3 ms·
Personally, I think that you could deduce that the conclusions were likely invalid by simply looking at the ordering of the "best fonts" list. They're is simpl
by SamBam 5y ago
Personally, I think that you could deduce that the conclusions were likely invalid by simply looking at the ordering of the "best fonts" list.
They're is simply no metric by which any reasonable person could arrange that set of fonts in that order.
Serif vs sans? Random. Condensed vs spaced out? Random. Heavy vs light? Random.
Obviously there can be subtle interactions that we haven't understood yet, but there is simply no hypothesis presented as to what features could be important. A study with "statistical significant" (perhaps) results and no hypothesis ought to at least be replicated before we even discuss it.
- smegsicle 5y agowell it doesn't seem completely off the wall- to my eye the top seven look pleasant to read, with the possible exception of oswald, where the bottom three- avenir next, avant garde, and open sans- look a tad obnoxious curious because open sans looks so normal, but yet so subtly bad ..
- SamBam 5y agoThe fact that Helvetica and Arial are far apart, yet completely indistinguishable by the average non-font-nerd is another indication to me that this ordering is fairly random.