2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.displa.2007.09.016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

ClearType sub-pixel text rendering: Preference, legibility and reading performance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
21
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
21
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Such studies have examined how typefaces impact word recognition in visually impaired children (Bessemans 2012), and how a typeface’s intrinsic design factors mediate the perception of type (Wang and Chen 2003; Vinot and Athenes 2012). Studies focusing on the issues surrounding screen reading, as it differs from reading on paper, have typically considered typeface as a secondary factor (Gould, Alfaro, Barnes, et al 1987; Gould, Alfaro, Finn, et al 1987; Sheedy et al 2005, 2008; Slattery and Rayner 2009), often in combination with examinations of font smoothing (anti-aliasing) algorithms (Gugerty et al 2004; Sheedy et al 2005, 2008). These studies often examine typefaces with obvious stylistic differences, such as between serif and sans-serif type or blackletter families (Rayner et al 2006; Moret-Tatay and Perea 2011; Perea, Moret-Tatay, and Gómez 2011; Sanocki and Dyson 2011), but comparisons of typefaces within the same stylistic family are relatively rare (though Gould et al’s early work does examine this, albeit as a secondary focus, as previously noted).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such studies have examined how typefaces impact word recognition in visually impaired children (Bessemans 2012), and how a typeface’s intrinsic design factors mediate the perception of type (Wang and Chen 2003; Vinot and Athenes 2012). Studies focusing on the issues surrounding screen reading, as it differs from reading on paper, have typically considered typeface as a secondary factor (Gould, Alfaro, Barnes, et al 1987; Gould, Alfaro, Finn, et al 1987; Sheedy et al 2005, 2008; Slattery and Rayner 2009), often in combination with examinations of font smoothing (anti-aliasing) algorithms (Gugerty et al 2004; Sheedy et al 2005, 2008). These studies often examine typefaces with obvious stylistic differences, such as between serif and sans-serif type or blackletter families (Rayner et al 2006; Moret-Tatay and Perea 2011; Perea, Moret-Tatay, and Gómez 2011; Sanocki and Dyson 2011), but comparisons of typefaces within the same stylistic family are relatively rare (though Gould et al’s early work does examine this, albeit as a secondary focus, as previously noted).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to address these issues in future experiments, trials with different fonts and the use of ClearType will be conducted. Sheedy et al [11] note that while the effects of ClearType font hinting is preferred by readers, there is no improvement in text legibility, reading speed or comfort with it turned on or off. Due to this, it is likely that future experiments will be conducted with it off in order to remove a confounding factor.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the same time, they emphasized the importance of how to obtain experimental data, which may significantly affect their results. Sheedy et al 29 conducted an experiment to test a few versions of ClearType, which was an onscreen text rendering technology, in terms of text legibility, reading performance, discomfort symptoms, and user preference. According to the results, ClearType did not improve user performance in text legibility and reading speed when compared to grayscale test.…”
Section: User Performance and Post-use Preferencementioning
confidence: 99%