EXAMINING PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE TEXT SIZE AND TYPEFACE LEGIBILITY FOR OLDER MALES AND FEMALES

Transcription

1 EXAMINING PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE TEXT SIZE AND TYPEFACE LEGIBILITY FOR OLDER MALES AND FEMALES Michael L. Bernard 1, Chia Hui Liao 2, Barbara S. Chaparro 1, and Alex Chaparro 2 1 Software Usability Research Laboratory Department of Psychology Wichita State University Wichita, KS 67260, USA 2 Visual Psychophysics Laboratory Department of Psychology Wichita State University Wichita, KS 67260, USA Abstract: This study examined the perceived font legibility, ease of reading, and font sharpness, as well as perceptions of font attractiveness, fun/personality, and general preference of two serif (Times New Roman and Georgia) and sans serif (Arial and Verdana) fonts at 12- and sizes on a computer by older adults (mean age of 70). The results revealed that participants perceived the size as more legible than the size. A significant interaction was found for font ease of reading and sharpness. perceived the size as being easier to read and sharper than the size., however, showed little change in these perceptions as the font size changed from 12 to 14 points. Moreover, assessing font attraction revealed a significant interaction. perceived the size as being more attractive and had greater personality/fun than the size, whereas female s perceptions, regardless of the font size, were generally equivalent to the male s perceptions at the size. All participants significantly preferred the larger, sans serif fonts. No significant effects were found for font typeface. Implications of these results and design recommendations for online text for older adults are discussed. 1. INTRODUCTION It is clear that the population of America is aging. In fact, the percentage of Americans older than 65 is expected to rise from the current 13 percent to 21.8 percent in 2030 and 24.5 percent in 2080 (U.S. Senate, 1990). Accompanying the rise in the number of older adults is the need to support this population in terms of instruction and personal assistance. One of the most practical means to do this is the use of computer-assisted technologies. For example, online computer resources can, in many respects, attend to the older population by providing databases that dispense information related to health care, self-help programs, and general tasks for instance online shopping and entertainment (Dyck, & Smither, 1994). Clearly, the notion that the computer can be used as an information-gathering tool has not been lost on older adults. Indeed, older adults are now the fastest growing Internet demographic group in the United States (Media Metrix, 2000). This is partly due to accessibility of computer-mediated informational mediums such as the Internet. It is also due to the increasing difficulty, or even impossibility, of obtaining the equivalent information in book form. This often occurs because of age-related physical limitations that preclude access to printed documents for example, not being able to drive to a library. Because of the increasing need to use the computer to support or even supplant printed material, it is important to study how older adults respond to computers, particularly text displayed on computer screens. 1.1 Older Adults Response to Computers One of the most important elements when interacting with computers is the computer interface itself, since this is the point of contact between the user and the computer. Unfortunately, the design of interfaces for older adults has received little attention by researchers, despite the fact that a poorly designed interface can greatly degrade the quality of experience for the user. The need to include older adults in interface design research is further heightened by the increasing number of older adults that are now using the computer as a means to gather information and communicate with others (Age Light Research, 2001). Corresponding Author ( mber@acm.org)

