CHI-WEB Archives

ACM SIGCHI WWW Human Factors (Open Discussion)

CHI-WEB@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Shuli Gilutz <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Shuli Gilutz <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:18:31 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (69 lines)
Hello,

I would be interested in hearing your opinions on a discussion I had
with a friend of mine, who is a very experienced (and good!) visual
designer. I sent to him the new research about Font usability, from
SURL, and wanted to hear his opinion.
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/onlinetext.htm
(This is part of our ongoing debate regarding roles in a design team -
you know: what should be the responsibilities of graphic designers, IAs,
usability people, etc.)

here is his reply:

"Well, any serious designer could have told you verdana would win.
However, this study does not tell you many important factors, that
affect legibility, such as leading (the space between the lines), if
paragraphs were indented, if the text wraps, the number of characters
per line, and so on. Also, they ignore many other factors that go into
font choice and preference. For example, comics would be perceived as
preferred over arial for certain types of content.

When a typographer designs a book, s/he takes into consideration the
cultural aspects of the text and the typeface (not sacrificing
legibility). This is hard to do on the web, since the 'palette' of fonts
is limited. Still, circumstances and content can define user preference.
You are not likely to appreciate an obituary written in comics...

Another issue is the fact that fonts on the web, unlike printed ones,
are often actually a different font in different sizes ? meaning that in
print, they would have not been considered the same font, since they are
so different. So the 'mean', when it comes to a certain font, is
meaningless. While in print, for continues, text, there is no doubt
serifed fonts are more legible, it is not the case with screen fonts.
The reason for this is the low resolution. The serifs on screen are the
same width as the stroke of the letter, which adds noise instead of the
clarity it adds in print. Another thing they say which I find ridicules,
is the fact that people like certain fonts because they are familiar
from print. The monitor aliased version of Times new roman, has little
to do, visually, with its print origin.

So for now, sans serif fonts are more legible on screen as continues
text. In the future, when monitor resolution resembles or matches that
of print ? serif will rule again :) I wish they had a typographer
involved. As usual, people who are not designers test design ? while
being ignorant about design basics.

The monitor resolution they tested this on is questionable, since
studies show that most users (more than %60) still have their monitor
set to 800 x 600.

It would also be interesting to know whether people read continuous text
on screen, or do they print it out (and the difference between adults
and kids who grew up with computers). Then it becomes a whole different
story."

I am interested in hearing your thoughts!

Thanks,
Shuli Gilutz
User Experience Specialist
Nielsen Norman Group

    --------------------------------------------------------------
           Tip of the Day: Postings must be in plain text
               About CHI-WEB: http://www.sigchi.org/web/
         Vacations, holidays and other subscription changes:
             http://www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html#vacations
    --------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2