Comparing Font Legibility

November 18, 2005

If you're not reading the Wichita State Software Usability Research Laboratory newsletter regularly, you should be. It's an amazing source of usability experiments with actual data, hypotheses, citations, statistics, and all that other stuff that puts the science back into computer science.

A 2001 SURL experiment compared the legibility of twelve common web fonts on a then-typical 17" monitor running at a resolution of 1024x768. And before you read any further, you should first view the font samples.

Examining the mean reading time for each font type irrespective of their accuracy, we found significant differences. The reading time difference between [Corsiva and Tahoma] was 40 seconds for approximately two pages of text. This finding of a relatively small difference in reading speed between these fonts has been consistent with our previous studies.

font legibility results graph

I'm surprised that they consider a difference of 40 seconds -- that's 13 percent of the total reading time of ~310 seconds -- "relatively small". A 13 percent difference in reading time between the pseudo-calligraphic, completely inappropriate Corsiva and Tahoma isn't terribly surprising.

But here's what is: Courier -- the only monospace font in the experiment -- was the second worst font for reading time. Courier barely performed any better than the abhorrent Corsiva! Any connection between reading paragraphs in a browser and reading code in an IDE is unclear, but it certainly doesn't bode well for the use of monospace fonts in general.

In the end, the reading speed differences between the various fonts may not be large enough to be significant. At least not for the type of reading most people do on the computer:

.. the different reading speeds associated with various font types may not be of any real consequence for short online passages -- as long as the fonts are within the conventional font size and type range.

Before worrying about fonts, be sure you aren't presenting giant blocks of text to the user in the first place. Well-designed web pages avoid using large blocks of text, and so should your code.

Posted by Jeff Atwood
16 Comments

Is there no feed for this site?

Hermann Klinke on November 20, 2005 1:16 AM

I mean for the Wichita State Software Usability Research Laboratory site.

Hermann Klinke on November 20, 2005 3:50 AM

No way. That's my alma mater. Go Shockers.

I wonder how much the color of the background influences how easy a font is to read?

Scott on November 20, 2005 5:37 AM

Ugh, without anti-aliasing they *all* look really horrible. I wonder if decent AA would have altered the results at all.

Interesting stuff.

Stephen on November 20, 2005 6:30 AM

I wonder if they every looked at graph comprehension, specifically the order in which things are presented. That graph isn't ordered any way that I can see, but it would be so much easier to work out if it was ranked by time. I note the cheaty way the bulk of the graph is left off, which magnifies the apparent differences between results.

In terms of font choices, what would be more useful is to include comprehension for english text, and use a "find the trivial bug" in code. I suspect that would show up the difference between monospaced and proprotional fonts really fast. I suggest debugging because that's mostly what programmers do, so it's the task to test on (it's also important :)

Moz on November 20, 2005 7:04 AM

I wonder if they every looked at graph comprehension, specifically the order in which things are presented.

Good point. It's not in score order, nor is it in font name order.

Always avoid RANDOM order. Geez.

Jeff Atwood on November 20, 2005 11:17 AM

Another issue with the graph: no units. I had to visit the link and read the caption of the graph to find out what units it was in. It may have been obvious to others, but I'd rather not have to do any assuming.

nomad on November 21, 2005 2:09 AM

It is interresting to note that Microsoft declared Tahoma to be the font of choice since Windows 2000. I wonder if they came to this conclusion through usability surveys of their own.

matt on November 21, 2005 9:36 AM

The fonts are listed in alphabetical order grouped by family. If you look at the list in the article, you can see the order reading from left to right in Table 1.

So it's not completely random, just not labeled well.

Scott on November 21, 2005 11:38 AM

Plus, they are listed the same way on every graph. So you don't have to hunt around to find out where Tahoma is.

Scott on November 21, 2005 11:39 AM

It's hard for me to take advice from Jakob Nielsen, who wrote the article on text block size. His page is just so ugly that I can't take him seriously. I know he has a reputation as a usability expert, but I don't care. I guess I'm still a kid--I want what I read to have pretty pictures.

-Paul- on November 22, 2005 2:55 AM

I wonder how much the color of the background influences how easy a font is to read?

For some people it makes a huge difference. I have a friend who reads 3+ times faster with black on blue rather than black on white.

I find Comic Sans MS to be quite a comfortable font to read, how did it end up taking longer than Agency?

zooba on November 22, 2005 3:28 AM

I'd love to have a utility that takes proportional fonts and generates monospace fonts from them, so I could use fonts like Tahoma in my development environment.

I have a hard time finding monospace fonts that I actually like because many of them look clunky or have too much whitespace around each letter, especially between lines.

Eric K. on November 22, 2005 9:20 AM

I've just gone through a pretty long personal trial of different programming fonts. I've been using a really old OEM but very readable font for a long time, but decided to test out some other candidates. For what it's worth, in the end, I found the new Microsoft Consolas monospaced font to be the best. It's as readable as my favorite proportianal font Verdana, but fixed pitch so you can use it for development.

Wade Hatler on November 27, 2005 2:15 AM

found the new Microsoft Consolas monospaced font to be the best

Only if you're using ClearType, though:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000356.html

Jeff Atwood on November 28, 2005 1:28 AM

After reading reading about how staleness isn't a problem in the previous article, in this article the 3rd and 4th links are 404s.

Oh the irony.

eric on July 14, 2008 6:52 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.