To: Linda Grashoff 
Cc: ace@tidbits.com, Justin Kerr ,
        online-news@marketplace.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: jvncnet!marketplace.com!owner-online-news
Content-Length: 3196
Status: RO
X-Status: 
X-Lines: 65



On 26 Sep 1994, Linda Grashoff wrote:

>         Reply to:   RE>>PDF limitations
 
> Justin Kerr asks:
 
> "So what are the best type of fonts to read on-screen?  It seems like
> sanserif fonts are the clearest."

What size monitor do you have, at what resolution.  What colors are you
displaying.  On a black on white, 14" monitor, you can get a nice display
with 8 point helvetica.  On a white on black, 21" monitor, non-interlaced,
you can get a nice 12 point roman to look nice.  Personally, I like "child
of 4, and Ransom ;-) (I know the creators).

The original Xerox Alto have very few choices of fonts.  Modern X11R6
terminals have scalable fonts that can be selected on a per-application
bases.  There is an entire database of properties kept within the server.
The user may decide he wants to display his Journal on a pink screen with
a blue 32 point roman font (yuchh), and that should be his choice.  That's
his poor taste.  I pick 8 point fonts that no one over 45 can read without
a magnifying glass.  I like having 5 or six fully exposed screens running
at the same time.  You would not be doing me a favor by forcing me to read
your publication in some 14 point font that required every pixel of my
screen for one column.
 
> Common sense seems to hold that reading hard copy text is faster, easier,
> and less fatiguing than reading identical text when displayed on the screen
> of a computer monitor.  Recent studies have examined numerous differences
> between the two methods of display that could account for this discrepancy.
> Previous research has shown that reading speeds are slower when text is
> presented on a cathode ray tube (CRT).  Factors such as experience with
> CRTs, angle of presentation, and character size have been studied.  No
> single factor has been found to be significant in explaining the
> difference. 

There are actually several factors in terms of subliminal effects.  The
scroll strategy of the display can also be a factor.  Scrolling screen is
harder to read than sweeping pages, but sweeping pages can't be reversed.
Reading speed can very based on raster, flicker, and jitter.  Keying
tactics are also a factor.  The size of the display and default size of
the window are also factors.  When comparing magazine copy for example,
you are displaying 3 columns of 40 characters by 60 lines.  The average
xterm window displays about 80 characters by 30 lines.  Your subconcious
is "reading" before and after your focus reaches any point on the paper.

Tactics such as heirarchal queries, iconic displays, or relevance queries
can reduce the amount of content being read, and still provide access to
"subliminal queueing".  The user needs to be able to get back to the menu
he picked up subliminally.

We can also go into harrare limits and focus management (can be
accomplished with simple highlighting), and other "Evelyn Wood" assistance.
A good course on speed reading can give insight on how to guide speed
readers.  Essentially a speed reader mentally profiles the content.  He
can the focus on significant areas of interest.  This is why speed readers
don't read romance novels at 600 words per minute :-).

	Rex B.
	(Personal Post)




From jvncnet!usa.net!bskeet Thu Oct 20 10:48:35 1994
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Rex Ballard