This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]

On: 08 January 2015, At: 02:08

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Visual Communication Quarterly

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hvcq20

Keeping Your Readers' Eyes on the Screen: An

Eye-Tracking Study Comparing Sans Serif and Serif
Typefaces
a
Sheree Josephson
a
Weber State University , Ogden, Utah
Published online: 20 Jan 2011.

To cite this article: Sheree Josephson (2008) Keeping Your Readers' Eyes on the Screen: An Eye-Tracking Study Comparing Sans
Serif and Serif Typefaces, Visual Communication Quarterly, 15:1-2, 67-79, DOI: 10.1080/15551390801914595

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15551390801914595

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
HVCQ_A_291625.qxp 3/26/08 7:12 PM Page 67

Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 02:08 08 January 2015

Keeping your readers’ eyes on the screen:

An eye-tracking study
comparing sans serif
and serif typefaces

An exploratory eye-tracking study was designed to compare the onscreen

legibility of sans serif and serif typefaces. The typefaces selected for this
study included the serif font Times New Roman and the sans serif font
Arial—both originally designed for printing on paper—and the serif font
Georgia and the sans serif font Verdana—both designed in recent years
especially for reading onscreen. Six participants read four short news stories,
each displayed in a different typeface, while their eye-movement behavior
was recorded. Overall, Verdana performed best. Participants were able
to read more quickly and experienced fewer regressions (backward
movements) when the type was set in Verdana. They also expressed
a strong preference for this font on the computer screen.

