MINIMUM FONT SIZE FOR READABILITY?

Subject: MINIMUM FONT SIZE FOR READABILITY?
From: Geoff Hart <ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca>
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com, Anna Langley <alangley -at- ts -dot- checkpoint -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:26:09 -0500

Anna Langley wondered: <<Can you point me to any research proving that printed text should not fall below a minimum font size? I've read some articles stating font size shouldn't go below 9 point for printed text. Other articles state it's a matter of page size.>>

Readability involves a combination of much more than type and page size: it depends strongly on the typeface, leading, character and word spacing, and a batch of other variables, all of which interact promiscuously. So don't look for a single answer; it'll almost certainly be wrong for your specific situation. One thing I have seen repeatedly in the research is that your minimum font size should increase if you have a significant portion of older folks in your audience. I'm not yet "elderly", but I generally find 9 point Times on the small side of readable, but that's just one data point.

<<I'd like to make a case for increasing the minimum font size to improve readability, but I need research to back up my case.>>

Why not do your own research? In a similar situation, I produced three versions of the same page using 9-, 10-, and 11-point type that were otherwise identical apart from increasing the leading proportionally. (PageMaker, autoleading.) I then took these pages around to a bunch of "typical readers" in my audience (in this case, forestry researchers who were reading a technical report destined for other forestry researchers) and polled them: Which page design do you find easiest to read?

As noted above, the older folks preferred larger type, but overall, the 11-point text won handily. Your mileage may vary, of course (depending on whether you use leaded or unleaded type? <gdrlh>), but the test provides far more convincing data than any journal article because (a) it uses your own design, not some wholly unrelated design, and (b) the experiences of people you know always seem more "real" than those of an anonymous group of test subjects.

--Geoff Hart ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca
(try geoffhart -at- mac -dot- com if you don't get a reply)





Follow-Ups:

References:
MINIMUM FONT SIZE FOR READABILITY: From: Anna Langley

Previous by Author: "Breadcrumbs" in Dreamweaver?
Next by Author: Saying "RTFM" out loud?
Previous by Thread: Re: MINIMUM FONT SIZE FOR READABILITY
Next by Thread: RE: MINIMUM FONT SIZE FOR READABILITY?


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads