skip to main content
10.1145/3565066.3608706acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobilehciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Preferred Reading Formats for Mobile Devices: Results from Readability Studies

Published:26 September 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

The shift towards reading on mobile screens presents opportunities for tailoring text formats to readers with different needs, yet navigating reading controls proves challenging for readers. Prior work recommends presenting readers with reading themes: a small but diverse set of pre-bundled settings of font with character, word, and line spacing. This work extends the approach to mobile screens, while additionally considering color and contrast adjustments, and digital reading rulers that have been shown to positively impact digital reading. While validating text format guidelines that hold across desktop and mobile reading themes, we found some subtle differences in recommended reading formats for mobile screens. Additionally, we discuss the benefits of providing readers with color and contrast adjustments and reading rulers as additional customizable extensions on top of the proposed reading themes.

References

  1. Luis Otávio de Avelar, Guilherme Camillo Rezende, and André Pimenta Freire. 2015. WebHelpDyslexia: A Browser Extension to Adapt Web Content for People with Dyslexia. Procedia Comput. Sci. 67 (2015), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.259Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Jayeeta Banerjee, Deepti Majumdar, Madhu Sudan Pal, and Dhurjati Majumdar. 2011. Readability, Subjective Preference and Mental Workload Studies on Young Indian Adults for Selection of Optimum Font Type and Size during Onscreen Reading. Al Ameen Journal of Medical Sciences 4, 2 (2011), 131–143.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Sofie Beier. 2009. Typeface Legibility : Towards defining familiarity. Ph. D. Dissertation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Sofie Beier, Sam Berlow, Esat Boucaud, Zoya Bylinskii, Tianyuan Cai, Jenae Cohn, Kathy Crowley, Stephanie L Day, Tilman Dingler, Jonathan Dobres, 2022. Readability research: An interdisciplinary approach. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction 16, 4 (2022), 214–324.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Sofie Beier and Kevin Larson. 2013. How does typeface familiarity affect reading performance and reader preference?Information Design Journal 20, 1 (Sept. 2013), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.20.1.02beiGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Sofie Beier, Chiron A. T. Oderkerk, Birte Bay, and Michael Larsen. 2021. Increased letter spacing and greater letter width improve reading acuity in low vision readers. Information Design Journal 26, 1 (April 2021), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.19033.beiGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Michael Bernard, Bonnie Lida, Shannon Riley, Telia Hackler, and Karen Janzen. 2002. A Comparison of Popular Online Fonts: Which Size and Type is Best?Usability News 4, 1 (2002), 8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Michael L. Bernard, Barbara S. Chaparro, Melissa M. Mills, and Charles G. Halcomb. 2003. Comparing the effects of text size and format on the readibility of computer-displayed Times New Roman and Arial text. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 59, 6 (Dec. 2003), 823–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00121-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. David Beymer, Daniel Russell, and Peter Orton. 2008. An eye tracking study of how font size and type influence online reading., 15–18 pages. https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/hci2008.23Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Sanjiv K. Bhatia, Ashok Samal, Nithin Rajan, and Marc T. Kiviniemi. 2011. Effect of font size, italics, and colour count on web usability. International Journal of Computational Vision and Robotics 2, 2 (2011), 156. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijcvr.2011.042271Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Dan Boyarski, Christine Neuwirth, Jodi Forlizzi, and Susan Harkness Regli. 1998. A study of fonts designed for screen display. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’98. ACM Press, Los Angeles, California, United States, 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1145/274644.274658Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Tianyuan Cai, Aleena Gertrudes Niklaus, Bernard Kerr, Michael Kraley, and Zoya Bylinskii. 2023. THERIF: Themes for Readability from Iterative Feedback. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI EA ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 279, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585679Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Tianyuan Cai, Aleena Gertrudes Niklaus, Michael Kraley, Bernard Kerr, and Zoya Bylinskii. 2023. THERIF: A Pipeline for Generating Themes for Readability with Iterative Feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04221 (2023).