By Sheree Josephson

Pages 67–79 67 Visual Communication Quarterly

HVCQ_A_291625.qxp 3/26/08 7:12 PM Page 68
T
o do the research for this article, I
printed out numerous articles about
onscreen typography so that I could read
them off screen. Since I located these
articles in electronic databases, I could have easily
read them on my computer screen, but I definitely
prefer to read long, scholarly, and trade journal arti-
cles on paper. Yes, this practice wastes ink and
paper (even though I print on the back of previously
used paper), but it saves me from considerable
eyestrain and nasty headaches. I print and will
likely continue to print because the quality of com-
puter text is often terrible.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 02:08 08 January 2015
The biggest problem is the low resolution of com-
puter screens. Color LCD screens on most desktops
and laptops today have a resolution of only about
100 pixels per inch. Kevin Larson (2007, p. 27),
who is a member of Microsoft’s Advanced Reading
Technologies group, points out, “You need at least
two or three times that many pixels to begin to
approach the quality of the printed page.” Screen
resolution has not improved in the last few years,
Larson says, because you’d need a lot more com-
putational power to make a difference you could
see on the screen. To move from 100 pixels per
inch to 200 ppi means your computer would have
four times as many pixels to fill, and that would
probably bog down your graphics processor or
quickly drain the battery of your laptop. Plus, he
says, there are costs. Denser screens would be
more expensive, and the higher pixel densities
would increase the chances of dead pixels from
manufacturing.
The low resolution of computer screens is espe-
cially problematic for fonts with serifs, those fine
cross-lines at the extremities of letters. Serif fonts
render poorly onscreen at small sizes because low-
resolution screens cannot handle the subtle details
of the type. Serif fonts are also likely to have differ-
ences in stroke widths—another challenge for
computer screens with low resolution. Sans serif
fonts render more cleanly onscreen since they have
less fine detail. They are also likely to have more
uniform stroke widths.
Displaying fonts on a computer screen—whether
serif or sans serif—is not easy or straightforward.
It requires that each letter be created with a unique
Visual Communication Quarterly
bitmap—essentially a bunch of rows and columns
of pixels that are either on or off. A digital font
consists of thousands of these bitmaps—for every
letter, number, and symbol and for every point
size, style, and resolution (Larson, 2007). For a
bitmapped letter, the minimum stroke width is one
pixel, while the next possible stroke is double that
or two pixels wide. Especially in smaller size fonts
(such as those used for body copy), there is little
room for nuance. The open space in some letters
can fill in and important pixels can be deleted alto-
gether. In larger sized fonts, jagged edges are
apparent on the enlarged type. Bold-facing or itali-
cized type compounds the problems—especially
when the type contains serifs. Bold-faced serifs
often run together, while the slanted letters in itali-
cized type for both serif and sans serif type often
become especially jagged.
To deal with the jagged edges, font developers
learned how to add slightly lighter squares at the
edges of curves and diagonals, a technique known
as antialiasing. Viewed close up, the lines actually
appear a little blurry, but at a normal reading dis-
tance, the shaded pixels trick the eye into seeing
what it thinks should be there: smooth continuous
lines (Larson, 2007, p. 30).
Forming computer fonts today has become a little
more streamlined. Rather than forming individual
bitmaps for every letter, number, and symbol and
for every point size, style, and resolution, the font
software running on your microprocessor relies on
scalable outlines of each letter. To display a letter
onscreen, the font software forms the letter outline,
automatically scales it up or down to the desired
size, and then creates a bitmap on the fly.
Apple and Adobe are focusing their efforts on mak-
ing the onscreen text as faithful to the printed output
as possible by performing antialiasing on the letter
outline, with slight stem-weight adjustments
(Larson, 2007). Larson says, “The result is that
when you look at a page of text onscreen, the text
will have a very smooth, even appearance, much
like the printed page.” But he says, “The tradeoff
is that the individual letters are less crisp and there-
fore more difficult to read onscreen” (p. 30).
Microsoft, on the other hand, is hinting letters,
which slightly adjusts the letter’s shape. The result-
68 Volume 15 January–June 2008
HVCQ_A_291625.qxp 3/26/08 7:12 PM Page 69
ing bitmap is even and crisp, although it is slightly
distorted, which can impact onscreen legibility.
Despite the significant advances that have been
made in making type more readable onscreen, it
is still not possible to make type as easy to read
on a computer screen as it is on the printed page
because of the issues created by low resolution.
Some typography experts have decided it is
better to start from scratch and design type fonts
especially for reading onscreen. In 1985, Charles
Bigelow and Kris Holmes designed the Lucida fam-
ily of type—a sans serif font—paying particular
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 02:08 08 January 2015
attention to its legibility, especially at low resolu-
tion. Verdana, released in 1996 and designed
by Matthew Carter, was the first typeface that
Microsoft created especially for use on computers
(Larson, 2007). This sans serif typeface “designed
to be readable at small sizes ...has many features
to enhance legibility on screen: lowercase letters
that are proportionately tall compared to uppercase
letters, stroke widths that are not too thin, and
generous spacing both inside the letter and
between letters. Well over 90 percent of Windows
and Macintosh computers now have Verdana
installed on them, making it one of the most widely
available typefaces in the computer world” (p. 28).
Trebuchet is another sans serif typeface designed
at Microsoft. It is meant to mimic handwriting and
is informal and friendly. Also released in 1996, it
was designed by Vincent Connare.
Serif fonts have also been created specifically
for reading onscreen. Carter designed the Georgia
font for Microsoft in 1993, 3 years before he
worked on Verdana. Georgia was designed as a
more readable alternative to Times Roman and
featured a relatively large x-height. Georgia’s serifs
are slightly wider with blunter, flatter ends but is
otherwise indistinguishable from Times Roman for
many typography novices. For the 2007 launch of
Microsoft’s Windows Vista, its typography group
wanted to include several new screen-friendly
typefaces, so it staged a competition. Of the 26
submissions from the world’s top type designers
(Larson, 2007), six Western fonts were selected.
The results were two serif faces called Cambria
and Constantia; two sans serif faces called Calibri
and Corbel; a flared-serif face, Candara; and a
monospaced face for programmers, Consolas.
Pages 67–79
These six fonts began shipping with the new oper-
ating system in 2007.
Despite the fact that both serif and sans serif type-
faces have been created especially for reading on a
computer screen, the common wisdom on the Web
is that the sans serif type is still more legible than
serif type. An article featured on Webcast1.com
(2007) rates the “readability on screen” of the sans
serif font Verdana as “exceptional,” saying “its
wide body makes it the clearest font for onscreen
reading even at small sizes.” Trebuchet is said to
be “difficult to read in small sizes.” In comparison,
the readability onscreen of the serif font Georgia is
listed as “very good.” Webcast1.com also tested
two popular long-time fonts—the serif type Times
New Roman and the sans serif type Arial. Times
New Roman was said to be “acceptable” onscreen
for type 12 point and above, but “terrible for
smaller sizes.” Arial’s readability onscreen was
“not the worst or the best, especially at small sizes
when it becomes too narrow and the spacing
between characters becomes or is too small.” For
reading onscreen, Webcast1 says Verdana is the
“clear winner.”
Sara Quinn (2005) of the Poynter Institute explains
why Verdana, Georgia, and Trebuchet work well
onscreen. She says they work because “(1) their
lowercase characters are slightly larger than the
average typeface. This larger ‘x-height’ makes the
character look bigger overall. The open spaces are
slightly larger than average, so they don’t seem
to ‘fill in’; (2) to limit jagged edges the curves are
reduced to a minimum in the open spaces of the
letters; (3) the letters are spaced further apart, in
a more regular way, so they don’t seem to touch;
(4) some combinations of letters that might bump
or overlap, like ‘ft,’ and ‘fl,’ are specifically drawn
so that they have extra space between them;
(5) Verdana, Georgia, and Trebuchet are installed
both on Windows and Apple operating systems,
making them universally available for use on any
web page. Some people call these ‘web-safe’
fonts, because most users have them.”
Numerous scholars and typographers have studied
the legibility and/or readability of type onscreen.
Legibility is generally defined as the ability to discern