2 Researchers such as Caja and Sharit (1998), who have examined older adults and computers, have found that older adults are often less comfortable and perceive themselves as having less control over computers than younger adults for typical, computer-related tasks such as data entry and account balancing. However, the Caja and Sharit study, as well as others (e.g., Smither, 1994) have also found that computer-use affected older adults attitudes towards computers such that the more they used computers, the more positive their attitudes were towards them. Therefore, a common goal for many organizations is to familiarize older adults with computers and encourage their use. For this reason, every effort should be made to make their interaction with computers as pleasant as possible. This is particularly important for the presentation of text, since a majority of computer-use time is occupied through the use of reading (Gallup, 2001). Accordingly, an appropriate question posed here is how should text be presented so that it is perceived as being comfortable to read on a computer screen? 1.2 Online Reading and Older Adults Older adults have received little attention in regard to their perceptions of font legibility for online text, even though they have challenges that are, for the most part, specific to their population (i.e., age-related deficits associated with vision and motor impairments). In fact, previous studies examining the perceived legibility of fonts on computer screens have almost exclusively investigated young to middle-aged adults (e.g., Boyarski, Neuwirth, Forlizzi, & Regli, 1998). However, because the various factors associated with age, one should be cautious in generalizing these findings (discussed below) to older adults. Moreover, the few studies that have examined perceptions of legibility by older adults have done so with text printed on paper. For instance, Vanderplas and Vanderplas (1980) found that older adults (M = 72) perceived fonts as being more interesting than s font, but size did not effect perceptions of ease of reading, clearness or clarity of expression. Unfortunately, it is uncertain whether these results can be generalized to computer-displays, since computerbased reading presents hindrances that are not present in print-based reading. For example, the screen resolution, the degree of flicker, and the amount aliasing of text (the stair-casing that causes certain letterforms to look jagged) all may affect the perceived legibility and preference for a particular style and size of font. 1.3 Print and Computer-Displayed Fonts Currently, text that is viewed on computer screens consists of an amalgamation of both serif and sans serif fonts that were designed specifically for computer use, as well as those that were originally intended for print (serif fonts have small crossstrokes at the top and bottom of the letterforms, whereas sans serif fonts do not). Fonts designed for print, such as the Times New Roman (Times) serif font were created for both legibility and economy of print space for the Times of London newspaper. Times is considered to have superior legibility for print, and has since become an extremely popular font for both books and documents. Times also serves as the primary default for Microsoft Office software suites. An alternative serif typeface that was designed specifically for computer-display is the font, Georgia. Georgia is somewhat similar to Times in that it incorporates many of the same old-style characteristics as 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) was increased. A common sans serif font alternative to Times is Arial. Arial s type of design stems from a style of typeface that is based on the modernist movement of the late twentieth century. Although this font was not specifically created for computerdisplay, it has many of the characteristics of the fonts that are intended for viewing on computer screens. For example, it has a rather large x-height and the letters are spaced so they do not touch. The sans serif font, Verdana, however, was specifically intended for viewing on computer-screens. Verdana was designed to be legible on computer screens by having wider letterspacing and a large x-height. In addition, great effort was taken to make the lowercase letters, i, j, and l more distinctive on computer screens. Research by Boyarski, et al., (1998) examining Times, Georgia, and Verdana fonts on computer screens has indeed found that relatively young adults (mean age of 30.1) significantly perceived Georgia to be easier to read, sharper, and more legible than Times at the 10-point size. Significant subjective differences were not detected between the computer-display fonts, Georgia and Verdana, however. No other serif or sans serif font was examined in the Boyarski et al., study. 1.4 Research Assessing Perceptions of Font Legibility and Preferences As evidenced from the Boyarski, et al. (1998) study, fonts designed for screen display may be perceived as being more legible than fonts originally designed for print. However, this study has limited significance for older adults because it did not specifically study this population and it did not examine larger sized fonts, such as at 14 points, which is generally recommended for an older population. Unfortunately, no study has yet examined the factors that contribute to the enjoy-

3 ment of reading (i.e., perceived legibility and preference) for computer-displayed text for this age group. In light of the lack of research in this area, this study examined the perceived font legibility and sharpness, as well as perceptions of font attractiveness, fun/personality, and general preference for two serif (Times New Roman and Georgia) and sans serif (Arial and Verdana) fonts at 12- and sizes on a computer by older adults. 2.1 Participants 2. METHOD Twenty-six participants (13 males and 13 females) volunteered for this study from the Derby Senior Citizen s Center in Derby, Kansas. The mean age for both males and females was 70. All were tested to have 20/40 or better unaided or corrected vision as measured by a Snellen near acuity test for 20/20 vision at a distance of 18 inches. Ten of the males and 11 of the females wore prescription glasses. Fifty-four percent of the male and 69 percent of female participants reported to have regularly read documents on computer screens a few times per week or more. All participants read English fluently as a first language, and 62 percent of males and 77 percent of females graduated from college. The participants received $5.00 in gift certificates for volunteering for this experiment. 2.2 Equipment A Pentium II based PC computer, with a 60 Hz, 96dpi 15-inch RGB monitor with a resolution setting of 800 x 600 pixels was used. The computer operating system used was Microsoft s Windows 98. The format of the presented text was presented as an HTML web page. The browser used was Microsoft s Internet Explorer 5.0, which was configured to display only the URL address bar. 2.3 Font Typeface/Size Combinations Two types of fonts were used, the serif fonts Georgia and Times and the sans serif fonts Arial and Verdana. As stated previously, both Times and Arial were originally developed for print and are the most common fonts of their respective font typeface used today. Georgia and Verdana were developed specifically to be optimized for the computer screen. The different font typefaces and sizes are shown in Table 1. The order of each typeface/size font condition was counterbalanced by means of a Latin square design. Table 1. Example of the eight typeface/size font combinations studied Serif Fonts Times New Roman Georgia Times New Roman Georgia Sans Serif Fonts f Arial Verdana Arial Verdana 2. 4 Task Design Font conditions were compared by having participants read eight passages, which were counterbalanced by means of a Latin square design. The text of each passage was comprised of a font from one of the eight typeface/size font conditions. The passages came from Microsoft's electronic library, Encarta (Microsoft Corporation, 2000). The passages were written at approximately the same reading level and discussed similar material (all dealt with psychology-related topics). The passages were also adjusted to have approximately the same length (an average of 683 words per passage, S.D. of 16 words) with horizontal margins set at 640 pixels. The amount of words per line varied as a result of the width of the fonts within the different typeface/size combinations. The color of the font in all passages was black on a white background.

