The effects of font type and spacing of text for online readability and performance

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 5(2), 161-174

161

The Effects of Font Type and Spacing of Text for Online

Readability and Performance

Nafiseh Hojjati & Balakrishnan Muniandy

Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia

Abstract

Texts are a group of letters which are printed or displayed in a particular style and size. In

the course of the fast speed of technological development everywhere and expanding use

of computer based instruction such as online courses, students spend more time on a

computer screen than printed media. Texts have been the main element to convey

messages. It has also been a significant component for learning. The main goal of this

research is to measure the effects of font type and spacing of on screen text and its

readability in improving and boosting the learner’s ability to read easily, recall

information, and enhance their reading speed and comprehension from on screen text

with different topics. The readability of text on screens is necessary to ensure effective

engagement in order to enhance the level of students’ readability. For this purpose two

font types were selected, Times New Roman (serif) and Verdana (san serif) for the

respondents. Verdana was designed only for computer screens display. Readability test on

a computer screen was conducted on 30 postgraduate students. Overall, the results

showed that there was a significant difference between the readability of serif and san

serif font type of on-screen display. The research findings suggest Verdana font type as a

better choice in displaying long text for on-screen display.

Keywords: Font type; Readability; Spacing; On-screen text; Serif; San serif

Introduction

Texts are a collection of letters and words which are printed or displayed in a particular style

and size. With the fast pace of technological development everywhere and expanding use of

computer based instruction such as online courses, students spend more time on a computer

screen than printed media (Ferrari & Short, 2002). Texts have been the main element to

convey messages across culture which has also been an important element for learning. The

main goal of this research is to measure the effects of font type and spacing of on screen text

and in improving and boosting the learner’s ability to read easily and retain information while

enhancing their reading speed and comprehension from on screen text.

This study explores the efficiency of different aspects of text such as font type (serif or san

serif), and line spacing on reading speed and comprehension. The readability of text on screens

is necessary to ensure effective engagement with media. Moreover, readability is also related

to features and layout of text which influence the understanding of meaning that the writer

intended to convey (Ambrose & Harris, 2005).

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 5(2), 161-174

162

There are many factors which can affect or improve the ability to read text on a computer

screen which including font size, blank space, text line spacing, paragraph styles, length of the

line and words length. This study intends to explore the influence of on screen font type and

line spacing in order to recall information and read easily. Readability can include two aspects:

how well the text is placed visually and how simply the text can be understood. Worthy text

should be extremely clear in order to be obviously understood by a wide range of readers.

Typical fonts can be placed into two groups: Serif and San Serif. Serif was the first font, made

earlier in the era of metal type printing. Historically, the serif fonts were the most widely used,

such as Venetian, Old Style (Old Face, Geralde), Transitional, Modern (Didone), and Egyptian

(Rabinowitz, 2006). Serif fonts have small strokes at the end of the letters, whereas san serif

fonts do not.

Different types of typefaces (fonts) have different essential levels of readability. Spacing is also

vital for text to be legible. It’s beneficial for the reason that it helps the eye to find a block of

font as a group, and also supports the reader quickly to find the beginning of each line. In

typography, control of space between words is a significant part of page design. Loose spacing

have a tendency to effect pages to stream and decreasing legibility.

Seldom highlighted issues related to the text and font is readability that refers to the ease of

reading, in which the common factors affecting that influence legibility of space, font size, font

type. Some studies have been conducted to determine the best font -serif or san serif- in terms

of readability and reading abilities of on screen. It is said that serif fonts are suitable for printed

media and san serif fonts are suitable for computer screens because they are much easier and

faster to read (Amdur, 2007; Berrymann, 1984; Bryan, 1996; Peck, 2003). Computer screens

are very different from printed documents, as they use a resolution lower than 72 dpi,

whereas printed documents use 180 dpi, 300 dpi, or higher (Wilson, 2001).

Prior investigational work leads to the estimate that longer lines will be read faster, which may

be moderately attributable to spending less time in scrolling actions. Though, outcomes from

the legibility of print would predict faster reading at medium line lengths, reading text on a

computer screen is really exhausting, and text that includes extended phrase must be escaped

(Gotz, 1998). Reading from a computer screen is different from printed media. Besides,

reading on screen text is 30% slower than reading printed materials (Ferrari & Short, 2002).

