[LINK] Environmental impact of web versus print

[Richard Chirgwin]

Karl Auer wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 12:16 +1000, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>   
>>> Again, comfortable isn't necessarily the same thing as comprehensible or
>>> retainable.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Actually, "comfort" is highly correlated with retention when objective 
>> measures are applied.
>>     
>
> With serif vs sans-serif specifically? 
No. The research covered a host of different aspects of typography, and 
IIRC was initiated in the 1920s and repeated over many years - that is, 
up until the 1970s at least, perhaps longer.

It included -
Serif vs sans-serif
Column widths
Colours
Font size
Justification vs unjustified
Article length
Paragraph length
...and so on.

> People can "prefer" things for a
> host of reasons. Sans-serif looks "cooler", "more modern" or whatever.
> I'm quite happy with the idea that research has shown people to be "more
> comfortable" with this or that, or that they prefer such and such over
> so and so, but so far noone has shown anything that says sans-serif is
> better comprehended and better retained, by younger or older readers.
>   
I wasn't talking about the subjective response, but about a long study 
into measurables - the correlation between eye movement and retention. 
And while there may be different mechanical factors influencing 
on-screen usability/readability, I would suppose that similar 
correlations could be found; except that there doesn't seem to be much 
high-quality research covering this.

[snip]
>> Less eye movement was correlated with better comprehension.
>>     
>
> That's an empirical result, not an assumption - good. Was there any
> correlation between stated comfort and amount of eye movement? 
That's asking a lot of memory! As I said, the age of the research has 
made it somewhat difficult to find ... anyhow, I still think the 
original point can stand, that typographic research for on-screen 
information would probably help improve design (except of course that 
people who just cannot do without two-point white Helvetica on a beige 
background will use it no matter what!).
> Sorry to be picky, but we live in an age of bad research and piss-poor
> interpretation of same. It's worth being precise.
>   
Agreed. I'm arguing for good research into screen readability, not 
trying to give other research "from memory" because I wouldn't trust myself!

RC
> Regards, K.
>
>