4 2. 5 Procedure Participants were positioned at a distance of 57 centimeters from the computer screen. They were then asked to read as quickly and accurately as possible passages that contained ten randomly placed substitution words (they were not told the number of substitution words) in order to help insure they read the passages carefully. The substitution words were intended to be clearly seen as inappropriate for the context of the passages when read carefully. These words varied grammatically from the original words for example the noun cake being replaced with the adjective fake. After reading each passage, participants answered a perception of legibility questionnaire, which took approximately 5 minutes to answer and which gave them a period of rest between each passage. The questionnaire consisted of a 7-point Likert scale with 1 = Not at all and 7 = Completely as anchors. The questionnaire items were as follows: The font was legible, The text was easy to read, The font was sharp and crisp, The font was attractive, The font had personality/was fun. After the participants read all eight passages and answered the respective questionnaires they ranked the font combinations for preference. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A 2 x 4 x 2 mixed ANOVA design was used. The between-subjects factor used was the sex (male or female) of the participants. The within-subjects factors were the typeface (Times, Georgia, Verdana, & Arial) and size (12- and s) of the fonts tested. The Bonferroni procedure was used for evaluating the pairwise comparisons (Kirk, 1982). Preference was measured by using a Friedman χ 2. The means and standard deviations for the results of each dependent measure are presented in Table 2. Was legible Was easy to read Was sharp Was attractive Had personality /was fun k * Means and standard deviations (SD) 3.1 Perceptions of Legibility Perception of Font Legibility Table 2. Dependent Measures* Arial Verdana Times Georgia 4.8 (1.1) 4.0 (1.7) 4.9 (1.1) 4.5 (1.8) 4.8 (1.3) 4.0 (2.0) 3.8 (1.4) 4.0 (1.8) 3.5 (1.3) 3.8 (2.0) 4.8 (1.3) 5.0 (1.3) 4.9 (1.5) 5.2 (1.4) 4.8 (1.7) 5.0 (2.2) 4.1 (1.1) 4.7 (1.5) 3.6 (1.2) 4.2 (1.7) 4.7 (1.2) 4.2 (1.4) 4.9 (1.4) 4.7 (1.4) 4.7 (0.9) 4.2 (1.7) 4.2 (0.8) 4.3 (1.8) 3.7 (0.6) 4.2 (2.2) 4.8 (1.2) 4.2 (1.4) 5.0 (1.2) 5.1 (1.4) 4.8 (1.2) 4.2 (1.6) 4.0 (1.0) 4.5 (1.6) 3.6 (0.8) 4.2 (1.7) 4.5 (0.8) 4.8 (1.3) 4.5 (1.0) 5.0 (1.2) 4.1 (1.1) 4.3 (1.4) 3.5 (0.7) 4.4 (1.4) 3.2 (0.7) 4.1 (1.5) 5.6 (1.2) 4.9 (1.3) 5.4 (1.1) 4.7 (1.4) 5.5 (1.1) 4.4 (1.5) 4.5 (1.1) 4.4 (1.6) 4.0 (0.9) 4.1 (1.7) Analyzing the perceptions of font legibility revealed a significant size main effect [F (1, 24) = 6.63, p <.05] in that the 14- point size, which has a proportionally larger x-height than the size, was significantly perceived as being more legible than the size on a computer screen (see Table 2 for means and SD). This finding is not too surprising, since it is consistent with previous size recommendations for printed (e.g., Morrell, & Echt, 1997) and online text (e.g., Bernard, Liao, & Mills, 2001) for older adults. A number of factors could account for this finding. For instance, having a larger x- height generally allows for easier detection of individual characters (Poulton, 1955). This detection may be especially important for older readers, particularly when reading from computer screens. Interestingly, no significant typeface main effects were detected, even between the fonts designed for print and those for computer display, which contrasts with the findings of Boyarski, et al. (1998). It is possible that the differences between the typefaces were not detected in present study because participants read from a higher screen resolution of 800 x 600 pixels, as opposed to 640 x 480 for the Boyarski et al. study which, at this lower resolution, may accentuate typeface differences.

5 3.1.2 Perceptions of Ease of Reading Analyzing the perceptions of ease of reading revealed a significant size x sex interaction [F (1, 24) = 7.02, p <.01]. At the size, no significant differences were detected between males and females. However at the size, males perceived the fonts as being significantly (p <.05) easier to read than females (see Figure 1). One can only guess why there was a difference between the males and females in terms of the perceptions of ease of reading. It may be that males perceived the fonts to be easier to read because they were perceived as being more legible at this size, whereas females perceive the size as slightly reducing the ease of reading because they have to scroll more at this larger font size (see Table 2 for means and SD) Perceptions of the font being sharp Analyzing the participants perceptions of the different fonts being sharp revealed a significant size x sex interaction [F (1, 24) = 7.22, p <.01]. As shown in Figure 2, no significant difference was found for the perception of font sharpness at the size. Yet as the size is increased to s, males significantly (p <.05) perceived the fonts as being sharper than the females (see Table 2 for means and SD). It is also possible that for both the perceptions of ease of reading and font sharpness, males focused on the individual letterforms of the different typefaces, whereas females focused on the characteristics of each typeface. Thus, males would have higher perceptions of ease of reading and font sharpness for the larger font size because of their increase in actual legibility (Bernard, Liao, & Mills, 2001). However, if females focused on the stylistic differences between the various typefaces, then increasing the size would not change their perceptions of their ease of reading and sharpness of the fonts Figure 1. Perceptions of ease of reading Figure 2. Perceptions of font being sharp 3.2 Font Attraction Font was attractive Analyzing the perceptions that a particular font was attractive revealed a significant size x sex interaction [F (1, 24) = 5.26, p <.05]. As Figure 4 shows, males perceived fonts at the size as being significantly (p <.05) less attractive than females. At the size, however, no significant differences were detected between male and females (see Table 2 for means and SD). Again, males in this study tended to be sensitive to type size, whereas females were not Font had personality/was fun Analyzing the perceptions of fonts having personality and being fun to read revealed a significant size by sex interaction [F (1, 24) = 7.22, p <.01]. As seen in Figure 3, males perceived fonts at the size as having significantly (p <.05) less personality and were considered less fun to read than females. At the size, however, there was no significant difference between the males and females (see Table 2 for means and SD).

6 Figure 3. Perceptions that font was attractive Figure 4. Perceptions that font had personality/was fun 3.3 Font Preference Analysis of the mean rank for each font typeface/size combination revealed a significant difference in ranking for both males and females [χ 2 (7, N = 13) = 49.67, p <.001; χ 2 (7, N = 13) = 69.67, p <.001], respectively. Post hoc analysis revealed that the fonts were generally preferred to the s fonts. Participants also favored the sans serif to the serif fonts (see Table 3 for means and SD). Specifically, males significantly preferred the Arial and Verdana fonts to the Times and Georgia fonts. The Georgia font was also preferred to the Times., on the other hand, significantly preferred all fonts to the Times and Georgia fonts. Examining the percentage of both the male and female participants first and second preference choices again revealed that the larger, size and the sans serif typefaces were the most preferred types of fonts (see Figure 5). most preferred the Arial, whereas females equally preferred both the Verdana and Arial to the other fonts. Only one person, a male, preferred a font (Verdana) as a first or second preference choice. Verdana also had the highest preference ranking for the fonts when both males and females are considered together. The preference trend favoring larger, sans serif fonts is consistent with other studies that examined reading on a computer screen (e.g., Tullis, Boyton, & Hersh, 1995). However when only the effects of typeface were examined, no significant differences were detected, even between Times and the typefaces that were designed specifically for computerdisplay (i.e., Georgia or Verdana). Apparently, the differences between serif and sans serif typefaces were only evident when type size is taken into account. It is therefore possible that the lower preference for the serif fonts occurred because of the characteristics of computer screens, in that the cross-strokes of the serif fonts acted as visual noise at smaller font size, thereby making the letterforms harder to discern. It is additionally possible that sans serif fonts were simply considered more aesthetically pleasing than the serif fonts and, thus, were ranked higher in preference. Table 3. Mean Ranking of Font Combinations* size size Times Georgia Arial Verdana Times Georgia Arial Verdana Male Ranking 7.0 (1.3) 6.6 (1.0) 5.3 (1.6) 5.3 (2.3) 3.5 (1.9) 3.2 (1.6) 2.1 (1.1) 2.9 (1.7) Female Ranking 7.5 (0.7) 7.2 (0.8) 5.4 (1.0) 5.0 (0.8) 3.5 (0.8) 3.5 (1.1) 1.9 (1.6) 2.0 (1.9) * Means and standard deviations (SD). Lower means indicate higher preference choices. The Critical significant difference at α =.05 is ± 3.60.

