This article presents a systematic review of the research evidence on the effects of the characteristics of typefaces on the legibility of text for adult readers with low vision. The review revealed that research has not produced consistent findings and thus that there is a need to develop standards and guidelines that are informed by evidence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArditiA. (1996). Typography, print legibility and low vision. In RosenthalB., & ColeR. (Eds.), Remediation and management of low vision (pp. 237–248). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
2.
ArditiA. (2004). Adjustable typography: An approach to enhancing low vision text accessibility. Ergonomics, 47, 469–482.
3.
ArditiA. (2005). Making text legible: Designing for people with partial sight.New York: Lighthouse International. Retrieved March 7, 2007, from http://www.lighthouse.org/print_leg.htm.
4.
ArditiA., CagnelloR., & JacobsB. (1995a). Effects of aspect ratio and spacing on legibility of small letters. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 36(Suppl.), S671.
5.
ArditiA., CagnelloR., & JacobsB. (1995b). Letter stroke width, spacing, and legibility. Noninvasive Assessment of the Visual System Technical Digest (Washington, DC: Optical Society of America).
6.
ArditiA., & ChoJ. (2000). Do serifs enhance or diminish text legibility?Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 41(Suppl.), S437.
7.
ArditiA., & ChoJ. (2005). Serifs and font legibility. Vision Research, 45, 2926–2933.
8.
ArditiA., KnoblauchK., & GrunwaldI. (1990). Reading with fixed and variable character pitch. Journal of the Optical Society of America A—Optics & Image Science, 7, 2011–2015.
9.
ArditiA., LiuL., & LynnW. (1997). Legibility of outline and solid fonts with wide and narrow spacing. In YagerD. (Ed.), Trends in optics and photonics, series vol. 11 (pp. 52–56). Washington, DC: Optical Society of America.
10.
BergerC. (1944a). Stroke-width, form and horizontal spacing of numerals as determinants of the threshold of recognition I. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28, 208–208.
11.
BergerC. (1944b). Stroke-width, form and horizontal spacing of numerals as determinants of the threshold of recognition, II. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28, 336–336.
12.
CampbellK. A., CutlerF., McDonaldR., PuttC., RewakM., StrongG., & WhittonH. (2005). CNIB/OCAD typographic legibility research project: Clear Print report.Toronto: CNIB/OCAD Research.
13.
Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. (1979). The periodic health examination. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 121, 1193–1254.
14.
ChungS. T. (2002). The effect of letter spacing on reading speed in central and peripheral vision. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 43, 1270–1276.
15.
ChungS. T., MansfieldJ. S., & LeggeG. E. (1998). Psychophysics of reading, XVIII: The effect of print size on reading speed in normal peripheral vision. Vision Research, 38, 2949–2962.
16.
ClineD., HofstetterH. W., & GriffinJ. R. (Eds.). (1997). Dictionary of visual science (4th ed., p. 521). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
17.
ColenbranderA. (2002). Visual standards: Aspects and ranges of vision loss. Report prepared for the 29th International Congress of the International Council of Ophthalmology, Sydney, Australia.
18.
DrummondS. R., DrummondR. S., & DuttonG. N. (2004). Visual acuity and the ability of the visually impaired to read medication instructions. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 88, 1541–1542.
19.
EsteyA., JeremyP., & JonesM. (1990). Developing printed materials for patients with visual deficiencies. Journal of Ophthalmic Nursing Technology, 9, 247–249.
20.
Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group. (2004). Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Archives of Ophthalmology, 122, 477–485.
21.
GarveyP. M., PietruchaM. T., & MeekerD. T. (1997). Effects of font and capitalization on legibility of guide signs (Transportation Research Record 1605, 73–79). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
22.
KitchelE. (2002). Reading, typography and low vision: A few guidelines for making large print documents and tests more accessible.Presentation. Lexington, KY: American Printing House for the Blind. Retrieved March 7, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/Presentations/LPreading.ppt.
23.
KitchelE. (2004). Large print: Guidelines for Optimal Readability and APHont: A font for low vision.Lexington, KY: American Printing House for the Blind. Retrieved March 8, 2007, from http://www.aph.org/edresearch/lpguide.htm.
24.
LeggeG. E., & RubinG. S. (1986). Psycho-physics of reading IV: Wavelength effects in normal and low vision. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 3, 40–40.
25.
LeggeG. E., RubinG. S., & LuebkerA. (1987). Psychophysics of reading V: The role of contrast in normal vision. Vision Research, 27, 1165–1177.
26.
LeggeG. E., RubinG. S., PelliD. G., & SchleskeM. M. (1985). Psychophysics of reading I: Normal vision. Vision Research, 25, 239–252.
27.
LiuL., & ArditiA. (2000). Apparent string shortening concomitant with letter crowding. Vision Research, 40, 1059–1067.
28.
LiuL., & ArditiA. (2001). How crowding affects letter confusion. Optometry & Vision Science, 78, 50–55.
29.
MacKebenM. (2000). Enhancement of peripheral letter recognition by typographic features. Visual Impairment Research, 2, 95–103.
30.
MansfieldJ. S., LeggeG. E., & BaneM. C. (1996). Psychophysics of reading XV: Font effects in normal and low vision. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 37, 1492–1501.
31.
MoriartyS. E., & ScheinerE. C. (1984). A study of close-set text type. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 700–702.
32.
MorrisR. A., AquilanteK., YagerD., & BigelowC. (2002). Serifs slow RSVP reading at very small sizes, but don't matter at larger sizes. Society for Information Display International Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, 33, 1–1.
33.
MorrisR. A., BerryK., HargreavesK. A., & LiarokapisD. (1991). How typeface variation and typographic scaling affect readability at small sizes. InProceedings from the 7th International Congress on Advances in Non-Impact Printing Technologies, Vol. 2(pp. 1–9). Springfield, VA: Society for Imaging Science and Technology.
RubinG. S., & LeggeG. E. (1989). Psycho-physics of reading VI: The role of contrast in low vision. Vision Research, 29, 79–79.
36.
SmitherJ. A., & BraunC. C. (1994). Readability of prescription drug labels by older and younger adults. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 1, 149–149.
TinkerM. (1963). Legibility of print.Ames: Iowa State University Press.
39.
WhittakerS., RohrkasteF., & HigginsK. E. (1989). Optimum letter spacing for word recognition in central and eccentric fields. Noninvasive Assessment of the Visual System Technical Digest Series 7. (Washington, DC: Optical Society of America), 56–59.
40.
WoodsR. J., DavisK., & ScharfL. (2005). Effects of typeface and font size on legibility for children. American Journal of Psychological Research, 1, 86–102. Retrieved June 4, 2007, from http://www.ncneese.edu/colleges/ed/deptpsy/ajpr/vol1/ajpr9.pdf.
41.
YagerD., AquilanteK., & PlassR. (1998). High and low luminance letters, acuity reserve, and font effects on reading speed. Vision Research, 38, 2527–2531.