With regard to these limits, a number of new on screen font type have been intended specially

to be suitable on screen readings (Rabinowitz, 2006). Some studies indicate no differences

between the fonts whereas others recommend that san serif fonts are better for computer

screens, in terms of readability (Josephson, 2008; Wilson, 2001).

Font and Readability

Font is a set of letterings that are printed or shown in a particular style and size. In computer

based instructional design, selection of suitable fonts has an influence on students, specifically

in terms of distinguishing and understanding the signs successfully. When the letters are put

together to create words, the feature of identifying these characters is significant for perfect

readability. On-screen font type, are fonts that have been considered from the start to

optimally render typographic features (features such as x-height, spacing, and serifs that

increase legibility) on the bitmapped screens of computers. Therefore, making efforts to

overcome an understandable technical limitation of on-screen text display is necessary.

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 5(2), 161-174

163

In a study of fonts used on screen, researchers found that, the font types that were supposed

to be most readable were Courier, Comic, Verdana, Georgia, and Times (Bernard, Mills,

Peterson, & Storrer, 2001). Also Bernard, Mills, Peterson, and Storrer (2001) establish that

Arial, Comic, Tahoma, Verdana, Courier, Georgia were considerably chosen over the other font

types, though, Times New Roman is the most common default font type for word processing

packages software.

For this research, two font types were selected, specifically Times New Roman (serif) and

Verdana (san serif) for the respondents. Verdana was designed only for computer screens

display. Meanwhile, Times New Roman was firstly designed for print media. One-to-one these

font types are commonly spread and became standard font type used for on screen and

printed media (Harris, 1996). Times New Roman font type is measured to have more

readability for print, and has since developed an enormously common font type for both books

and documents.

The two fonts examined in this experiment (Verdana, Times New Roman) are descriptive of

commonly divided serif and san serif typefaces, though; each font type is intended to function

properly on two different purposes. Verdana was considered definitely to improve readability

of text performing on a computer screen, although Times New Roman was intended

specifically to boost readability of text printed on paper.

Serif fonts such as Times New Roman is normally observed as the most readable font family for

printed text Many web designers say that san serif fonts, such as Arial or Verdana, have a

better screen readability especially at small sizes than other serif fonts (Peck, 2003; Powell,

2002; Wilson, 2001).

Previous readability research has concentrated on the effects of typeface and page layout

variables on reading rate and comprehension, psychological and mental human factors

(Holmes, 1986). Furthermore, the research was related to reading rate and reading

understanding the text (Holmes, 1986).

Readability talks about the speed and ease of understanding and comprehending the text

(Mills & Weldon, 1987; Woods, Davis, & Scharff, 2005). Readability is a significant matter and

finding the right fit between students’ reading capability and text difficulty is an essential and

puzzling task for teachers (Armbruster, 1977). Students have dissimilar past experiences. Every

school has students who possess higher and lower average reading level. The difficulty in

reading a text varies. Even though some texts can be read easily by the students, others are

hard to read. Finding the right thing between the difficulty level of the text and the students’

reading skills is very serious (Gunning, 2003).

Various studies (Ambrose & Harris, 2005; Brady, 1993; Clinton, 2003; Ferrari & Short, 2002;

Gates, n.d.; Monotype, 1997) have been carried out to define the finest font, serif or san serif,

in order to identify the readability for on screen text. Serif fonts are appropriate for printed

media and san serif fonts are appropriate for computer screens because they are easier and

faster to read. However, maximum fonts used on computer screens are actually designed for

printed media. In theory, text on screen should be quite recognizable and at the same time

inspiring and motivating. Selections of studies reviewed for this research indicates that learner

do read text on screen when it is evolving their comprehension. Besides, several research

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 5(2), 161-174

164

outcomes suggest that reading text from the screen also helps learners to learn and recall

words better.

The Effects of Spacing on Readability

A paragraph of text is formed by several lines. Those lines have two significant belongings: line

length and line spacing. Every single character occupies its own horizontal space. There is an

individual space before and after the character form to detach it from the end-to-end

character. The space is prearranged by the type designer in the first instance (normal spacing),

although it can be reformed to a loose (or open) setting or to a tight or very tight setting (to a

unit, where letter characters are end-to-end). The space between characters is vital to create

each shape as separate, but at the same time character forms have to be kept close enough to

form a clear object: a word.