characters and words, while readability is the
69 Visual Communication Quarterly
HVCQ_A_291625.qxp 3/26/08 7:12 PM Page 70
ease of reading and understanding the material
(Tinker, 1963).
In a study of the “readability” of fonts and sizes
in the Microsoft Windows environment, Tullis,
Boynton, and Hersh (1995) examined the reading
rates for Arial, MS Sans Serif, MS Serif, and Small
Fonts in sizes ranging from 6.0 to 9.75 points. They
found no difference in reading speed between the
serif and sans serif fonts; however, they found a
greater preference for the sans serif font compared
to the serif font. They also found that the larger
9- and 10-point fonts elicited faster reading times.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 02:08 08 January 2015
Geske (1996) tested the legibility of Helvetica type
in three different sizes and in three different faces.
He found no significant differences for legibility of
9-, 10-, and 12-point type in the normal face. He
found that Helvetica Bold significantly increases
the legibility in most cases and does not decrease
the legibility. Geske also found that Helvetica italics
were illegible and recommended avoiding them or
at least using “extreme” caution.
A study by Boyarski, Neuwirth, Forlizzi, and Regli
(1998) evaluated the reading speed of participants
using the serif Georgia, the serif Times Roman,
and the sans serif Verdana fonts. Georgia per-
formed well compared to Times Roman, indicating
that this font, designed for computer screen
design, is perceived by readers to facilitate the
ease of reading online. A comparison of Verdana,
a sans serif font designed for screen display with
Georgia, produced mixed results. In tests of aliased
v. anti-aliased fonts, they found no performance dif-
ferences in reading speed. In these tests, all text
was displayed at 16 points since a character must
be at least 14 points for the anti-aliasing to show.
Bernard, Mills, Peterson, and Storrer (2001b)
tested a range of 12 fonts—sans serif, serif, and
ornate styles—for effective reading speed in con-
junction with accuracy. They also asked partici-
pants about their perception of font legibility. Differ-
ences were found for reading time with Tahoma, a
sans serif font, being read significantly faster than
Corsiva, an ornate font. Perceived font legibility
also showed significant differences across the 12
fonts with sans serif fonts being more legible than
the ornate fonts. A later study by Bernard, Lida,
Visual Communication Quarterly
Riley, Hackler, and Janzen (2002) compared four
sans serif fonts—Arial, Comic, Tahoma, and
Verdana—and four serif fonts—Courier New,
Georgia, Century School Book, and Times New
Roman—at 10-, 12-, and 14-point sizes. No signifi-
cant differences in reading efficiency (reading
time/accuracy) were detected between the font
types at any size. There were, however, significant
differences in reading time irrespective of accu-
racy. The two fonts used widely in print—Times
New Roman and Arial—were the fonts read most
quickly onscreen possibly due to the participants’
familiarity with these typefaces. In terms of size,
12-point type was read faster than 10-point type.
The most legible typefaces included Arial, Courier,
and Georgia, indicating that participants did not
distinguish between serif and sans serif in terms of
legibility. However, the most attractive fonts were
Georgia and Times, both serif type faces. Verdana,
a serif font designed specifically for onscreen
reading, was the most preferred font choice. The
researchers conclude that Verdana is the best
choice for onscreen type because it was the
most preferred. It was read fairly quickly and it
was perceived as being legible.
Wilson (2001) conducted several surveys to ask
1500 respondents their preference of serif and sans
serif typefaces. First, he compared 12-point Times
New Roman with 12-point Arial, the default for
many web browsers at the time. By a 2-to-1 mar-
gin, respondents rated the sans serif font more
readable than the serif font. In the second survey,
12-point Times New Roman was compared with
12-point Georgia, the serif typeface developed by
Microsoft specifically for screen readability.
Wilson’s results found that Georgia was substan-
tially more readable than Times New Roman. Next
he compared Verdana, the sans serif font developed
by Microsoft, and Arial. Wilson’s results showed
more respondents preferred Arial at 12 point and
Verdana at 10 point because 12-point Verdana is
perceived as too large for body text. Overall, his
results show readers prefer sans serif fonts to
serif fonts for body text on screen.
Morrison and Noyes (2003) found that the read-
ing time for serif font Times New Roman was
faster than for the ornate sans serif font Gigi.
Comprehension was also better for Times New
70 Volume 15 January–June 2008
HVCQ_A_291625.qxp 3/26/08 7:12 PM Page 71
Roman as was preference for web use. However,
Gigi was rated as being more attractive by
80 percent of the participants.
Bernard, Liao, and Mills (2001a) examined passages
containing two serif and sans serif fonts at 12- and
14-point sizes for differences in legibility, reading
time, and general preference when read by an older
population. They found that 14-point fonts were
more legible, promote faster reading, and were pre-
ferred to the 12-point fonts. At 14 point, serif fonts
tended to support faster reading, but were generally
less preferred than sans serif fonts. Bernard et al.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 02:08 08 January 2015
(2001a) found no difference between the fonts
designed for the computer and the print fonts.
Horton (1990) points out that the proper size for
text depends on the following factors: reading dis-
tance, screen resolution, contrast between text and
background, visual acuity of the user, and how the
text is read (skimmed lightly, read word for word,
or read character by characters). Other factors that
might impact the proper size for text include the
contrast and color of the characters and the angle
of regard from which it is viewed.
Eye Movements and Reading
Measuring eye movements to study reading
onscreen has been done since the invention of the
desktop computer. While reading, the eyes do not
continuously scan a line. Rather, they fixate for
about 200 to 250 milliseconds (Rayner, 1993) and
then rapidly make a saccade to another place on
the line. These ballistic movements usually take
only 20 to 35 milliseconds. Most saccades are for-
ward movements from seven to nine letters. About
10 to 15 percent of saccades are regressive or
backward movements (Rayner, 1993). Rayner
points out that most readers are not aware of the
frequency of regressive saccades while reading.
When the end of the line of type is reached, read-
ers traverse back to read the beginning of the new
line. These return movements are referred to as
return sweeps. Information is perceived during the
fixations, but no useful information is perceived
while the eyes are moving. The location of a fixa-
tion is not random. Fixations almost never occur
between words, and usually occur just to the left
Pages 67–79
of the middle of a word. Not all words are fixated.
Short words and particularly function words such
as “the” and “a” are frequently skipped.
During a single fixation, there is a limit to the
amount of information that can be recognized.
The fovea, which is the clear center point of vision,
extends 1 degree of visual angle to the left and
right of fixation (Rayner, 1993). In other words, the
eyes can only see three to four letters to the left
and right of fixation at normal reading distances.
Visual acuity decreases quickly in the parafovea,
which extends out to 5 degrees of visual angle on
either side of fixation. This is an area of about 15
to 20 letters to the left and right of the fixation
point. The purpose of eye movements in reading,
therefore, is to place the foveal region on that part
of the text readers are trying to process (Rayner,
1993). The area beyond the parafoveal region is
known as the peripheral region.
Readers take in information from all three zones—
foveal, parafoveal, and peripheral—during the
length of a fixation. Word recognition takes place
in the area closest to the fixation point. In a review
article about word recognition, Larson (2004)
explains, “This zone is usually large enough to cap-
ture the word being fixated, and often includes
smaller function words directly to the right of the
fixated word. The next zone extends a few letters
past the word recognition zone, and readers gather
preliminary information about the next letters in
this zone. The final zone extends out to 15 letters
past the fixation point. Information gathered out
this far is used to identify the length of upcoming
words and to identify the best location for the next
fixation point.” It should also be noted that readers
only use information to the right of the fixation
point and that they don’t use any letters to the
left of the word that is currently being fixated.
Eye Movements and Reading Onscreen
Various studies have measured the effects of eye
movements on the readability and legibility of
onscreen text in terms of fixation frequency, fixation
duration, reading time, regression frequency, and
saccade duration. In particular, issues such as the
number of characters per line, line length,
71 Visual Communication Quarterly
HVCQ_A_291625.qxp 3/26/08 7:12 PM Page 72

Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 02:08 08 January 2015

A research participant reads a news story while her eyes are tracked. The ISCAN eye-tracking system,
which does not require attachments to the head, uses a real-time digital image processor to automati-
cally track the center of the pupil and a low-level infrared reflection from the corneal surface. Ron
Hendricks © 2007. Original in color.

line spacing, number of lines, scrolling, and visual
angle have been studied using eye-movement data.
Until now, the legibility of sans serif type versus
serif type onscreen had not been studied using
eye-tracking technology. However, before the
present study is discussed, a review of the eye-
tracking studies of onscreen typography is in order.
Kolers, Duchnicky, and Ferguson (1981) measured
the readability of CRT displays based on eye move-
ments. They compared the reading speed for 40-
versus 80-character lines. Doubling the number
of characters was achieved by halving the width of
the letters. Results showed that doubling the num-
ber of characters per line increased the number
of fixations per line from 4.82 to 8.00. However,
the total number of fixations per passage was
decreased with 80 characters per line and the num-
ber of words extracted per fixation was larger, the
durations of each fixation was longer, and the total
reading time was shorter. In other words, reading
was more efficient with the 80-character line. Duch-
nicky and Kolers (1983), replicating findings from
Kolers et al. (1981), supported this conclusion that
very short lines elicit more and longer fixation
pauses. With short line length, readers may not be
able to make use of much information in each fixa-
tion and may decrease their saccade length, which
could slow down the reading (Rayner & Pollatsek,
1989).
Lynch and Horton (1999) showed that wider lines
of text require readers to move their heads slightly
or strain their eye muscles to track over the long
text, making readability suffer because readers
may lose track of the next line on the long trip back
to the left margin. Bernard et al. (2002) observed
the same behavior. They tested the upper limits
with text that contained 132 characters per line.
Viewing this long line required a large visual angle
that may have caused significant disruption to the
return sweep, often requiring head movements as

