Cited by 53Technology Use by Older AdultsUsability and User Interface DesignOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies

How to design font size for older adults: A systematic literature review with a mobile device

Open access
Hou, Guanhua, Anicetus, Umenwaniri, He, Jingwei·2022·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

With the global society aging, it is necessary to investigate suitable font size based on reading time/speed, readability and legibility for older adults. This study used a systematic review of previous and existing relevant research on font size for older adults and research on the psychophysics of reading and analyzed the outcomes based on reading time/speed, readability, legibility and the usability evaluation methods employed. Studies were selected from databases GOOGLE SCHOLAR, WEB OF SCIENCE, PUBMED, and SCIENCE DIRECT. An inclusion criterion was used to remove duplicates and avoid inconsistencies. Results suggest that older adults preferred larger font sizes. However, there exists a critical size at which readability declines. Inconsistencies in evaluation methods and experimental procedures were observed in the selected articles. This study suggested a reusable catalog of usability evaluation methods, eye tracking for user testing and a questionnaire for inquiry as suitable usability evaluation methods, a uniform metrics to measure font size (visual angle of font) in arcminutes and parameters to consider when investigating font size for older adults to ensure consistency in future studies.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.931646

Cites

50 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Dynamic adaptation is more aligned with the visual and cognitive needs of older users than conventional static optimization.

    “This finding not only supports previous research showing that font readability affects interface friendliness for older adults (25–27), but also further suggests that dynamic adaptation is more aligned with the visual and cognitive needs of older users than conventional static optimization (28).”

    From Designing age-friendly interfaces and wearable–environment integrations to enhance medication adherence: a discrete choice experiment among older adults (2026) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says that individual differences mean no single font-size recommendation is a permanent solution. The Discussion, under “Font size recommendation for older adults” (page unavailable), recommends flexible settings that let older adults select a suitable font size. These passages support adjustable design, but do not establish that dynamic adaptation better meets visual and cognitive needs than static optimization. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Journal Impact Factor - Journal Citation Reports - Web of Science Group2020
  2. Find Conferences, Journals, Workshops, Meetings, Symposiums, Seminars and Other Events2015
  3. 12Scimago Journal and Country Rank2019
  4. Tinker, 1963, Legibility of print.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hou, G., Anicetus, U., & He, J.
Affiliations
  • Ningbo University (CN)
  • Guangzhou University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Hou, Guanhua
  • He, Jingwei
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2022-08-01
Volume
13
Pages
931646-931646
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4289130364
Cited by
53
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 3
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Jilin Office of Philosophy and Social Science
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Keywords
font size, older adults, readability, legibility, reading speed, visual angle, usability evaluation methods, eye tracking, aging, typographic design

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