Noticeably, spacing is essential for text to be legible. Whitespace around features is known in

design-speak as margin when applied to blocks of text. It’s beneficial as it helps the eye to

recognize a block of text as a group, and furthermore helps readers rapidly catch the start of

each line. Proximity also has need of whitespace, so usage of space around all paragraphs and

headers is necessity. Besides, some researchers (McLean, 1980; Tschichold, 1965; Turtschi,

1995) mention that longer lines require increased line spacing to improve readability. The least

line length is to be found around 35 characters for two reasons: one is the already stated first

choice of readers while reading; the other one is the position of the text (Turtschi, 1995).

Spacing between the lines of a text, also impacts speed of reading on-screen (Dyson, 2004).

Double spacing seems to be better than single spacing for reading (Dyson, 2004).

The wide range of study guides to choose for a single space after terminal punctuation for final

and published work, with a few permitting double spacing in draft manuscripts and for specific

settings based on personal preference. The 2002 study tested participants’ reading speed for

single and double sentence spaced passages of on-screen text. The authors stated that "the

'double space group' consistently took longer time to finish than the 'single space' group", but

concluded that "there was not enough evidence to suggest that a significant difference exists"

(Loh, Maribe, Shewanown, & Radwan, 2002). Some researchers determine that medium levels

of whitespace should produce higher levels of gratification and overall first choice than very

solid or very spread-out use of space (Chaparro, Baker, Shaikh, Brady, & Hull, 2004).

Studies conducted in the years 2003 and 2004 focused on analyzing on-screen single, double,

and triple spacing. In both cases, the authors stated that there was inadequate sign to draw

conclusion (Clinton, 2003). Ni, Branch, Chen, and Clinton attended a similar study in 2009 using

equal spacing variables. The authors determined that the "results provided insufficient

evidence that time and comprehension differ significantly among different conditions of

spacing between sentences” (Ni, Branch, Chen, & Clinton, 2009).

The World Wide Web reduces all repeated spaces because of the characteristics of HTML

(Lupton, 2004). Even though this can be observed as a restriction of the underlying technology,

and as such it doesn't suggest the same fine-grained control of spacing as other modern

software. However, in digital age, many school students are still taught to strike the space bar

twice between sentences when using computers, contributing to confusion regarding sentence

spacing in the 21st century (Strizver, 2010).

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 5(2), 161-174

165

Researchers who support the single spacing defend that acquaintance with the current

standard in books, magazines, and the Web improves readability, that double spacing looks

weird in text using relative fonts (Williams, 2003). Proponents of double sentence spacing

state that the extra space between sentences boosts readability by given that breaks between

sentences and creating text seem more legible (Williams, 1995).

Problem Statement

Typography design for on screen is a new problem, even if rules coming from the printed press

could apply, a certain number of specific features from the digital media ask to redefine exact

rules (Ferrari & Short, 2002). Accordingly, the necessity for exploration connected with font,

particularly in order to improve students’ reading skills to retain information and enhance their

reading speed. The reason is readability on screen text is a vital element to make sure the

effects of interactivity with on screen text. For on screen text design, selection of suitable fonts

has an influence on students, mainly in terms of identifying and reading the symbols

successfully. While the letters are set together to arrange words, the feature of distinguishing

these signs or fonts is significant for perfect readability (Yoshida, 2000).

This concern is essential for the reason that readability is the significant factor affecting the

output and tiredness of one’s work (Hyungsuk & Hyunseung, 2007). Additionally, writers have

an accountability to design documents with suitable readability, it is essential to make sure

that messages can be interact excellently to the readers (Rabinowitz, 2006).

Another problem that need to be stressed is that more and more information in the form of

text is discriminated via the screen, the effect of font type and readability of on-screen text in

order to improvement of reading and reader’s performance. There has been limited study

conducted on on-screen text readability and performance, many study have been done for

printed version of font type.

Research Objectives

The purposes of this research are to distinguish which typeface such as serif and san serif has

more efficiency for reading of on screen text to improve reading performances, as well as

examine how line spacing can effect on readability in order to determine reading speed and

comprehension, and easiness of reading on screen text.

Research Questions

The questions of the research were:

1) What is the effect of font types (Times New Roman vs. Verdana) on ease of reading?

