On Jan 7, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Maxim Soloviev wrote: > Also you might find this link interesting: > http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/onlinetext.htm
Sidenote: This goes back to the conversation about usability feedback and knowledge a few weeks ago. When I read sentences in a report like this that states: "Fonts designed for print, such as Times, were created for both legibility and economy of print space. Georgia, on the other hand, was designed specifically for computer-display. Georgia is somewhat similar in appearance to Times. However to make Georgia more legible for computer-screen viewing, its uppercase characters were lightened and the letters’ x-height (the height of the torso for lowercase letters, such as an 'x') was increased." As a designer I tend to negate and ignore the entire report. Why? Because Times and Georgia are *nothing* like each other. Not even close. Not even "somewhat similar in appearance." Further, Georgia is heavier and larger all around to make it more readable on the computer screen. It's pixels are denser specifically to make it more readable on a low resolution device like a computer screen. The fact the person who wrote the report stated otherwise tells me right off the bat that the report isn't worth my time. But then even after reading this reports, the tests themselves are also questionable. Reading speed is often meaningless in gauging whether a font is useful. Everyone reads at different speeds based on a variety of factors, not the least of which are things like line length, overall copy color, leading, and other typographic rules, all of which are different based on whichever font is chosen. And faster reading speed has no impact on the utility of any font to be honest. Legibility is the only thing that matters, which again is affected by more factors than simply the chosen font face. Further, it appears they tested the fonts without anti-aliasing turned on. With anti-aliasing turned off, the legibility of nearly all fonts at small sizes is about the same. That is to say, they all are mostly crap since pixelated fonts at small sizes can only have so many variations to be even legible in the first place. It's like a font for LED displays, there's not much yo can do. The details between fonts only come into play with more resolution and anti- aliasing turned on. In general... this study is a perfect example of why you should ignore studies when choosing a font. -- Andrei Herasimchuk Principal, Involution Studios innovating the digital world e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] c. +1 408 306 6422 ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
