Design improvements for frequently misrecognized letters

Information Design Journal

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 118-137

  Beier, Sofie ^a   Larson, Kevin ^b  

^a Kunstakademiets Arkitektskole   (Denmark)

^b MICROSOFT   (United States)

Author keywords

Experimental study; Fonts; Legibility; Lower case letters; Typeface design; Typographic research; Visibility

Indexed keywords

EID: 78049369902     PISSN: 01425471     EISSN: 1569979X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/idj.18.2.03bei     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bouma, H. (1971). Visual recognition of isolated lower-case letters. Vision Research, 11, 459-474
2. Chaparro, B. S., Shaikh, A. D., & Chaparro (2006). Examining the legibility of two new clearType fonts [online]. Usability News, 8(1), available from http://www.surl.org [Accessed 22 October 2008].
3. Fox, D., Chaparro, B.S., & Merkle, E. (2007). Examining legibility of the letter "e" and number "0" using classification tree analysis [online]. Usability News, 9(2), available from http://www.surl.org [Accessed 22 October 2008].
4. Garvey, P.M., Pietrucha, M.T., & Meeker, D. (1997). Effects of font and capitalization on legibility of guide signs. Transportation Research Record, 1605, 73-79.
5. Geyer, L. H. (1977). Recognition and confusion of the lowercase alphabet. Perception & Psychophysics, 22(5), 487-490
6. Harris, J. (1973). Confusions in letter recognition. Professional Printer, 17(2), 29-34.
7. Larson, K. (2005). The science of word recognition. Typo, vol.13, (pp. 2-11).
8. Legros, L.A., & Grant, J.C. (1916). Typographical printing surfaces: the technology and mechanism of their production. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
9. Lonsdale, M.D.S. (2007). Does typographic design of examination materials affect performance? Information Design Journal, 15(2), 114-139.
10. McClelland, J.L., & Johnston, J.C. (1977). 'The role of familiar units in perception of words and nonwords'. Perception & Psychophysics, 22(3), 249-261.
11. McClelland, J.L., & Rumelhart, D.E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1. an account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88(5), 375-407.
12. Ovink, G. W. (1938). Legibility, atmosphere-value, and forms of printing types. Leiden.
13. Paap, K.R., & Noel, R.W. (1991). Dual-route models of print and sound: still a good horse race. Psychological Research, 53, 13-24.
14. Pelli, D.G., & Tillman, K.A. (2007). 'Parts, wholes, and context in reading: a triple dissociation' [online]. PLoS ONE 2(8): e680, New York University. Available from: http://psych.nyu.edu/pelli [Accessed 16. November 2008].
15. Pyke, R. L. (1926). Report on the Legibility of Print. Medical Research Council, London: His Majesty's Stationery Office.
16. Rayner, K. (1978). Foveal and parafoveal cues in reading. In J. Requin (ed), Attention and performance VII. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Rayner, K. & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The Psychology of Reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall International.
18. Rayner, K., McConkie, G.W., & Ehrlich, S. (1978). Eye movements and integrating information across fixations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 529-544
19. Rumelhart, D.E., & McClelland, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychology Review, 89(1), 60-94.
20. Sasson, R. (2001). 'Through the eyes of a child: perception and type design'. in: D. Jury, (ed), Typographic Writing, ISTD.
21. Sheedy, J.E., Subbaram, M.V., Zimmerman, A.B., Hayes, J.R. (2005). Text legibility and the letter superiority effect. Human Factors, 47, 797-815.
22. Tinker, M.A. (1964). Legibility of print. U.S.A.: Iowa State University Press.
23. Tracy, W. (1986). Letters of credit: a view of type design. Boston: David R. Godine.
24. Waller R. (2007). Comparing typefaces for airport signs. Information Design Journal, 15(1), 1-15.