chosen for several
reasons. First, they are one of the largest and fastest growing areas of
computer mediated communication is the Internet. One of the most comprehensive
surveys on Internet use still shows students making up over half of the total
users (even with the increased number of commercial users). College students in
general are literate, familiar with computers and are at an age where there are
minimal uncorrected vision problems. This should be viewed as an optimal
audience, however, with differences expected with less literate subjects or at
different age groups. A total of 78 students were recruited for the experiment.
Students were volunteers from a Principles of Advertising class with over ten
majors represented in areas of business, communication, design, human
performance and consumer sciences among others. Mean age was 21.2 . Gender for
the respondents was 56% female and 44% male or just about flipped from the
educational users of the Internet which are about 59% male and 41%
female. Findings Based on Type Size Hypothesis One: Fourteen point type will
result in faster reading times than twelve point type. Mean time for reading a
selection in fourteen point serif type was 77.4 seconds while mean time for
twelve point serif type was actually faster at 74.0 seconds. However, a
t-test of means shows no significant difference in reading speed. For sans
serif type, mean time for reading a selection in fourteen point type was 81.6
seconds while mean time for twelve point sans serif type was actually faster at
74.8. A t-test of means shows no significant difference in reading
speed. Based on the evidence, Hypothesis One is rejected; fourteen point type
is not faster to read on screen than twelve point type. Hypothesis Two: Twelve
point type will result in faster reading times than ten point type. Mean time
for reading a selection in twelve point serif type was 74.0 seconds while mean
time for ten point serif type was 83.9 seconds. A t-test of means shows this
to be a significant difference in reading speed (p=0.026). For sans serif type,
mean time for reading a selection in twelve point type was 74.8 seconds while
mean time for ten point sans serif type was slower at 81.9 seconds. A t-test
of means shows no significant difference in reading speed. Based on the
evidence, Hypothesis Two is accepted for serif type and rejected for sans serif
type. Hypothesis Three: Fourteen point type will result in faster reading
times than ten point type. Mean time for reading a selection in fourteen point
serif type was 77.4 seconds while mean time for ten point serif type was 83.9
seconds. A t-test of means shows no significant difference in reading
speed. For sans serif type, mean time for reading a selection in fourteen point
type was 81.6 seconds while mean time for ten point sans serif type was just
slightly slower at 81.9 seconds. A t-test of means shows no significant
difference in reading speed. Based on the evidence, Hypothesis Three is
rejected; fourteen point type is not faster to read on screen than ten point
type. Findings Comparing Serif and Sans Serif Comparing the serif face and
sans serif face in equal sizes shows no significant difference in reading time
between the 41 subjects reading serif versus the 37 subjects reading sans serif
type. Mean time, fourteen point serif 77.4 seconds Mean time,
fourteen point sans serif 81.6 seconds T-test of the mean shows no
significant difference. Mean time, twelve point serif 74.0
seconds Mean time, twelve point sans serif 74.8 seconds T-test of the
mean shows no significant difference. Mean time, ten point serif
83.9 seconds Mean time, ten point sans serif 81.9 seconds T-test
of the mean shows no significant difference. Findings on Recall and
Comprehension of Material Speed of reading is only one consideration. It is
possible that if subjects find the text hard to read, they will skim through the
text or give up on reading it. Therefore, it is important to test for recall of
knowledge about the reading as well. Hypothesis Four: Recall of reading
selection will be higher for text set in fourteen point type than text set in
twelve point type. Mean recall on a five item test for a selection in fourteen
point serif type was 4.42 items while mean recall for twelve point serif type
was actually better at 4.85 items. A t-test of means shows a significantly
better recall for twelve point serif type (p=0.0031). For sans serif type, mean
recall on a five item test for a selection in fourteen point type was 4.43 items
while mean recall for twelve point sans serif type was actually better at 4.62
items. However, a t-test of means shows a no significant difference. Based
on the evidence, Hypothesis Four is rejected for serif type and for sans serif
type. In fact, there is a significant difference in the opposite direction for
serif type with twelve point type having higher recall. Hypothesis Five:
Recall of reading selection will be higher for text set in twelve point type
than text set in ten point type. Mean recall on a five item test for a
selection in twelve point serif type was 4.85 items while mean recall for ten
point serif type was 3.98 items. A t-test of means shows a significantly