Visual Communication Quarterly 72 Volume 15 January–June 2008

HVCQ_A_291625.qxp 3/26/08 7:12 PM Page 73
well as saccades. In increasing line length with
more characters per line, the advantages of fewer
return sweeps and more fixations per line may
be offset by difficulties in locating the next line.
Bouma (1980) too observed it is difficult for read-
ers to accurately locate the beginnings of new
lines after long lateral eye movement, particularly
if there is close vertical spacing.
In a study of the effect of vertical space between lines
on reading performance, Kolers et al. (1981) found
that single spacing produced more fixations per line,
meaning that fewer words were read per fixation.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 02:08 08 January 2015
Total reading time was therefore slightly longer with
single spacing than with double spacing. However,
when fixations were analyzed, Kolers et al. (1981)
found that the duration of individual fixations and the
rate of fixation did not vary in a single-spaced versus
a double-spaced document. Duchnicky and Kolers
(1983) also studied how the number of lines displayed
on a computer screen impacted reading times. They
displayed either one, two, three, four, or 20 lines of
type. They found that reading speed increased 9 per-
cent when the number of lines displayed was
increased from 1 to 20 lines and that 4 and 20 lines of
text were read faster than 1 and 2 lines of type. Over-
all, it appears that the denser the text onscreen, the
faster it is read.
We tend to sit farther away from the screen than
from printed matter when reading (Gould et al.,
1987), so that a longer physical line length sub-
tends a smaller visual angle compared to the
same physical line in print. Reading of long lines
on screen does not appear to be slowed down, so
it is possible that reading from the screen presents
less of a problem with return sweeps to the next
line, as these cover a smaller visual angle. Citing
her earlier study (Dyson & Kipping, 1998), Dyson
(2004, p. 390) said, “Without this difficulty, there
may be a saving in time spent in eye movements
of long lines as the total time in return sweeps is
theoretically decreased.” She further explains that
the greater number of return sweeps apparently
takes longer than the additional time required to
read a long line of text.
Scrolling through the text may provide a cue for
the eye to locate the next line, especially if the
line is not overly long. Duchnicky and Kolers
Pages 67–79
(1983) suggest that it may be the upward move-
ment of scrolled text that reduces the difficulties
associated with longer lines, but Dyson (2004)
points out that this explanation has not been
explored empirically.
Another factor that has been suggested in explain-
ing the decrement in performance when reading
from computer screens is the flicker of the com-
puter screen caused by the refreshing of the image.
In a study using 1980s technology, Wilkins (1986)
found that eye movements are different for text
that is flickering than for text that is not. Gould
et al. (1987) studied the effects of flicker on CRTs
by taking photographs of displays and having sub-
jects read the photographs that were flicker-free.
The decrement in reading performance with com-
puter screens persisted even when text was read
from the photographs. Gould et al. (1987) con-
cluded that of the factors that he and his associ-
ates have studied—angle of regard, visual angle,
flicker—no single factor produces the decrement
when reading from computer screens, but rather it
is some combination of the factors.
Research Questions
Dyson (2004, p. 378) points out that there are a
“limited number of published studies on typefaces
on screen, and no clear evidence of differences in
their legibility.” A small, exploratory eye-tracking
study to look at the legibility of Times New
Roman and Arial—a serif font and a sans serif
font traditionally designed for reading in print—
and Georgia and Verdana—a serif font and a sans
serif font designed specifically for onscreen read-
ing—was designed to add to the limited number
of published studies on typefaces onscreen. The
research questions for this exploratory study are
as follows:
1. Are there eye-movement behavioral differences in
the onscreen viewing of Times New Roman, Arial,
Georgia, and Verdana typefaces?
2. Are there legibility differences onscreen for Times
New Roman, Arial, Georgia, and Verdana fonts?
3. Are there differences in onscreen reading speed
for readers of Times New Roman, Arial, Georgia,
and Verdana fonts?
4. What fonts do readers prefer onscreen?
73 Visual Communication Quarterly
HVCQ_A_291625.qxp 3/26/08 7:12 PM Page 74

Methodology
This study was designed to investigate eye-movement
behavior, legibility, reading speed, and preference of
four commonly used typefaces on the screen—two
long-time fonts—Times New Roman and Arial—and
two fonts recently designed for reading onscreen—
Georgia and Verdana. These fonts were selected
because they are widely used in the design of web
pages, and appear to be the most widely used fonts
on the Internet.

The participants were six students recruited from

Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 02:08 08 January 2015

a mid-sized university in the western United States.

The participants included four women and two
men. Their average age was 24.2 years. They were
rewarded with extra credit points in a college
course.

Participants were asked to read four timely Asso-

ciated Press wire stories on a computer screen.
Actual news stories published the week of the
study were selected for use in the study. The
news stories were about science and technology
topics and were chosen because the participants
would not likely have heard or seen the
information.

Four stories were displayed in one of the four differ-

ent typefaces. The stories contained approximately
the same number of words. The average number of
words in each story was 245.5. The story displayed
in Times New Roman contained 252, words, while
the story shown in Arial had 239. The story dis-
played in Georgia contained 245 words, while the
story shown in Verdana had 246 words. The stories
were assigned to a particular font in a random fash-
ion. Because of the small scope of this study, the
typefaces were not rotated between stories.

Because Tinker (1963) found that the optimal line

length is 12-point text with 80 characters for consec-
utive reading of text, the type for this study was dis-
played in 12 point with approximately 80 characters
per line, approximately 700 pixels wide. The leading
was set at a 16-point line height, which is found on
popular websites such as ESPN.com. Because each
of the four kinds of type occupies slightly different
amounts of space, the number of lines varied per
story. The story displayed in Times New Roman

Visual Communication Quarterly 74 Volume 15 January–June 2008

HVCQ_A_291625.qxp 3/26/08 7:12 PM Page 75

contained 18 lines, while the story in Georgia had 17 on a 10-point scale on four items: not pleasing to the
and the story in Arial had 19. The biggest variation eye/pleasing to the eye, difficult to read/easy to read,
was the news story displayed in Verdana, which fuzzy/sharp, and too big or small/size about right. At the
required 22 lines to display its 246 words. end of the survey, they were asked two questions:

Participants were
instructed to “carefully”
read the stories as though
they would need to
remember the information
for a current events quiz.
The order of each
font/story was counter-
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 02:08 08 January 2015

balanced. The eye-move-

ment data were collected using an ISCAN RK-426PC
Pupil/Corneal Reflection Tracking System (ISCAN,
Inc., Burlington, MA), which uses a corneal reflec-
tion system to measure the precise location of a
person’s eye fixations when looking at a visual dis-
play—in this case a news story—on a computer
monitor. The eye-tracking system does not require
attachments to the head.
It uses a real-time digital
image processor to auto-
matically track the center
of the pupil and a low-
level infrared reflection
from the corneal surface
(ISCAN, Inc. Operating Manual, 1998). The system
collects data at 60 Hz or about every 16.7 millisec-
onds. For the purposes of this study, the default set-
ting was used to record saccades, which Rayner
(1995) has found to take 20 to 35 milliseconds.
Participants were positioned at a fixed distance of
about 18 to 24 inches from the computer screen,
which had a resolution of 1024 ⫻ 600 pixels with
a 32-bit color depth.
Before the testing proceeded, the eye-tracking
apparatus was calibrated by having participants
fixate on a series of points positioned at various
locations around the screen. Calibration was also
checked after the showing of each story and in
most cases the equipment was recalibrated in
order to be as accurate as possible.
After the eye-tracking test, participants filled out a
short survey. While looking at examples of the four
fonts onscreen, they were asked to rate the typography
Above. Participants’ eye movements regressed
more while reading the type set in Times New
Roman. Three regressions or backward move-
ments are noted on the first line, while none
were measured in the rest of the paragraph. Used
with permission of the Associated Press, 2007.
Original in color.
What font is easiest to read? What font do you like
the most?
Results
Even with a small sample size, a few interesting
results emerged. Because the study included only
six participants, none of the differences between
the four typefaces were statistically significant,
but the descriptive statistics are still interesting
and important. For several of the variables, the
differences are large enough to lead to speculation
that statistical significance may be found in a
study with a larger sample size.
In an attempt to answer the research question
about which font is easiest to read onscreen, the
number of seconds it took to read the short news
stories was recorded. The results are as follows:
Times New Roman, 59.17 seconds; Arial,
62.09 seconds; Georgia, 60.01 seconds; and

Pages 67–79 75 Visual Communication Quarterly

HVCQ_A_291625.qxp 3/26/08 7:12 PM Page 76
Verdana, 58.11 seconds. Interestingly, in this lim-
ited exploratory study, Verdana—the sans serif font
designed especially for computer use—was the
font read most quickly, followed by Times New
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 02:08 08 January 2015
Below. Participants were able to read the story
displayed in Verdana typography more quickly
and with relatively few regressions. This partici-
pant’s eyes did not regress while reading this
particular paragraph. Used with permission of the
Associated Press, 2007. Original in color.
Roman, which may be the font people are most
accustomed to reading.
In addition, to examine the question about which
font is easiest to read onscreen, the number of
fixations was recorded. Despite its smallish
appearance on screen, the traditional serif font
Times New Roman outperformed the other three
fonts. On average, participants fixated just 187.83
times to read the news story, compared to 211.50
times for Arial, the traditional sans serif font. Partici-
pants fixated 218.83 times to read the story set in
Georgia type and 231.83 to read the story set in
Verdana type.
Probably the most interesting results from this
exploratory study are those involving regressions
or the backward movements. Even with just six
participants, some interesting findings are noted.
Participants experienced the fewest regressions—
16.83 on average—while reading the story set in
Verdana type. They experienced the greatest num-
ber of regressions—23.17—while reading the
Visual Communication Quarterly
story set in Times New Roman. The other sans
serif type, Arial, had the second lowest number
of average regressions—20.33—while the other
serif type, Georgia, had the second highest number
of average regressions at
21.17.
Regressions were also ana-
lyzed according to their
overall percentage of eye
movements. When the
data are examined in this
way, the typography
designed especially for the
computer screen performed better than the typography
designed for print use. Regressions amounted to 6.87%
of the eye movements during the reading of the
story set in Verdana and 9.29% for the story set in
Georgia. The percentage of regressions is higher for
the traditional print fonts.
Some 11.07% of the eye
movements were regres-
sions for Times New
Roman and 9.83% of the
eye movements were
regressions for Arial.
The average number of regressions and the per-
centage of regressions were also analyzed for
sans serif versus serif typefaces. For sans serif
fonts onscreen, the average number of regres-
sions was 18.58 compared to 22.17 for serif
fonts, although this difference of almost four
regressions was not statistically significant. The
average percentage of the backward regressions
compared to the average percentage of the for-
ward movements known as saccades equaled
8.35% for sans serif typefaces and 10.18% for
serif typefaces. The statistics became almost the
same when looked at for the two typefaces
designed especially for viewing onscreen versus
the two typefaces designed for viewing in print.
The number of regressions in the computer fonts
was 20.33 versus 20.04 for print fonts. The per-
centage of regressions for the computer fonts
was 9.52% versus 9.01% for print fonts. While the
results were not widely spread for these two vari-
ables, there is greater variation in the statistics
when the variable is serif versus sans serif type
fonts onscreen.
76 Volume 15 January–June 2008
HVCQ_A_291625.qxp 3/26/08 7:12 PM Page 77
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 02:08 08 January 2015
The rest of the variables were also analyzed for sans
serif versus serif type, and for fonts designed for
print use versus fonts designed for onscreen use.
The averages varied little in the two treatments. The
survey results to gauge preference show a strong
preference for Verdana type onscreen. Overall,
Verdana was the most preferred typeface, followed
by Georgia, Arial, and Times New Roman. Verdana
scored high on being pleasing to the eye (9.2), ease
in reading (9.8), legibility (9.2), and size (7.7), for an
overall score of 9.0. Verdana tends to look large at
12-point, probably leading to the lower score on
size. Georgia was rated a little lower with an overall
score of 7.6. It received an 8.3 on being pleasing to
the eye, 8.5 for ease of reading, 5.8 in legibility, and
7.8 for size. Arial scored 7.0 overall with a score of
7.8 on being pleasing to the eye, 6.0 for ease of
reading, 8.3 in legibility, and 6.0 in size. Times New
Roman scored relatively low overall with a compos-
ite rating of 4.1, less than half of that for Verdana.
Specifically, it scored 4.7 on being pleasing to the
eye, 4.0 for ease of reading, 4.5 for legibility, and 3.2
for size. The results are not surprising since Times
New Roman’s serifs appear to be swallowed up
onscreen, while overall it looks too small at 12 point.
When participants were asked what font is easiest
to read onscreen, three selected Verdana, two
selected Arial, and one picked Georgia. When partic-
ipants were asked what font they like most, two
Pages 67–79
The difference in the pixel structure of
12-point Verdana (Top) versus 12-point
Times New Roman is shown when
magnified by 1000 percent.
each picked Verdana, Arial, and Georgia.
Times New Roman was not selected by even
one subject in answer to either question.
Discussion
This study is important because it appears
to be the first eye-tracking experiment to
address the question of the legibility of serif
versus sans serif fonts on a computer
screen. Specifically, this study compared
the legibility of two traditional fonts initially
designed for reading in print and two fonts
specifically designed to be read onscreen.
Although no statistical differences were found on
a number of variables, some interesting results
emerged.
Probably the most interesting finding revolves
around regressions, those backward eye move-
ments that occur when readers need to refixate
because a forward saccade landed in a position
that’s not ideal or when readers need to revisit
the content because of a failure to understand
the material. Verdana, which has many features
to enhance legibility on screen such as lowercase
letters that are proportionately tall compared to
uppercase letters, stroke widths that are not too
thin, and generous spacing both inside the letter
and between letters, required almost 6.5 fewer
regressions on average than Times New Roman,
probably the most popular typeface used in printed
materials. Arial, possibly the most widely used
sans serif font in print, had the second lowest
average number of regressions. Georgia and Times
New Roman, both serif typefaces, had the most
regressions. That makes sense. It has long been
known by both creators and users of reading mate-
rial onscreen that serif fonts render poorly at small
sizes because low-resolution computer screens
cannot handle the subtle details of the type.
When the regression data are analyzed according
to the percentage of backward saccades to forward
77 Visual Communication Quarterly
HVCQ_A_291625.qxp 3/26/08 7:12 PM Page 78
saccades, a slightly different pattern emerges.
Again, Verdana had the lowest percentage of
regressions at 6.87%. However, the second-lowest
percentage in this exploratory study belonged to the
other typeface designed specifically for onscreen
use—Georgia—at 9.29%. Arial outperformed Times
New Roman with 9.83% and 11.07%, respectively.
