Comparing the effects of text size and format on the readibility of computer-displayed Times New Roman and Arial text
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Bernard, Chaparro, Mills and Halcomb (2003) found no significant difference in the readability of text between Times New Roman and Arial.
“This finding also concurs with the research findings of Bernard, Chaparro, Mills and Halcomb (2003), who found that no significant difference was found on the readability of text between Times New Roman and Arial.”
From Reading on the Computer Screen: Does Font Type has Effects on Web Text Readability? (2013) · cites this paper as Bernard, Chaparro, Mills and Halcomb (2003)
Cites
Cohen, J. (1992) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783 · Cited by 5,870 · see citing works
Reading text from computer screens
Mills, C. B., & Weldon, L. J. (1987) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/45075.46162 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
A study of fonts designed for screen display
Boyarski, D., Neuwirth, C., Forlizzi, J., & Regli, S. H. (1998) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '98 · doi:10.1145/274644.274658 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reading on the Computer Screen: Does Font Type has Effects on Web Text Readability?
Ali, A. Z. M., Wahid, R., Samsudin, K., & Idris, M. Z. (2013) · International Education Studies · doi:10.5539/ies.v6n3p26 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
A letter visual-similarity matrix for Latin-based alphabets
Simpson, I. C., Mousikou, P., Montoya, J. M., & Defior, S. (2013) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0271-4 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bernard, M. L., Chaparro, B. S., Mills, M. M., & Halcomb, C. G.
- Affiliations
- Wichita State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bernard, Michael L.
- Venue
- International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 823-835
- ISSN
- 1071-5819 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2024918559
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 14.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Graphic Design and Typography
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- readability, Times New Roman, Arial, typeface legibility, font size, reading speed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
