Suppr超能文献

朝向阅读图表的标准化:字体效果对阅读表现的影响——有衬线的 Times New Roman 与无衬线字体 Helvetica 之比较。

Towards a standardisation of reading charts: Font effects on reading performance-Times New Roman with serifs versus the sans serif font Helvetica.

机构信息

Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Karl Landsteiner Medical University, Krems, Austria.

Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital St. Pölten, Sankt Pölten, Austria.

出版信息

Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2022 Nov;42(6):1180-1186. doi: 10.1111/opo.13039. Epub 2022 Aug 16.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The purpose was to compare systematically the legibility of a font without serifs (Helvetica) and one with serifs (Times New Roman).

METHODS

Three paragraphs that were equal in the number of words, syllables, characters, difficulty and reading length were printed at equal size, with equal spacing between the lines and equal layout (paperback style), in either the sans serif typeface Helvetica Neue T1 55 Roman (Adobe) or the serif typeface Times New Roman PS Roman (Adobe). They were also printed in newspaper format in the serif font. The paragraphs were presented in random order (Latin square design) to 36 participants between 18 and 38 years of age (wearing their best-corrected visual acuity). Reading duration was measured with a stopwatch. Reading time, reading speed and the number of reading errors were compared.

RESULTS

For the paperback layout, no significant difference in reading time (p = 0.50) or reading speed (p = 0.56) was found between the two fonts. The correlation between the two fonts was high for both reading time and speed (r = 0.93). The mean number of reading errors was the same (0.31 ± 0.58 errors/text) for both fonts. There was a significant difference in reading time and speed between the paperback and the newspaper layout.

CONCLUSION

The legibility of Helvetica and Times New Roman is similar when investigated under equivalent conditions. Thus, these two font types can be used as interchangeable standard typefaces.

摘要

目的

旨在系统比较无衬线字体(Helvetica)和有衬线字体(Times New Roman)的易读性。

方法

将 3 段字数、音节数、字符数、难度和阅读长度相等的段落以相同的字号、相同的行间距、相同的布局(平装本样式)打印,使用无衬线字体 Helvetica Neue T1 55 Roman(Adobe)或有衬线字体 Times New Roman PS Roman(Adobe)。它们也以报纸格式在衬线字体中打印。这些段落以随机顺序(拉丁方设计)呈现给 36 名年龄在 18 至 38 岁之间(戴着最佳矫正视力)的参与者。使用秒表测量阅读时间。比较阅读时间、阅读速度和阅读错误数量。

结果

对于平装本布局,两种字体的阅读时间(p=0.50)或阅读速度(p=0.56)无显著差异。两种字体的阅读时间和速度之间的相关性很高(r=0.93)。两种字体的平均阅读错误数相同(0.31±0.58 个错误/文本)。平装本和报纸布局的阅读时间和速度存在显著差异。

结论

在同等条件下,Helvetica 和 Times New Roman 的可读性相似。因此,这两种字体类型可以作为可互换的标准字体使用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e088/9804255/3feceaebb5b2/OPO-42-1180-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验