It would be interesting to see if the findings regard-
ing regressions hold in a larger, more controlled
study of reading onscreen.
Interestingly, in this limited study, the news story
displayed in Times New Roman was read almost
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 02:08 08 January 2015
as quickly as the story presented in Verdana type.
When the number of fixations is analyzed, partici-
pants fixated far fewer times on the story in Times
New Roman (187.83) as they did on the story in
Verdana (231.83). This occurred despite the fact
that the Times New Roman story contained 252
words, while the Verdana story contained fewer
words—246. However, the Verdana story may
have taken longer to read because of content
and/or because it required 22 lines to display its
content compared to the 18 lines it took to display
the story set in Times New Roman.
However, it is the preference survey data that most
strongly support the use of Verdana onscreen. The
six participants most preferred Verdana, followed
by Georgia, Arial, and Times New Roman for read-
ing on a computer screen. The preference for Verdana
was twice as strong as it was for Times New Roman
for reading onscreen.
Much more eye-tracking research needs to be con-
ducted comparing sans serif fonts to serif fonts
before any concrete conclusions are reached, but
this preliminary study is a good precursor to what
may be found. In these future stories, more control
needs to be exhibited, and more research partici-
pants need to be used. In future studies, it is espe-
cially important to rotate the content between the
different typefaces to control for the effects of the
content. It would be especially interesting to vary
the reading periods. The length of time it took for
a participant to read one story in this exploratory
examination was about 60 seconds, which is a
fairly long period in an eye-tracking study of read-
ing. However, perhaps significant differences would
Visual Communication Quarterly
emerge if longer reading periods were used.
Eyestrain might be more problematic for one
font over another.
Warde (1955) said type should be a “nonintrusive
servant,” improving effortless reading and not inter-
rupting the reading process. According to this
approach, the form of typographic text should
be invisible or transparent, making it so the reader
is not aware of the formal aspects of a typeface.
Computer fonts such as Verdana and Georgia are
helping to make it easier to read onscreen. In this
information age, where we are reading more and
more information on a computer screen, more
legible onscreen type can save both trees and
headaches.
References
Bernard, M. L., Lida, B., Riley, S., Hackler, T., &
Janzen, K. (2002). A comparison of popular
online fonts: Which size and type is best?
Usability News, 4.1 [online]../
usabilitynews/41/onlinetext.htm.
Bernard, M., Liao, C. H., & Mills, M. (2001a). The
effects of font type and size on the legibility
and reading time of online text by older
adults. Proceedings of CHI ‘01, 175–176.
Bernard, M. L., Mills, M. M., Peterson, M., & Storrer,
K. (2001b). A comparison of popular online
fonts: Which is best and when? Usability
News 3.2 [online] ../usabilitynews/3S/font.htm.
Bouma, H. (1980). Visual reading processes and
the quality of text displays. In E. Grandjean
& E. Vigliani (Eds.), Ergonomic aspects of
visual display terminals (pp. 101–114).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Boyarski, D., Neuwirth, C., Forlizzi, J., & Regli,
S. H. (1998). A study of fonts designed for
screen display. In Proceedings of CHI ’98
(pp. 87–94). Los Angeles, CA: ACM Press.
Duchnicky, R. L., & Kolers, P. A. (1983). Readabil-
ity of text scrolled on visual display termi-
nals as a function of window size. Human
Factors, 25, 683–692.
Dyson, M. C., & Kipping, G. J. (1998). Exploring
the effect of layout on reading from screen.
In R. D. Hersch, J. Andre, & H. Brown (Eds.),
Electronic documents, artistic imaging and
digital typography (pp. 294–304). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
78 Volume 15 January–June 2008
HVCQ_A_291625.qxp 3/26/08 7:12 PM Page 79
Dyson, M. C. (2004). How physical text logout
affects reading from screen. Behavior &
Information Technology, 23, 377–393.
Geske, J. (1996). Legibility of sans serif type for
use as body copy in computer mediated com-
munication. Presented at Association for Edu-
cation in Journalism and Mass Communica-
tion (AEJMC) August, Visual Communication
Division, Anaheim, CA.
Gould, J. D., Alfaro, L., Barnes, V., Finn, R.,
Grischkowsky, N., & Minuto, A. (1987). Read-
ing is slower from CRT displays than from
paper: Attempts to isolate a single-variable
explanation. Human Factors, 29, 269–299.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 02:08 08 January 2015
Horton, W. (1990). Designing and writing online
documentation: Help files to hypertext.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
ISCAN, Inc. (1998). RK-726PCI Pupil/Corneal
Reflection Tracking System PCI Card Version
Operating Instructions. Rikki Razdan,
Burlington, MA.
Kolers, P. A., Duchnicky, R. L., & Ferguson, D. C.
(1981). Eye movement measurement of
readability of CRT displays. Human Factors,
23, 517–527.
Larson, K. (2004). The science of word recogni-
tion or how I learned to stop worrying and
love the bouma. Microsoft typography,
pp. 26–31. http://www.microsoft.com/
typograpy/ctfonts/WordRecognition.aspx.
Last accessed October 27, 2007.
Larson, K. (2007). The technology of text: Type
designers, psychologists, and engineers are
joining forces to improve reading onscreen.
IEEE Spectrum, May, 28–31.
Lynch, P., & Horton, S. (1999). Web style guide:
Basic design principles for creating web
sites. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Morrison, S., & Noyes, J. (2003). A comparison of
two computer fonts: Serif versus ornate sans
serif. Usability News 5.2 [online] http://
psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/52/
UK_font.htm. Last accessed October 16, 2007.
Pages 67–79
Quinn, S. (2005, March 4). In search of:
The best online reading experience.
http://www. poynter.org/content/content_
view.asp?id=78569. Last accessed
October 6, 2007.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology
of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall Inc.
Rayner, K. (1993). Eye movements in reading:
Recent developments. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 2, 81–85.
Tinker, M. A. (1963). Legibility of print. Ames,
IA: Iowa State University Press.
Tullis, T. S., Boynton, J. L., & Hersh, H. (1995).
Readability of fonts in the windows environ-
ment. In Proceedings of CHI ’95 (pp. 127–128).
Denver, CO: ACM Press.
Warde, B. (1955). The crystal goblet, sixteen essays
on typography. London: Sylvan Press.
Webcast1.com. Web-safe fonts for your site.
http://www.webcast1.com/webfriendly-
fonts.html. Last accessed October 7, 2007
Wilkins, A. (1986). Intermittent illumination from
visual display units and fluorescent lighting
affects movement of eyes across text.
Human Factors, 28, 75–81.
Wilson, R. F. (2001). HTML e-mail: text font read-
ability study. http://www.wilsonweb.com/
wmt6/html-email-fonts.htm. Last accessed
October 6, 2007.
Sheree Josephson is a professor of
journalism and visual communication
at Weber State University in Ogden,
Utah.
Correspondence should be addressed to
Sheree Josephson, Weber State University,
Department of Communication, 1605
University Circle, Ogden, UT 84408-1605.
E-mail:sjosephson@weber.edu
79 Visual Communication Quarterly