2) What is the effect of font types (Times New Roman vs. Verdana) on retention?

3) What is the effect of font types (Times New Roman vs. Verdana) on time taken to

read?

4) What is the effect of spacing (single spacing vs. double spacing) on ease of reading?

5) What is the effect of spacing (single spacing vs. double spacing) on retention?

6) What is the effect of spacing (single spacing vs. double spacing) on time taken to read?

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 5(2), 161-174

166

Research Hypotheses

: There is no significant difference in the ease of reading when Times New Roman is used

compared to Verdana.

: There is no significant difference in the retention when Times New Roman is used

compared to Verdana.

: There is no significant difference in time taken to read when Times New Roman is used

compared to Verdana.

: There is no significant difference in the ease of reading when using single spacing

compared to double spacing.

: There is no significant difference in the retention when using single spacing compared to

double spacing.

: There is no significant difference in time taken to read when using single spacing

compared to double spacing.

Methodology

Sample

The participants selected for this study were from a Malaysian University. A total of 30

international postgraduate students involved in this study. These students were randomly

chosen for data analysis purposes.

Research Design

A repeated experimental design was used to test the effects of the independent variables on-

screen font types upon the dependent variables of ease of reading and reading comprehension

and speed. The variables contain of two different groups of text; serif and san serif font type.

The font types chosen for this study were Times New Roman and Verdana.

Instrumentation

Four reading passages or text blocks, with containing 200 words at the same level of difficulty

were prepared. Two expert lecturers from a Malaysian university reviewed and validated these

four text blocks before the instrument was developed. The reading text blocks as exposed in

Figure 1 and Figure 2 below used serif and san serif fonts with single and double spacing.

Each text block contained the different topic; this was also validated by a specialist instructor.

Experiments were carried out to measure the readability of font type and spacing on reading

on-screen text readability and performance.

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 5(2), 161-174

167

Figure 1. Verdana, Single Space

Figure 2. Times New Roman, Single Space

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 5(2), 161-174

168

Research Procedures

Respondents were randomly assigned to read four passages containing 200 words at the equal

level of difficulty, with different font type and different spacing. For each student, time was

taken in order to their reading speed to identify which font type by which spacing is easier to

read. At the end of the each text block they have to answer a few questions in order to

examine through which font type they can recall information. They were asked to read each

passage. After reading each passage the respondents should answer each question that

related to passage. Respondents weren’t permitted to go back to the passage to look through

passage.

Demographic data were collected to demonstrate their age, their level of postgraduate study,

level of the usage of computer and the amount of time that they spend reading on-screen text.

All text passage was fixed to a standard 12-point size.

Data Analysis

The data analyzing were based on the research questions, the respondents were a quite

variant group in terms of gender, age, hours of computer use, and computer proficiency. For

data analysis two groups of respondents were chosen. The majority of the study respondents

were female. In addition, a large majority of the respondents had spent more than 6 hours on

using computer. Four text blocks in Part B of the questionnaire were designed to elicit the

respondent’s preferences to ward reading academic texts on a computer screen for two

purposes: reading for on-screen text with different font type and with different line spacing.

The respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement on each of four blocks text on

questionnaire.

Findings

Dependent t-test was used to examine the degree of statistical difference and magnitude in

students’ responses. In this research the font type size used for the passages was 12 pt.as this

font size was considered appropriate, wide range of web sites use 12 pt. font size (Bernard,

Mills, Peterson, & Storrer, 2001). The t-test was used to test whether there were significant

differences in the readability of on- screen text between serif and san serif font’s types and

spacing. Results from Part One of the questionnaire showed that the respondents have a

meaningful preference for reading academic texts on a computer screen. Part Two of the

questionnaire involved two sections. The first section measures the students’ performances of

on-screen reading.

The final questions were designed to examine the respondents’ level of agreement as to what

they prefer to use to read texts with on a computer screen under the given conditions. The

results showed that the mean differences for four items were statistically significant. Using a

probability = 0.05 as a convenient "level of significance" for making a decision whether to

reject the null hypothesis or not. Accordingly, in this study one should reject the hypothesis

based on to test the hypothesis which was 0.871 between single space Times New Roman vs.

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 5(2), 161-174

169

Verdana single space for retention and the level of significance for time taken between Times

New Roman single space vs. Verdana single space was 0.253.

As well, the level of significance between double Times new roman vs. Verdana double space

for retention was 0.025 and the level of significance of time taken between double space

Times new roman vs. Verdana double space was 0.001. The results show that the differences

toward on-screen reading between the two different font type such as serif and san serif

(Times New Roan vs. Verdana) with different spacing (Double spacing vs. Single spacing) did

differ much.

Table1. Respondents’ Font Type Preference

Table 2. Respondents Text Block Preference for Easy to Recall

58%

23%

10%

Verdana,Double spacing

Times New Roman,Double spacing

Verdana, single spacing

Times New Roman,

single space

Times New Roman,

double space

Verdana, single space Verdana, double

space

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 5(2), 161-174

170

The respondents strongly agreed that they read texts blocks number 4 (Verdana with double

spacing) on screen easier than other text blocks. On the other hand, the respondents also

showed a confirmatory which they prefer double spacing rather than single spacing for on-

screen reading purposes. Result from the dependent t-test shows that there was a significant

main effect of line length on ease of reading, as well respondents prefer to reading on- screen

text block with Verdana font type and double spacing in order to ease of reading for readers

and easy to recall the text. Students had relatively average level of engagement in on-screen

reading they tended to read texts on-screen for a longer time and read more section of texts

with proper font type and line spacing in terms of not deciding whether to print out online

materials.

Table 3. Results of Paired T-Test and Time Taken

Time Taken

Sig.

Times New Roman, single space vs. Verdana, single space

Times New Roman, double space vs. Verdana, double space

6.117

5.572

0.000

Table 4. Results of Paired t-Test and Readability

Readability

Sig.

Times New Roman, single space vs. Verdana, single space

Times New Roman, double space vs. Verdana, double space

4.065

2.971

0.000

0.006

.29

The results indicate that the consideration toward two fonts type; Times New Roman single

space and double space vs. Verdana single space and double space, on-screen reading

between these two purposes did differ much. When measuring the effect of font type on

readability and time taken for each font type, the significance of difference was fairly high.

Moreover, in a study of fonts used on screen, researchers found that, the font types that were

supposed to being most readable were Courier, Comic, Verdana, Georgia, and Times (Bernard,

Mills, Peterson, & Storrer, 2001).

Furthermore, Bernard, Mills, Peterson, and Storrer (2001) establish that Arial, Comic, Tahoma,

Verdana, Courier, Georgia were considerably chosen over the other font types, though, that

Times New Roman is the most common default font type for word processing packages

software. Letters help to increase the readability of text. Though, the font type, serif or san

serif that has a worthy readability of text on a computer screen is quiet doubtful (Amdur,

2007). Recent studies have showed unpredictable results, which font type is finest for on

screen. Some fonts, such as Verdana, Tahoma, and Georgia, were advanced specially for use

on the screen (Font readability, 2013).

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 5(2), 161-174

171

The san serif font, Verdana, was definitely designed for showing on-screens. Verdana was

intended to be readable on computer screens by having extensive letter spacing and a large x-

height (Boyarski, Neuwirth, Forlizzi, & Regl, 1998). Verdana does entirety right on screen; it has

a large x-height consequently fonts look bigger, yet not so big that it's hard to tell the

lowercase from the uppercase or that it looks packed in apps such as web browsers that don't

have adjustable leading (Harris, 1998).

Verdana font type does a number of things to boost readability: its x-height is big, characters

are long (extra set width), enlarged letter spacing, bolds are enhanced. In addition Verdana is

designed for on-screen usage due to the fact that Verdana have exact letter spacing which

ensures that letters never touches. Several researchers believe that reading from a screen is

considerably slower than reading from paper-based texts, but this study shown that with

correct spacing between lines it can take short time reading with double spacing than single

spacing.

Discussion and Conclusion

Findings of text readability and reading performances between serif (Times New Roman) and

san serif (Verdana) fonts showed that the difference between these procedures is significant.

Accordingly, this finding further supports the important new role of san serif fonts, (i.e.

Verdana), in demonstrating more readable text on the computer screen that competitors

recognized the character of serif fonts (i.e. Time New Roman) for the equal presenting

determination. In addition, the serif fonts have been specifically designed for printed media

and not for show on the computer screen (Peck, 2003), whereas some san serif fonts, such as

Verdana, have been designed to fit into the computer screen that increases text readability

(Harris, 1998).