better recall for twelve point serif type (p=0.000). For sans serif type, mean
recall on a five item test for a selection in twelve point type was 4.62 items
while mean recall for ten point sans serif type 4.22 items. A t-test of means
shows a significantly better recall for twelve point type (p=0.015). Based on
the evidence, Hypothesis Five is accepted; material set in twelve point type
has a higher recall rate than material set in ten point type. Hypothesis Six:
Recall of reading selection will be higher for text set in fourteen point type
than text set in ten point type. Mean recall on a five item test for a
selection in fourteen point serif type was 4.42 items while mean recall for ten
point serif type was 3.98 items. A t-test of means shows a significantly
better recall for fourteen point serif type (p=0.033). For sans serif type,
mean recall on a five item test for a selection in fourteen point type was 4.43
items while mean recall for ten point sans serif type 4.22 items. A t-test of
means shows no significant difference. Based on the evidence, Hypothesis Six is
accepted for serif type and rejected for sans serif type. Findings on Recall
and Comprehension of Material for Bold Face Type Hypothesis Seven: Bold face
type will result in faster reading times normal face type. Mean time for
reading a selection in twelve point bold serif type was 71.7 seconds while mean
time for twelve point serif type was 74.0 seconds. A t-test of means shows no
significant difference in reading speed. For sans serif type, mean time for
reading a selection in twelve point bold type was 75.1 seconds while mean time
for twelve point sans serif type was just slightly faster at 74.8 seconds. A
t-test of means shows no significant difference in reading speed. Based on the
evidence, Hypothesis Seven is rejected. Bold face type is not faster to read on
screen than normal type. Hypothesis Eight: Recall of reading selection will be
higher for text set in bold type than text set in normal type. Mean recall on a
five item test for a selection in twelve point bold serif type was 4.20 items
while mean recall for twelve point serif type was 4.85 items. A t-test of
means shows a significantly better recall for twelve point normal serif type
(p=0.001). Mean recall on a five item test for a selection in twelve point bold
sans serif type was 4.27 items while mean recall for twelve point sans serif
type was 4.62 items. A t-test of means indicates no significant difference
although the p-value is very close (p=0.052) Based on the evidence, Hypothesis
Eight is rejected for both serif type and sans serif type. For serif type, the
normal face results in a statistically better recall and for sans serif type the
normal face is better, although not significant at the 0.05 level. Findings
based on Subject Attitude In addition to the quantitative measures for speed and
recall, subjects were asked at the end of the study to rank different type sizes
and styles on a five point Likert scale with 5 being very easy to read and 1
being very difficult to read. Mean attitude ranking for fourteen point serif
type was 4.732 while mean attitude ranking for twelve point serif type was
3.683. A t-test of means shows a significant preference for fourteen point
serif type (p=0.000). Mean attitude ranking for twelve point serif type was
3.683 while mean attitude ranking for ten point serif type was 1.805. A
t-test of means shows a significant preference for twelve point serif type over
ten point (p=0.000) and fourteen point over ten point (p=0.0000) Results were
similar for bold face type. Mean attitude ranking for fourteen point bold serif
type was 4.366 while mean attitude ranking for twelve point bold serif type was
3.488. A t-test of means shows a significant preference for fourteen point
bold serif type (p=0.000). Mean attitude ranking for twelve point bold serif
type was 3.488 while mean attitude ranking for ten point bold serif type was
1.585. A t-test of means shows a significant preference for twelve point bold
serif type over ten point bold (p=0.000) and fourteen point bold over ten point
bold (p=0.000) In all cases, the mean ranking of normal type faces was higher
than bold. However, only at fourteen point type is the normal significantly
higher than the bold face (p=0.010). While the other two sizes indicate a
preference for normal type, they are not significantly different. Comparison
of Normal, Italic and Bold Type Earlier work indicated that italic type faces
were much more difficult to read and italic type faces were not tested in the
timed readability study. Twelve point type was selected to compare for subject
preference between normal, bold and italic faces. Subjects preferred the normal
face with a mean score of 4.268. Bold scored a mean of 4.000 with italic at
2.07. The difference here between normal and bold was not significantly
different while the difference between both normal and bold when compared to the
italic is significantly different (p=0.0000). Discussion This study indicates
that body type size, ranging from ten to fourteen point does not make a great
deal of difference in speed of reading. Larger size, fourteen point type was
actually read more slowly than twelve point type on the computer screen.