7 1 st and 2 nd Preferences 1 st and 2 nd Preferences Verdana Verdana Arial Arial Georgia Georgia Times Times 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Figure 5. The percentage of time each font was chosen as the 1 st or 2 nd preference choice for both males and females. 4. CONCLUSIONS This study compared Times, Georgia, Arial, and Verdana fonts at both 12- and sizes for differences in perception of legibility, ease of reading, font sharpness, as well as font attraction (having personality/fun to read and attractiveness) and general preference. The results revealed that both males and females perceived the fonts as being more legible than the fonts. The results were mixed for the perceptions of ease of reading and font sharpness. That is, males generally perceived the size as being easier to read and sharper than the size., however, showed little change in these perceptions as the font size changed from 12 to 14 points. In addition, males perceived the size as being more attractive and with greater personality/fun than the size, whereas female s perceptions, regardless of the font size, were generally equivalent to the male s perceptions at the size. Overall, both males and females most preferred the sans serif fonts. It is somewhat surprising that no typeface effects were found for perceptions of font legibility or attraction, particularly between the fonts designed for the computer screen. Previous research has, however, found that older adults generally prefer sans serif fonts to serif fonts for printed material (e.g., Vanderplas & Vanderplas, 1980). This has some support in this study as well. As seen in Figure 5, both males and females greatly preferred as their first or second choice the sans serif fonts Verdana and Arial to the serif fonts, Georgia and Times. Thus, it appears that greatest preference differences among the typefaces at this size are not between the print and the computer-displayed fonts, but between the serif and sans serif fonts. As with all studies that examine participants perceptions to specific fonts, caution should be made in generalizing these outcomes to other font combinations. Many factors should be taken into account, such as individual font characteristics, the type size, the line and character spacing, the computer settings, as well as the user characteristics. 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the people of the Derby Senior Citizen s Center in Derby, Kansas for their hospitality, and for graciously volunteering to participate in this study. 6. REFERENCES Age Light Research. (2001). A Guide for Web Design Usability for Users of All Ages. [Online]. Resources/webdesign.htm.

8 1. Bernard, M. L., Liao, C. H., and Mills, M. M. (2001). The Effects of Font Type and Size on the Legibility and Reading Time of Online Text by Older Adults. Proceedings of CHI 01 Extended Abstracts, Boyarski, D., Neuwirth, C., Forlizzi, J., and Regli, S. H. (1998). A Study of Fonts Designed for Screen Display. Proceedings of CHI 98, Czaja, S. J. and Sharit, J. (1998). Age Differences in Attitudes Toward Computers. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 5: (5) Dyck, J. L. and Smither, J. A. (1994). Age Differences in Computer Anxiety: The Role of Computer Experience, Gender and Education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10: (3) Microsoft Corporation (2000). Encarta Online Encyclopedia. Microsoft Corporation, Redmond Washington. 6. Morrell, R., W. and Echt, K. (1997). Designing Written Instructions for Older Adults: Learning to Use Computers. In Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and the older adult. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, pp Hartley, J. (1994). Designing Instructional Text for Older Readers: A Literature Review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 25: (3) Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental Design (2 nd Ed.). Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.: Belmont, CA. 9. Media Metrix (2000). U.S. Baby Boomers and Seniors are Fastest Growing Internet Demographic Group, Reports Media Metrix. [Online]. / jsp. 10. Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia [Online] Microsoft Corp. All rights reserved. 11. Poulton, E. C. (1955). Letter Differentiation and Rate of Comprehension of Reading. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49: Tullis, T. S., Boynton, J. L., and Hersh, H. (1995). Readability of Fonts in the Windows Environment. Proceedings of CHI 95: U.S. Senate, Special Paper to the Special Committee on Aging, Aging America: Trends and Perspectives. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1990.