Cited by 123Graphic Design and TypographyUsability and User Interface DesignData Visualization and Analytics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A study of fonts designed for screen display

Open access
Boyarski, Dan, Neuwirth, Christine, Forlizzi, Jodi, Regli, Susan Harkness·1998·Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '98

Abstract

This study examined the readabiity.andsubjective preferences of a set of fonts designed for screen display.Two new binary bitmap fonts performed well, suggesting that designers should consider incorporating similar attributes into default fonts for online type.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/274644.274658

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 24 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Dillon, A (1992). Reading from paper vs. screens: A critical review of the empirical literatures Ergorwmics, 35 (lo), 1297- 1326.
  2. Johnston, l? H. (1984). Assessment in reading. In l? D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol I, pp. 147- 182). NY: Longman.
  3. Paterson, D. G. & Tinker, M. A. (1931). Studies of typo- graphical factors influencing speed of reading: VI. Black'typ versus white type. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 15(2), 241- 247.
  4. Paterson, D. G. & xnker, M. A. (1929a). Studies of typo- graphical factors influencing speed of reading: ICI. Length of line. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 13(3), 205-219.
  5. Poulton, E.C. (1955). Letter differentiation and rate of com- prehension of reading. Journal of Applied Psycho&y, 49,358- 362. .
  6. Tiier, M. A (1947). The T&r speed of reading test. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press. , ,- 93 ', 21.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–123 of 123

Metadata

Authors
Boyarski, D., Neuwirth, C., Forlizzi, J., & Regli, S. H.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '98
Publisher
ACM Press
Published
1998
Pages
87-94
OpenAlex
W2079876841
Cited by
120
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
FWCI
8.69
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Minnesota
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Graphic Design and Typography
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design › Data Visualization and Analytics
Keywords
subjective preference, digital typography

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