Article published In: Information Design Journal
Vol. 18:1 (2010) ► pp.36–49
Comparing the legibility of six ClearType typefaces to Verdana and Times New Roman
Published online: 13 August 2010
https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.18.1.04cha
https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.18.1.04cha
This study compares the on-screen legibility of six ClearType typefaces to that of two existing typefaces widely used for business documents, email, and websites. Participants were presented with individual letters, digits, and symbols from each typeface for brief durations and asked to verbally identify the character. Percent correct identification for each character was calculated and graphical sunflower plots were used to highlight the characters misidentified. Results show that the legibility was higher for the ClearType typefaces Consolas and Cambria as well as the non-ClearType typeface Verdana than for Times New Roman, especially for digits and symbols.
Keywords: typeface, legibility, on-screen reading, ClearType
Cited by (11)
Cited by 11 other publications
Gao, Shiwei, Yufeng Guo & Qiang Li
Azzarello, Caterina B, Dave B Miller, Ben D Sawyer & Joanna E Lewis
Lang, Johannes & Miguel A. Nacenta
Baxter, Matthew, Maria dos Santos Lonsdale & Stephen Westland
2021. Utilising design principles to improve the perception and effectiveness of public health infographics. Information Design Journal 26:2 ► pp. 124 ff.
Liman Kaban, Aysegul
Krivec, Tjaša, Milena Košak Babuder, Primož Godec, Primož Weingerl & Urška Stankovič Elesini
Sawyer, Ben D., Jonathan Dobres, Nadine Chahine & Bryan Reimer
Vasiljevic, Milica, Georgia Fuller, Mark Pilling, Gareth J. Hollands, Rachel Pechey, Susan A. Jebb & Theresa M. Marteau
Kong, Yiren, Young Sik Seo & Ling Zhai
Dobres, Jonathan, Nadine Chahine, Bryan Reimer, David Gould, Bruce Mehler & Joseph F. Coughlin
Hazlett, Richard L., Kevin Larson, A. Dawn Shaikh & Barbara S. Chaparo
2013. Two studies on how a typeface congruent with content can enhance onscreen communication. Information Design Journal 20:3 ► pp. 207 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