However, most of today’s computer screens have the capability to show all type of fonts visibly

on similarity with the printed media. In addition, these findings demonstrate that there are

significant differences in terms of readability between Times New Roman and Verdana fonts

on the computer screen (Peck, 2003; Powell, 2002). Overall, the respondents of this study

preferred Verdana font type with double spacing to Times New Roman font type.

Verdana has more readability as it is more clear, simple, with a high x-height, and with a width

set of the right dimensions to support progress of the readability of the on-screen text (Peck,

2003). Extra significant characteristic that has been established in refining Verdana text

readability is that its font letters are not in contact with each other and this exclusive feature

supports to increase readability on the computer screen.

As discussed earlier, Times New Roman font type was initially developed for printed media

(Ambrose & Harris, 2005). Times New Roman was intended to maintain the legibility of text,

regardless of the high amount of letterings contained in a single line of text (Conover, 2003).

Therefore, this font has frequently been used in newsprint to put up more thick text in a

limited space.

In this study, the findings show that there are significant differences in terms of readability and

reading performances of text in Times New Roman (serif font) and Verdana (san serif).

Accordingly, it can support the claim that san serifs have better computer screen readability

than serif. Earlier, (Bernard, Mills, Peterson, & Storrer, 2001) had found that Times New

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 5(2), 161-174

172

Roman allowed faster reading but Verdana was the font that selected by the research

respondents.

In conclusion, the finding of this study provides additional evidence on the efficiency of serif

and san serif fonts, for on-screen presentation purpose. Found on the findings and literature

review, this study recommends Verdana as the best choice for on-screen text reading.

This study found that there was significant difference in text readability and reading

performances on the computer screen text reading between serif (Times New Roman) and san

serif (Verdana) fonts. Additionally, the first font type which is designed for the printing and the

latter font is designed for the on-screen, offer different readability and reading performances

for on –screen text in this study.

The standard repetition of using serif and san serif fonts, specifically Times New Roman and

Verdana, for on- screen text reading would be preferable for reading long text on on-screen.

However, Times New Roman should be considered that is in especially for the print media

font’s category. On the other hand, certain assumption is not applicable at this point since the

study involves only 30 international respondents from a Malaysian university with different

level of postgraduate study; master and doctoral.

Future studies may consider longer term assessments, using different media over a period of

days, weeks, or months and should test longer passages; if possible, entire textbooks for

comprehension differences. Future studies may also involve different topics to see if age,

gender, or educational background would affect performance. Long term comprehension

effects must also be tested to see if retention differs based on design. The results of such

studies may provide interesting results.

New studies may also look at the essential time taken to find information in more or longer

text blocks during on-screen reading, examine the retention ability based on reading for

different font types of on-screen, and demonstrate how well-organized respondents notice the

readability.

References

Ambrose, G. & Harris, P. (2006). Basics design 03: Typography. Lousanne, Switzerland: AVA

Publishing.

Ambrose, G. & Harris, P. (2005). Typography. Lousanne, Switzerland: AVA Publishing.

Amdur, D. (2007). Typographic design in the digital studio: Design concepts. Clifton Park, NY:

Thomson/Delmar Learning.

Armbruster, B. B. (1977). Matching readers and texts: The continuing quest. In D. Lapp, J.

Flood, and N. Farnan (Eds.), Content area reading and learning (3

ed.). New York:

Erlbaum.

Bernard, M., Mills, M., Peterson, M., & Storrer, K. (2001). A comparison of popular online fonts:

Which is best and when? Retrieved on 12 February 2014 from http://psychology.wichita.

edu/surl/usabilitynews/3S/font.htm

Berrymann, G. (1984). Notes on graphic design and visual. Los Altos, CA: Kaufman.

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 5(2), 161-174

173

Boyarski, D., Neuwirth, C., Forlizzi, J., & Regl, S. (1998). A study of fonts designed for screen

display. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

(pp. 87-94). New York: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley.

Bryan, M. (1996). Digital typography sourcebook. Toronto, Canada: John Wiley & Sons.

Brady, P. ( 1993). Using type right: 121 basic no-nonsense rules for working with type. Chicago,

IL: NTC Publishing Group.