Twelve point type was significantly faster to read than ten point in serif
type faces but showed no significant difference in sans serif. Based on the
literature, this would seem likely as at smaller sizes the serifs can begin to
cause legibility problems. It appears the boundary line may be that below
twelve point type, serifs should be avoided as they hinder the reading
process. However, size of type did make a significant difference in the
comprehension of material as measured by short term recall. Subjects reading
twelve point type scored higher on recall tests than subjects reading fourteen
or ten point type. Twelve point scores were significantly higher than ten point
scores for both serif and sans-serif faces. For serif faces, twelve point was
significantly better than fourteen point and fourteen point was significantly
better than ten point. Sans serif type showed the same trends, but not at
significant differences. Again, the evidence would suggest that twelve point
type is the best choice for body text for recall of material as well as for
speed of reading. This evidence is contrary to what would be expected through
the literature or Rcommon senseS rules of typography. One would expect that
with the low legibility level of type on screen, that the larger size would
improve readability and comprehension. In fact, the attitude rankings on a five
point scale showed readers preferred fourteen point type over twelve by a full
point on the ranking scale and preferred twelve point type over ten point type
by nearly two points on the scale. However, that visual preference is at the
expense of both speed and comprehension. Similar results were obtained for bold
faces with fourteen point preferred, followed by twelve point followed by ten
point. While earlier studies indicated that bold type helped increase
legibility of the type, subjects preferred the normal faces. As expected from
earlier studies, subjects found italic type much more difficult to read scoring
it nearly two points lower than the other choices. Serif and sans serif type
faces scored very similar in reading speed in all cases and show no significant
advantage in readability using one or the other. Ten point serif type did show
significantly poorer scores in some instances and should be used with caution if
at all. In general, this research shows that some of the common sense
typographic RrulesS and traditions are not supported by the evidence. Larger
type, while preferred by the reader, is not better for speed of reading or
comprehension of material. Bold type, while shown in improve legibility in
earlier research, is generally not preferred by subjects, does not increase
readability and may decrease recall. Overall findings indicate that optimal
type for computer mediated communications should stay in the twelve point type
range in a normal type face. The choice of serif or sans-serif appears to make
little difference in twelve and fourteen point sizes. However, at ten point
size, the serif face tested begins to show significant problems in both speed of
reading and recall. Felici, J. (1987). Desktop Publishing Skills : A Primer
for Typesetting with Computers and Laser Printers. Reading MA :
Addison-Wesley. Felici, J. The Desktop Style Guide. Bantam, ITC. Felici, J.
(1996, March). A Bitmap a Day Keeps the Eyedoctor Away [Internet Document].
Internet locator: http://www.will-haris.com/typofeli.htm. Geske, J. (1996,
August). RLegibility of Sans Serif Type for Use as Body Copy in Computer
Mediated CommunicationS. Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication (AEJMC) annual conference, Anaheim CA. Lynch, P. (1994).
Visual Design for the User Interface. Journal of Biocommunications, Vol. 21,
no. 2. p. 6-15. Matrix News. (1995). Second TIC/MIDS Internet Demographic
Survey, [Internet Document]. Internet locator: http:www.mids.org.1995. McVey,
G.F., & Weigeshaus, C.J. (1973) Studies in Legibility. Rochester, NY: The
Center for Visual Literacy, University of Rochester. Petzold, C. (1992,
November 24). Using text and fonts under the OS/2 2.0 Presentation Manager. PC
Magazine, Vol. 11, no. 20. p. 453ff. Spiekermann, E and Ginger, E. (1993).
Stop Stealing Sheep and Find Out How Type Works. Mountain View CA: Adobe
Press. Tinke K. (1996, March/April). Taking It In. Adobe Magazine, pp.
40-45 Tinker, M.A. (1963). Legibility of Print. Ames IA: Iowa State
University Press Will-Harris, D. (1996, March). The Best Faces For the
Screen. [Internet Document]. Internet locator:
http://www.will-haris.com/typoscrn.htm. White, A. (1992). Type in Use. New
York NY: Design Press.
|
