JVIB Abstract

If you are a JVIB subscriber, please log in below. If you are an AER member, JVIB is part of your membership benefit: please follow this link to AER's website to access JVIB.

Not yet a subscriber? Here are some options:
Subscribe for $45.
Purchase this individual article for $7.95.

Prefer not to subscribe?
Go here to read FREE JVIB content or go here to see what JVIB has to offer.

The Legibility of Typefaces for Readers with Low Vision: A Research Review

Abstract: Abstract: 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.

There are 4 comments on this article.

• 
  1. Comment posted by gfmueden on 6/6/2010 4:28:28 PM
  
  This subject has held my attention for about three years and my search for minimum standards has failed. This review concludes "that there is a need to develop standards and guidelines that are informed by evidence." OK, let's get some evidence. I have been given scholarly reasons why this is impossibe to do, most of them having to do with defining the population to be tested and defining the test. Here is my proposal:
  -------
  Self Test Near Vision Eye Chart, testing the effect of contrast sensitivity as well as visual acuity and testing both reading ability and legibility with the same chart.
  --------
  I would first test the employed and use the employers to distribute the test. We are pretty sure that any standard that is OK for the employed will be OK for youth. We can br pretty sure that any standard unacceptable to the employed will be unacceptable to the retired. So we start with the employed and, if need be, we can do the others later.
  
  Defining the test is easy for the layman but hard for the academics to swallow. The test would be done with real printed samples that arrive in the mail, all combinations of font style, size, color, and contrast, about a hundred of them, perhaps more.
  
  Let the user [subject?] do it at his desk or where he generally does most of his reading (even onthe train), under his normal light (what ever it is), and with glasses if he reads with them. Let him indicate which of all the samples give him trouble.
  
  If we can get a few thousand of these analyzed we should be able to publish the same sheet with the Legibility Grade for each sample, the percent of those tested that did not reject it. We would end up with a very good idea of the distribution of (1) the ability to read printed material ("readability"?) in the population tested and (2) a means of grading the Legibility of printed material. We would then have the evidence needed for setting minimum standards of legibility that includes both acuity and contrast sensitivity (without having measured either one).
  
  That same sheet, with the Legibility Grade for each sample given, could serve as a standard against which other printing could be compared.
  The publisher would see by comparison with the graded samples what percent of the population his work would satisfy.
  
  It would also give a better basis for determining legal blindness for reading purposes. At present it is just based on acuity using high contrast test cards.
  
  I see this as a starting point. It could start it with a thousand subjects and be published for the research community to work on and improve. The first effort will be good enough to provide a useful catalog of graded examples against which other printing could be compared and graded. Not perfect, of course, but far, far better than what we have now and a stepping stone to a much better system that will measure eyes and prin
  
• 
  2. Comment posted by gfmueden on 6/6/2010 4:51:53 PM
  
  This subject has held my attention for about three years and my search for minimum standards has failed. This review concludes "that there is a need to develop standards and guidelines that are informed by evidence." OK, let's get some evidence. I have been given scholarly reasons why this is impossibe to do, most of them having to do with defining the population to be tested and defining the test. Here is my proposal:
  -------
  Self Test Near Vision Eye Chart, testing the effect of contrast sensitivity as well as visual acuity and testing both reading ability and legibility with the same chart.
  --------
  I would first test the employed and use the employers to distribute the test. We are pretty sure that any standard that is OK for the employed will be OK for youth. We can br pretty sure that any standard unacceptable to the employed will be unacceptable to the retired. So we start with the employed and, if need be, we can do the others later.
  
  Defining the test is easy for the layman but hard for the academics to swallow. The test would be done with real printed samples that arrive in the mail, all combinations of font style, size, color, and contrast, about a hundred of them, perhaps more.
  
  Let the user [subject?] do it at his desk or where he generally does most of his reading (even onthe train), under his normal light (what ever it is), and with glasses if he reads with them. Let him indicate which of all the samples give him trouble.
  