Chaparro, B., Baker, J., Shaikh, A., Brady, L., & Hull, S. (2004). Reading online text: A

comparison of four white space layouts. Retrieved on 9 August 2013 from

http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/62/whitespace.htm

Clinton, G. (2003). Statistically significant differences between reading time of single and

double spaces passages. AECT Leadership & Technology International Convention.

Anaheim, CA.

Conover, C. (2003). Designing for print: An in-depth guide to planning creating and producing

successful. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Dyson, M. (2004). How physical text layout affects reading from screen. Behaviour &

Information Technology, 23(6), 377-393.

Ferrari, T. & Short, C. (2002). Legibility and readability. Retrieved on 9 August 2013 from

http://bigital.com.

Font readability. (2013). Retrieved on 12 February 2014 from www.lcsc.edu

Gates, B. (n.d.). Microsoft Corporation. Retrieved on 12 February 2014 from http://www.

microsoft.com/typography/web/default.htm

Gotz, V. (1998). Color & type for the screen. Hove, East Sussex, England: Rotovision.

Gunning, T. (2003). The role of readability in today's classrooms. Language Disorders, 23(3),

175-188.

Harris, W. (1996). The best faces for the screen. Retrieved on 9 August 2013 from http://www.

will-haris.com/ typoscrn.htm.

Harris, w. (1998). Typefaces designed for the screen. Retrieved on 9 August 2013 from

http://www.will-hariss.com/Verdana-Georgia

Holmes, J. (1986). Formatting variables and typeface variations of dot-matrix print and their

effect on reading comprehension and reading speed. Retrieved on 12 February 2014

from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-02032004-161548/

Hyungsuk, J. & Hyunseung, C. (2007, May). An interactive user interface for text display.

Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Computational Science. Beijing, China.

Josephson, J. (2008). Keeping your readers’ eyes on the screen: An eye-tracking study

comparing san serif and serif typefaces. Visual Communication Quarterly, 15(1-2), 67-79.

Loh, C., Maribe B., R., Shewanown, S., & Radwan, A. (2002). The effect of text spacing after the

period on time for on-screen reading tasks. Selected Readings of the IVLA Annual

Conference. IVLA.

Lupton, E. (2004). Thinking with type. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

McLean, R. (1980). The Thames and Hudson manual of typography. London: Thames.

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 5(2), 161-174

174

Mills, C. & Weldon, L. (1987). Reading text from computer screens. ACM Computing Surveys,

19(4), 329-357.

Monotype. (1997). Web fonts for Microsoft. Retrieved from http://www.monotype.com/

html/news/nr_ms_web.html

Ni , X., Branch, R., Chen, K. C., & Clinton, G. (2009). The effects of text spacing on screen

reading time and comprehension. International Journal of Instructional Media, 36(4),

383-390.

Peck, W. (2003). Great web typography. New York: Wiley.

Powell, A. (2002). Web design: The complete reference. Osborne: McGraw-Hill.

Rabinowitz , T. (2006). Exploring typography. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.

Strizver, I. (2010). Double spaces between sentences ... Not! U&lc: Upper and Lowercase

Magazine Online; Issue 41.1.1. International Typeface Organization and Monotype

Imaging. Retrieved on 18 April 2014 from http://www.itcfonts.com/ulc/4111/

Doublespace.htm

Tschichold, J. (1965). Meisterbuch der schrift. Ravensburg: Otto Maier.

Turtschi , R. (1995). Praktische typographe: Gestalten mit dem personal computer. Sulgen,

Germany: Niggli.

Williams, R. (1995). The PC is not a typewriter. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit.

Williams, R. (2003). The Mac is not a typewriter: A style manual for creating professional-level

type on your Macintosh . Berkeley, CA: Peachpit.

Wilson, R. (2001). Text font readability study. Retrieved on 6 April 2013 from http://www.

wilsonweb.com/wmt6/html-email-fonts.htm.

Woods, R., Davis, K., & Scharff, L. (2005). Effects of typeface and font size on legibility for

children. American Journal of Psychological Research, 1(1), 86-102.

Yoshida, K. (2000). Avoiding typeface error. Society for Technical Communication Proceedings.

Retrieved on 6 April 2013 from http://www.stc.org/confproceed/2000/PDFs/ 00006.pdf

Correspondence: Nafiseh Hojjati, School of Instructional Technology and Multimedia,

Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia