Development of a “universal design” font with blur tolerance (1) A comparison of the readability of Ming, Gothic, and “universal design” typefaces [email protected] Yasushi Nakano (Keio Univ.) , Ryo Yamamoto (Keio Univ.) , Tetsuya Arai (Keio Univ.) , Shigeki Inoue (Hakuhodo Inc.), Kumiko Hayashi (Type Bank Co., Ltd.) , Yumi Takata (Type Bank Co., Ltd.) , Ai Handa (Type Bank Co., Ltd.) Objectives Results Methods To verify the effectiveness of a font, its legibility and readability must be considered. In this study, we experimentally assess a new universal design (UD) font that could be easily seen and read by users with varied levels of visual acuity. We examined font readability based on the principle of the Japanese version of the MNREAD reading acuity charts in a blurring simulation (visual acuities are 0.2, 0.3, and 0.5). Results revealed that the new UD font was more readable than conventional fonts ( Ming, Gothic, conventional UD fonts). To verify the effectiveness of a font, its legibility and readability must be considered. There are few studies on readability due to the complexity of controlling the difficulty of the text to read and condi tions like the text’s length. The Minnesota Low Vision Reading Test (MNREAD acuity charts, Legge et al., 1989) is a standardized reading test that is used extensively around the world. The current study sought to ascertain font readability based on the rationale of the MNREADJ (Oda et al., 1989). EXPERIMENT COMPARING THE READABILITY OF MING, GOTHIC, AND NEW UD FONTS IN A BLURRING SIMULATION ・30 people with normal vision ages 20 to 40 (average: 28.5, SD: 6.8) ・ Visual acuity was 1.0 or better. ・ They were divided into 3 visual acuity groups. ・ To simulate blurred vision, a spetial filter was used that continuously attenuate high spacial frequency components similar to those used by Legge et al. (1985) and Nakano et al. (2006). Simulated visual acuities were 0.3logMAR(0.5), 0.5logMAR(0.3), and 0.7logMAR(0.2). ・Standard MNREADJ (the font is Ming) and the similar charts created in Gothic font or new UD. ・Luninance on the charts was 132cd/m 2 and average illuminance was 528lx. ・This experiment was performed in accordance with standard MNREADJ testing. ・Participant’ s task was to read aloud the text shown as quickly as possible without any errors. Participants Equipments Procedures Reading speed (characters/minute) Character size (logMAR) 10 100 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 500 Ming Gothic New UD 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Critical print size (logMAR) Ming Gothic New UD * * * New UD < Gothic Ming < Gothic (*p<0.05) logMAR(Decimal visual acuity) 0.7(0.2) 0.5(0.3) 0.3(0.5) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Reading acuity (logMAR) Ming Gothic New UD New UD < Ming New UD < Gothic (*p<0.05) * * * logMAR(Decimal visual acuity) 0.7(0.2) 0.5(0.3) 0.3(0.5) Maximum reading speed (characters/minute) Ming Gothic New UD New UD > Ming Gothic > Ming (*p<0.05) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 * * * logMAR(Decimal visual acuity) 0.7(0.2) 0.5(0.3) 0.3(0.5) The UD fonts had a higher readability than the Ming and Gothic typefaces did. In addition, results revealed that the new UD font devised in this study resulted in a smaller critical print size and better reading acuity than the other fonts did. Fig1 MNREADJ Chart Fig2 Blured images of MNREADJ a) 0.3logMAR(0.5) b) 0.5logMAR(0.3) c) 0.7logMAR(0.2) Fig4 Average Maximum Reading Speed (maximum speed of reading with the optimal print size) Fig3 Typical example of MNREADJ. Fig5 Average Critical Print Size (smallest print size at which the maximum reading speed could be main tained) Fig6 Average Reading Acuity (smallest print size that was readable)
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Development of a “universal design” font with blur tolerance (1) -- A comparison of the readability of Ming, Gothic, and
“universal design” typefaces --
Yasushi Nakano (Keio Univ.) , Ryo Yamamoto (Keio Univ.) , Tetsuya Arai (Keio Univ.) , Shigeki Inoue (Hakuhodo Inc.), Kumiko Hayashi (Type Bank Co., Ltd.) , Yumi Takata (Type Bank Co., Ltd.) , Ai Handa (Type Bank Co., Ltd.)
Objectives
Results
Methods
To verify the effectiveness of a font, its legibility and readability must be considered. In this study, we experimentally assess a new universal design (UD) font that could be easily seen and read by users with varied levels of visual acuity. We examined font readability based on the principle of the Japanese version of the MNREAD reading acuity charts in a blurring simulation (visual acuities are 0.2, 0.3, and 0.5). Results revealed that the new UD font was more readable than conventional fonts ( Ming, Gothic, conventional UD fonts).
To verify the effectiveness of a font, its legibility and readability must be considered. There are few studies on readability due to the complexity of controlling the difficulty of the text to read and condi-tions like the text’s length. The Minnesota Low Vision Reading Test (MNREAD acuity charts, Legge et al., 1989) is a standardized reading test that is used extensively around the world. The current study sought to ascertain font readability based on the rationale of the MNREAD-J (Oda et al., 1989).
EXPERIMENT COMPARING THE READABILITY OF MING, GOTHIC, AND NEW UD FONTS IN A BLURRING SIMULATION
・30 people with normal vision ages 20 to 40 (average: 28.5, SD: 6.8)・ Visual acuity was 1.0 or better.・ They were divided into 3 visual acuity groups.
・ To simulate blurred vision, a spetial filter was used that continuously attenuate high spacial frequency components similar to those used by Legge et al. (1985) and Nakano et al. (2006). Simulated visual acuities were 0.3logMAR(0.5), 0.5logMAR(0.3), and 0.7logMAR(0.2).・Standard MNREAD-J (the font is Ming) and the similar charts created in Gothic font or new UD.・Luninance on the charts was 132cd/m2 and average illuminance was 528lx.
・This experiment was performed in accordance with standard MNREAD-J testing.・Participant’ s task was to read aloud the text shown as quickly as possible without any errors.
Participants
Equipments
Procedures
Read
ing s
peed
(cha
ract
ers/
minu
te)
Character size (logMAR)
10
100
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
500
MingGothicNew UD
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Criti
cal p
rint s
ize (l
ogMA
R) MingGothicNew UD
*
*
*New UD < GothicMing < Gothic(*p<0.05)
logMAR(Decimal visual acuity)0.7(0.2) 0.5(0.3) 0.3(0.5)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Read
ing a
cuity
(log
MAR)
MingGothicNew UD
New UD < MingNew UD < Gothic(*p<0.05)
*
*
*
logMAR(Decimal visual acuity)0.7(0.2) 0.5(0.3) 0.3(0.5)
Maxim
um re
ading
spe
ed
(cha
ract
ers/
minu
te)
MingGothicNew UD
New UD > MingGothic > Ming(*p<0.05)50
100150200250300350400
* * *
logMAR(Decimal visual acuity)0.7(0.2) 0.5(0.3) 0.3(0.5)
The UD fonts had a higher readability than the Ming and Gothic typefaces did. In addition, results revealed that the new UD font devised in this study resulted in a smaller critical print size and better reading acuity than the other fonts did.
Fig1 MNREAD-J ChartFig2 Blured images of MNREAD-J
a) 0.3logMAR(0.5) b) 0.5logMAR(0.3) c) 0.7logMAR(0.2)
Fig4 Average Maximum Reading Speed (maximum speed of reading with the optimal print size) Fig3 Typical example of MNREAD-J.
Fig5 Average Critical Print Size (smallest print size at which the maximum reading speed could be main-
tained)
Fig6 Average Reading Acuity (smallest print size that was readable)
Related Documents
