Towards a standardisation of reading charts: Font effects on reading performance—Times New Roman with serifs versus the sans serif font Helvetica

Purpose The purpose was to compare systematically the legibility of a font without serifs (Helvetica) and one with serifs (Times New Roman). Methods Three paragraphs that were equal in the number of words, syllables, characters, difficulty and reading length were printed at equal size, with equal sp...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ophthalmic & physiological optics 2022-11, Vol.42 (6), p.1180-1186
Hauptverfasser: Daxer, Barbara, Radner, Wolfgang, Radner, Michael, Benesch, Thomas, Ettl, Armin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1186
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1180
container_title Ophthalmic & physiological optics
container_volume 42
creator Daxer, Barbara
Radner, Wolfgang
Radner, Michael
Benesch, Thomas
Ettl, Armin
description Purpose The purpose was to compare systematically the legibility of a font without serifs (Helvetica) and one with serifs (Times New Roman). Methods Three paragraphs that were equal in the number of words, syllables, characters, difficulty and reading length were printed at equal size, with equal spacing between the lines and equal layout (paperback style), in either the sans serif typeface Helvetica Neue T1 55 Roman (Adobe) or the serif typeface Times New Roman PS Roman (Adobe). They were also printed in newspaper format in the serif font. The paragraphs were presented in random order (Latin square design) to 36 participants between 18 and 38 years of age (wearing their best‐corrected visual acuity). Reading duration was measured with a stopwatch. Reading time, reading speed and the number of reading errors were compared. Results For the paperback layout, no significant difference in reading time (p = 0.50) or reading speed (p = 0.56) was found between the two fonts. The correlation between the two fonts was high for both reading time and speed (r = 0.93). The mean number of reading errors was the same (0.31 ± 0.58 errors/text) for both fonts. There was a significant difference in reading time and speed between the paperback and the newspaper layout. Conclusion The legibility of Helvetica and Times New Roman is similar when investigated under equivalent conditions. Thus, these two font types can be used as interchangeable standard typefaces.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/opo.13039
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9804255</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2722032315</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4439-6cda754064028ae1f7f29a4386242ec3afaaef36b0845d4f5bb5108a4b53040b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kcFu1DAQhi0EosvCgRdAlrjAYVvHdtYJh0qoohSpYhFaztbEGXddJfFiO7vqjXeAJ-RJ8JK2AiR88Wjm06cZ_YQ8L9hxkd-J3_rjQjBRPyCzQqpyUYhCPCQzxnNdSlYdkScxXjPGlFLVY3IkylpxJuSMfF_7PYQ2UqAxwdDm2kVIzg_UWxoQWjdcUbOBkOIbeu6HRNFaNCnSjNzNtxisDz0MBn9--7F2PUb6Eff0s889undpQyMGZyPdYYhjpGmDNMIQpza1B-8FdjtMzsBT8shCF_HZ7T8nX87frc8uFper9x_O3l4ujJSiXixNCypft5SMV4CFVZbXIEW15JKjEWAB0IplwypZttKWTVMWrALZlIJJ1og5OZ2827HpsTU4pACd3gbXQ7jRHpz-ezK4jb7yO11XTPKyzIJXt4Lgv44Yk-5dNNh1MKAfo-aK8VqpOkczJy__Qa_9GIZ8XqZ4zoKL4iB8PVEm-BgD2vtlCqYPUesctf4ddWZf_Ln9PXmXbQZOJmDvOrz5v0mvPq0m5S8opbbe</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2722032315</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Towards a standardisation of reading charts: Font effects on reading performance—Times New Roman with serifs versus the sans serif font Helvetica</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Daxer, Barbara ; Radner, Wolfgang ; Radner, Michael ; Benesch, Thomas ; Ettl, Armin</creator><creatorcontrib>Daxer, Barbara ; Radner, Wolfgang ; Radner, Michael ; Benesch, Thomas ; Ettl, Armin</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose The purpose was to compare systematically the legibility of a font without serifs (Helvetica) and one with serifs (Times New Roman). Methods Three paragraphs that were equal in the number of words, syllables, characters, difficulty and reading length were printed at equal size, with equal spacing between the lines and equal layout (paperback style), in either the sans serif typeface Helvetica Neue T1 55 Roman (Adobe) or the serif typeface Times New Roman PS Roman (Adobe). They were also printed in newspaper format in the serif font. The paragraphs were presented in random order (Latin square design) to 36 participants between 18 and 38 years of age (wearing their best‐corrected visual acuity). Reading duration was measured with a stopwatch. Reading time, reading speed and the number of reading errors were compared. Results For the paperback layout, no significant difference in reading time (p = 0.50) or reading speed (p = 0.56) was found between the two fonts. The correlation between the two fonts was high for both reading time and speed (r = 0.93). The mean number of reading errors was the same (0.31 ± 0.58 errors/text) for both fonts. There was a significant difference in reading time and speed between the paperback and the newspaper layout. Conclusion The legibility of Helvetica and Times New Roman is similar when investigated under equivalent conditions. Thus, these two font types can be used as interchangeable standard typefaces.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0275-5408</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1475-1313</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/opo.13039</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35972034</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Acuity ; Helvetica ; legibility of font types ; Original ; Reading ; reading performance ; reading speed ; Times New Roman</subject><ispartof>Ophthalmic &amp; physiological optics, 2022-11, Vol.42 (6), p.1180-1186</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors. published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists.</rights><rights>2022 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists.</rights><rights>2022. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4439-6cda754064028ae1f7f29a4386242ec3afaaef36b0845d4f5bb5108a4b53040b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4439-6cda754064028ae1f7f29a4386242ec3afaaef36b0845d4f5bb5108a4b53040b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1014-4377</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fopo.13039$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fopo.13039$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35972034$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Daxer, Barbara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Radner, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Radner, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benesch, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ettl, Armin</creatorcontrib><title>Towards a standardisation of reading charts: Font effects on reading performance—Times New Roman with serifs versus the sans serif font Helvetica</title><title>Ophthalmic &amp; physiological optics</title><addtitle>Ophthalmic Physiol Opt</addtitle><description>Purpose The purpose was to compare systematically the legibility of a font without serifs (Helvetica) and one with serifs (Times New Roman). Methods Three paragraphs that were equal in the number of words, syllables, characters, difficulty and reading length were printed at equal size, with equal spacing between the lines and equal layout (paperback style), in either the sans serif typeface Helvetica Neue T1 55 Roman (Adobe) or the serif typeface Times New Roman PS Roman (Adobe). They were also printed in newspaper format in the serif font. The paragraphs were presented in random order (Latin square design) to 36 participants between 18 and 38 years of age (wearing their best‐corrected visual acuity). Reading duration was measured with a stopwatch. Reading time, reading speed and the number of reading errors were compared. Results For the paperback layout, no significant difference in reading time (p = 0.50) or reading speed (p = 0.56) was found between the two fonts. The correlation between the two fonts was high for both reading time and speed (r = 0.93). The mean number of reading errors was the same (0.31 ± 0.58 errors/text) for both fonts. There was a significant difference in reading time and speed between the paperback and the newspaper layout. Conclusion The legibility of Helvetica and Times New Roman is similar when investigated under equivalent conditions. Thus, these two font types can be used as interchangeable standard typefaces.</description><subject>Acuity</subject><subject>Helvetica</subject><subject>legibility of font types</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Reading</subject><subject>reading performance</subject><subject>reading speed</subject><subject>Times New Roman</subject><issn>0275-5408</issn><issn>1475-1313</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kcFu1DAQhi0EosvCgRdAlrjAYVvHdtYJh0qoohSpYhFaztbEGXddJfFiO7vqjXeAJ-RJ8JK2AiR88Wjm06cZ_YQ8L9hxkd-J3_rjQjBRPyCzQqpyUYhCPCQzxnNdSlYdkScxXjPGlFLVY3IkylpxJuSMfF_7PYQ2UqAxwdDm2kVIzg_UWxoQWjdcUbOBkOIbeu6HRNFaNCnSjNzNtxisDz0MBn9--7F2PUb6Eff0s889undpQyMGZyPdYYhjpGmDNMIQpza1B-8FdjtMzsBT8shCF_HZ7T8nX87frc8uFper9x_O3l4ujJSiXixNCypft5SMV4CFVZbXIEW15JKjEWAB0IplwypZttKWTVMWrALZlIJJ1og5OZ2827HpsTU4pACd3gbXQ7jRHpz-ezK4jb7yO11XTPKyzIJXt4Lgv44Yk-5dNNh1MKAfo-aK8VqpOkczJy__Qa_9GIZ8XqZ4zoKL4iB8PVEm-BgD2vtlCqYPUesctf4ddWZf_Ln9PXmXbQZOJmDvOrz5v0mvPq0m5S8opbbe</recordid><startdate>202211</startdate><enddate>202211</enddate><creator>Daxer, Barbara</creator><creator>Radner, Wolfgang</creator><creator>Radner, Michael</creator><creator>Benesch, Thomas</creator><creator>Ettl, Armin</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1014-4377</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202211</creationdate><title>Towards a standardisation of reading charts: Font effects on reading performance—Times New Roman with serifs versus the sans serif font Helvetica</title><author>Daxer, Barbara ; Radner, Wolfgang ; Radner, Michael ; Benesch, Thomas ; Ettl, Armin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4439-6cda754064028ae1f7f29a4386242ec3afaaef36b0845d4f5bb5108a4b53040b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Acuity</topic><topic>Helvetica</topic><topic>legibility of font types</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Reading</topic><topic>reading performance</topic><topic>reading speed</topic><topic>Times New Roman</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Daxer, Barbara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Radner, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Radner, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benesch, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ettl, Armin</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Free Content</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Ophthalmic &amp; physiological optics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Daxer, Barbara</au><au>Radner, Wolfgang</au><au>Radner, Michael</au><au>Benesch, Thomas</au><au>Ettl, Armin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Towards a standardisation of reading charts: Font effects on reading performance—Times New Roman with serifs versus the sans serif font Helvetica</atitle><jtitle>Ophthalmic &amp; physiological optics</jtitle><addtitle>Ophthalmic Physiol Opt</addtitle><date>2022-11</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1180</spage><epage>1186</epage><pages>1180-1186</pages><issn>0275-5408</issn><eissn>1475-1313</eissn><abstract>Purpose The purpose was to compare systematically the legibility of a font without serifs (Helvetica) and one with serifs (Times New Roman). Methods Three paragraphs that were equal in the number of words, syllables, characters, difficulty and reading length were printed at equal size, with equal spacing between the lines and equal layout (paperback style), in either the sans serif typeface Helvetica Neue T1 55 Roman (Adobe) or the serif typeface Times New Roman PS Roman (Adobe). They were also printed in newspaper format in the serif font. The paragraphs were presented in random order (Latin square design) to 36 participants between 18 and 38 years of age (wearing their best‐corrected visual acuity). Reading duration was measured with a stopwatch. Reading time, reading speed and the number of reading errors were compared. Results For the paperback layout, no significant difference in reading time (p = 0.50) or reading speed (p = 0.56) was found between the two fonts. The correlation between the two fonts was high for both reading time and speed (r = 0.93). The mean number of reading errors was the same (0.31 ± 0.58 errors/text) for both fonts. There was a significant difference in reading time and speed between the paperback and the newspaper layout. Conclusion The legibility of Helvetica and Times New Roman is similar when investigated under equivalent conditions. Thus, these two font types can be used as interchangeable standard typefaces.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>35972034</pmid><doi>10.1111/opo.13039</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1014-4377</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0275-5408
ispartof Ophthalmic & physiological optics, 2022-11, Vol.42 (6), p.1180-1186
issn 0275-5408
1475-1313
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9804255
source Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Acuity
Helvetica
legibility of font types
Original
Reading
reading performance
reading speed
Times New Roman
title Towards a standardisation of reading charts: Font effects on reading performance—Times New Roman with serifs versus the sans serif font Helvetica
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T19%3A59%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Towards%20a%20standardisation%20of%20reading%20charts:%20Font%20effects%20on%20reading%20performance%E2%80%94Times%20New%20Roman%20with%20serifs%20versus%20the%20sans%20serif%20font%20Helvetica&rft.jtitle=Ophthalmic%20&%20physiological%20optics&rft.au=Daxer,%20Barbara&rft.date=2022-11&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1180&rft.epage=1186&rft.pages=1180-1186&rft.issn=0275-5408&rft.eissn=1475-1313&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/opo.13039&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2722032315%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2722032315&rft_id=info:pmid/35972034&rfr_iscdi=true