  If we can get a few thousand of these analyzed we should be able to publish the same sheet with the Legibility Grade for each sample, the percent of those tested that did not reject it. We would end up with a very good idea of the distribution of (1) the ability to read printed material ("readability"?) in the population tested and (2) a means of grading the Legibility of printed material. We would then have the evidence needed for setting minimum standards of legibility that includes both acuity and contrast sensitivity (without having measured either one).
  
  That same sheet, with the Legibility Grade for each sample given, could serve as a standard against which other printing could be compared.
  The publisher would see by comparison with the graded samples what percent of the population his work would satisfy.
  
  It would also give a better basis for determining legal blindness for reading purposes. At present it is just based on acuity using high contrast test cards.
  
  I see this as a starting point. It could start it with a thousand subjects and be published for the research community to work on and improve. The first effort will be good enough to provide a useful catalog of graded examples against which other printing could be compared and graded. Not perfect, of course, but far, far better than what we have now and a stepping stone to a much better system that will measure eyes and prin
  
• 
  3. Comment posted by gfmueden on 6/7/2010 8:27:21 AM
  
  NB.: Comments are limited in size so this one will be posted in two parts.
  -----
  This subject has held my attention for about three years and my search for minimum standards has failed. This review concludes "that there is a need to develop standards and guidelines that are informed by evidence." OK, let's get some evidence. I have been given scholarly reasons why this is impossibe to do, most of them having to do with defining the population to be tested and defining the test. Here is my proposal:
  -------
  Self Test Near Vision Eye Chart, testing the effect of contrast sensitivity as well as visual acuity and testing both reading ability and legibility with the same chart.
  --------
  I would first test the employed and use the employers to distribute the test. We are pretty sure that any standard that is OK for the employed will be OK for youth. We can br pretty sure that any standard unacceptable to the employed will be unacceptable to the retired. So we start with the employed and, if need be, we can do the others later.
  
  Defining the test is easy for the layman but hard for the academics to swallow. The test would be done with real printed samples that arrive in the mail, all combinations of font style, size, color, and contrast, about a hundred of them, perhaps more.
  
  Let the user [subject?] do it at his desk or where he generally does most of his reading (even onthe train), under his normal light (what ever it is), and with glasses if he reads with them. Let him indicate which of all the samples give him trouble.
  
  If we can get a few thousand of these analyzed we should be able to publish the same sheet with the Legibility Grade for each sample, the percent of those tested that did not reject it. We would end up with a very good idea of the distribution of (1) the ability to read printed material ("readability"?) in the population tested and (2) a means of grading the Legibility of printed material. We would then have the evidence needed for setting minimum standards of legibility that includes both acuity and contrast sensitivity (without having measured either one).
  ----- Please continue reading in the nextComment ----
  
• 
  4. Comment posted by gfmueden on 6/7/2010 8:29:07 AM
  
  (Continued from the previous comment)
  --------
  That same sheet, with the Legibility Grade for each sample given, could serve as a standard against which other printing could be compared.
  The publisher would see by comparison with the graded samples what percent of the population his work would satisfy.
  
  It would also give a better basis for determining legal blindness for reading purposes. At present it is just based on acuity using high contrast test cards.
  
  I see this as a starting point. It could start it with a thousand subjects and be published for the research community to work on and improve. The first effort will be good enough to provide a useful catalog of graded examples against which other printing could be compared and graded. Not perfect, of course, but far, far better than what we have now and a stepping stone to a much better system that will measure eyes and printing on the same scale.
  
  Lets talk about it. Who should participate? Who studies legibility? Who produces printed material? Who reads it? Who studies eyes? Low vision clinics (Lighthouse Int'l?), publishers (McGraw Hill?), organizations (Lions?), government (Education? SEC? ), health(NEI?, law (DOJ?), advertisers, etc. With no data we cant establish a minimum standard of legibility. Lets get the data. This could be a start.
  
  gfmueden@verizon.net ===gm===