Keeping Your Readers' Eyes on the Screen: An Eye-Tracking Study Comparing Sans Serif and Serif Typefaces
Abstract
An exploratory eye-tracking study was designed to compare the onscreen legibility of sans serif and serif typefaces. The typefaces selected for this study included the serif font Times New Roman and the sans serif font Arial—both originally designed for printing on paper—and the serif font Georgia and the sans serif font Verdana—both designed in recent years especially for reading onscreen. Six participants read four short news stories, each displayed in a different typeface, while their eye-movement behavior was recorded. Overall, Verdana performed best. Participants were able to read more quickly and experienced fewer regressions (backward movements) when the type was set in Verdana. They also expressed a strong preference for this font on the computer screen.
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?
Georgia and Verdana were developed specifically for computer screens.
“These fonts were chosen as Georgia (serif) and Verdana (san serif) were developed specifically for the purpose of computer screens, whilst Times New Roman (Serif) and Arial (san serif) were originally developed for printed media (Bernard, Chia & Mills, 2001;Josephson, 2008).”
From Reading on the Computer Screen: Does Font Type has Effects on Web Text Readability? (2013) · cites this paper as Josephson, 2008
Times New Roman and Arial were originally developed for printed media.
“These fonts were chosen as Georgia (serif) and Verdana (san serif) were developed specifically for the purpose of computer screens, whilst Times New Roman (Serif) and Arial (san serif) were originally developed for printed media (Bernard, Chia & Mills, 2001;Josephson, 2008).”
From Reading on the Computer Screen: Does Font Type has Effects on Web Text Readability? (2013) · cites this paper as Josephson, 2008
Prior studies show mixed results: some find no difference between fonts, while others recommend sans serif fonts for computer screens in terms of readability.
“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).”
From The Effects of Font Type and Spacing of Text for Online Readability and Performance (2014) · cites this paper as Josephson, 2008
Cites
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
“These fonts were chosen as Georgia (serif) and Verdana (san serif) were developed specifically for the purpose of computer screens, whilst Times New Roman (Serif) and Arial (san serif) were originally developed for printed media (Bernard, Chia & Mills, 2001; Josephson, 2008).”
BackgroundMethodThe Effects of Font Type and Spacing of Text for Online Readability and Performance
Hojjati, N., & Muniandy, B. (2014) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/6122 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
“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).”
Background
- Authors
- Josephson, S.
- Affiliations
- Weber State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Josephson, Sheree
- Venue
- Visual Communication Quarterly
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-04
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 67-79
- ISSN
- 1555-1393 (ISSN-L)
- 1555-1407
- OpenAlex
- W2036427948
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 1.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Visual Communication Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Graphic Design and Typography
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- sans-serif typeface, digital typography, eye movements, reading speed, regression analysis, Times New Roman, Arial, Georgia, news articles
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
