Selection of the optimum font type and size interface for on screen continuous reading by young adults: an ergonomic approach.

There is a rapid shifting of media: from printed paper to computer screens. This transition is modifying the process of how we read and understand text. The efficiency of reading is dependent on how ergonomically the visual information is presented. Font types and size characteristics have been shown to affect reading. A detailed investigation of the effect of the font type and size on reading on computer screens has been carried out by using subjective, objective and physiological evaluation methods on young adults. A group of young participants volunteered for this study. Two types of fonts were used: Serif fonts (Times New Roman, Georgia, Courier New) and Sans serif fonts (Verdana, Arial, Tahoma). All fonts were presented in 10, 12 and 14 point sizes. This study used a 6 X 3 (font type X size) design matrix. Participants read 18 passages of approximately the same length and reading level on a computer monitor. Reading time, ranking and overall mental workload were measured. Eye movements were recorded by a binocular eye movement recorder. Reading time was minimum for Courier New l4 point. The participants' ranking was highest and mental workload was least for Verdana 14 point. The pupil diameter, fixation duration and gaze duration were least for Courier New 14 point. The present study recommends using 14 point sized fonts for reading on computer screen. Courier New is recommended for fast reading while for on screen presentation Verdana is recommended. The outcome of this study will help as a guideline to all the PC users, software developers, web page designers and computer industry as a whole.

[1]  Barbara S. Chaparro,et al.  So, What Size and Type of Font Should I Use on My Website? , 2000 .

[2]  Rudi W. De Lange,et al.  Performance Differences Between Times and Helvetica in a Reading Task , 1993, Electron. Publ..

[3]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  A study of fonts designed for screen display , 1998, CHI.

[4]  A. Kramer,et al.  Physiological metrics of mental workload: A review of recent progress , 1990, Multiple-task performance.

[5]  Barbara S. Chaparro,et al.  Comparing the effects of text size and format on the readibility of computer-displayed Times New Roman and Arial text , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  Eric Hoffman,et al.  Delegation of spacing tasks from controllers to flight crew: Impact on controller monitoring tasks , 2002, Proceedings. The 21st Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[7]  J. Veltman,et al.  Physiological workload reactions to increasing levels of task difficulty. , 1998, Ergonomics.

[8]  Barbara S. Chaparro,et al.  Examining children's reading performance and preference for different computer-displayed text , 2002, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[9]  L. Kaufman,et al.  Cognitive processes and performance , 1986 .

[10]  Ulf Ahlstrom,et al.  Using eye movement activity as a correlate of cognitive workload , 2006 .

[11]  Robert A. Morris,et al.  P-13: Serifs Slow RSVP Reading at Very Small Sizes, but Don't Matter at Larger Sizes , 2002 .

[12]  M. Horikawa,et al.  Effect of visual display terminal height on the trapezius muscle hardness: quantitative evaluation by a newly developed muscle hardness meter. , 2001, Applied ergonomics.

[13]  Dean Yager,et al.  High and low luminance letters, acuity reserve, and font effects on reading speed , 1998, Vision Research.

[14]  Glenn F. Wilson,et al.  Psychophysiological responses to changes in workload during simulated air traffic control , 1996, Biological Psychology.

[15]  K. Rayner.  The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  Brian P. Bailey,et al.  Towards an index of opportunity: understanding changes in mental workload during task execution , 2004, CHI.

[17]  Donald Ervin Knuth.  Digital typography , 1999, CSLI lecture notes series.

[18]  Miles A. Tinker,et al.  Studies of typographical factors influencing speed of reading. III. Length of line. , 1929 .

[19]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Psychology of Reading , 2012 .

[20]  Brian P. Bailey,et al.  Categories & Subject Descriptors: H.5.2 [Information , 2022 .

[21]  D. Majumdar,et al.  An eye movement study for identification of suitable font characters for presentation on a computer screen. , 2010, Journal of human ergology.

[22]  E C Poulton,et al.  Size, style, and vertical spacing in the legibility of small typefaces. , 1972, The Journal of applied psychology.

[23]  A. Kennedy,et al.  On-line contextual influences during reading normal text: A multiple-regression analysis , 2008, Vision Research.

[24]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature , 1992 .

[25]  F. Yamada.  Frontal midline theta rhythm and eyeblinking activity during a VDT task and a video game: useful tools for psychophysiology in ergonomics. , 1998, Ergonomics.

[26]  Robin J. Burgess-Limerick,et al.  Visual Display Height , 2000, Hum. Factors.

[27]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Effects of context on eye movements when reading about possible and impossible events. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  Y. Lin,et al.  Using eye movement parameters for evaluating human-machine interface frameworks under normal control operation and fault detection situations , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[29]  Glenn F. Wilson,et al.  An Analysis of Mental Workload in Pilots During Flight Using Multiple Psychophysiological Measures , 2002 .

[30]  Aries Arditi,et al.  Serifs and font legibility , 2005, Vision Research.

[31]  G F Wilson,et al.  The use of cardiac and eye blink measures to determine flight segment in F4 crews. , 1991, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[32]  T. Jung,et al.  Combined eye activity measures accurately estimate changes in sustained visual task performance , 2000, Biological Psychology.

[33]  Thomas S. Tullis,et al.  Readability of fonts in the windows environment , 1995, CHI 95 Conference Companion.

[34]  Michael Bernard,et al.  A Comparison of Popular Online Fonts: Which Size and Type is Best? , 2002 .

[35]  L Reynolds.  LEGIBILITY STUDIES: THEIR RELEVENCE TO PRESENT-DAY DOCUMENTATION METHODS , 1979 .

[36]  P. Dodwell,et al.  Saccadic eye movements during reading , 1979, Brain and Language.

[37]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[38]  Relations between the visibility of a character and the eye movement in the difference of font types , 2003 .

[39]  Eric Hoffman,et al.  Assessing the Impact of a New Instruction on Air Traffic Controller Monitoring Tasks , 2004 .

[40]  Glenn F. Wilson,et al.  Cardiac and Eye Activity Correlates of Sleep Loss in Helicopter Pilots , 2002 .

[41]  Miles A. Tinker,et al.  Differences Among Newspaper Body Types in Readability , 1943 .

[42]  Poulton Ec,et al.  Size, style, and vertical spacing in the legibility of small typefaces. , 1972 .

[43]  G F Wilson,et al.  Evoked potential, cardiac, blink, and respiration measures of pilot workload in air-to-ground missions. , 1994, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[44]  Ruari McLean,et al.  The Thames and Hudson Manual of Typography , 1980 .

[45]  James E. Sheedy,et al.  Text Legibility and the Letter Superiority Effect , 2005, Hum. Factors.

[46]  Sean Cavanaugh,et al.  Digital Type Design Guide: The Page Designer's Guide to Working With Type , 1995 .

[47]  Frank E. Ritter,et al.  Effects of light and heavy workload on air traffic tactical operations: a hazard rate model , 1999 .

[48]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  The effect of word frequency, word predictability, and font difficulty on the eye movements of young and older readers. , 2006, Psychology and aging.

[49]  G. McConkie,et al.  What guides a reader's eye movements? , 1976, Vision Research.

[50]  Paul van Schaik,et al.  The influence of font type and line length on visual search and information retrieval in web pages , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..