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Tianyuan Cai, Shaun Wallace, Tina Rezvanian, Jonathan Dobres, Bernard Kerr, Samuel Berlow, Jeff Huang, Ben D. Sawyer, and Zoya Bylinskii. 2022. Personalized Font Recommendations: Combining ML and Typographic Guidelines to Optimize Readability. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Virtual Event, Australia) (DIS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533457Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Susana TL Chung. 2004. Reading speed benefits from increased vertical word spacing in normal peripheral vision. Optometry and Vision Science 81, 7 (2004), 525–535.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. R Cooper and T. R. Miles. 2011. Revised Adult Dyslexia Organisation screening. Outsider Software Web site (2011), 2–3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Austin Erickson, Kangsoo Kim, Gerd Bruder, and Gregory F Welch. 2020. Effects of dark mode graphics on visual acuity and fatigue with virtual reality head-mounted displays. In 2020 IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). IEEE, 434–442.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Stephani Foraker and Brian McElree. 2011. Comprehension of Linguistic Dependencies: Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff Evidence for Direct-Access Retrieval From Memory. Language and linguistics compass 5, 11 (2011), 764–783.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Jessica Galliussi, Luciano Perondi, Giuseppe Chia, Walter Gerbino, and Paolo Bernardis. 2020. Inter-letter spacing, inter-word spacing, and font with dyslexia-friendly features: Testing text readability in people with and without dyslexia. Ann. Dyslexia 70, 1 (March 2020), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-020-00194-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Mayank Goel, Leah Findlater, and Jacob Wobbrock. 2012. WalkType. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2687–2696. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208662Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Richard H Hall and Patrick Hanna. 2004. The impact of web page text-background colour combinations on readability, retention, aesthetics and behavioural intention. Behaviour &; Information Technology 23, 3 (May 2004), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290410001669932Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Vicki L. Hanson and Susan Crayne. 2005. Personalization of Web browsing: Adaptations to meet the needs of older adults. Universal Access Inf. 4, 1 (July 2005), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-005-0110-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Sebastian P. Korinth, Kerstin Gerstenberger, and Christian J. Fiebach. 2020. Wider Letter-Spacing Facilitates Word Processing but Impairs Reading Rates of Fast Readers. Front. Psychol. 11 (March 2020), 444. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00444Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Donald G MacKay. 1982. The problems of flexibility, fluency, and speed–accuracy trade-off in skilled behavior.Psychological review 89, 5 (1982), 483.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Eva Marinus, Michelle Mostard, Eliane Segers, Teresa M. Schubert, Alison Madelaine, and Kevin Wheldall. 2016. A Special Font for People with Dyslexia: Does it Work and, if so, why?Dyslexia 22, 3 (May 2016), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1527Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Aleena Gertrudes Niklaus, Tianyuan Cai, Zoya Bylinskii, and Shaun Wallace. 2023. Digital Reading Rulers: Evaluating Inclusively Designed Rulers for Readers With Dyslexia and Without. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 47, 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581367Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Peter O’Donovan, Janis Libeks, Aseem Agarwala, and Aaron Hertzmann. 2014. Exploratory font selection using crowdsourced attributes. ACM Trans. Graphics 33. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1145/2601097.2601110Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Hilary Palmén, Michael Gilbert, and David Crossland. 2023. How bold can we be? The impact of adjusting font grade on readability in light and dark polarities. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. E. C. Poulton. 1965. Letter differentiation and rate of comprehension in reading.J. Appl. Psychol. 49, 5 (1965), 358–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022461Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Adam V Reed. 1973. Speed-accuracy trade-off in recognition memory. Science 181, 4099 (1973), 574–576.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Luz Rello 2014. Pompeu Fabra Interviews., 470 pages. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781848449114.00016Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Luz Rello and Ricardo Baeza-Yates. 2013. Good fonts for dyslexia. In Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/2513383.2513447Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Luz Rello and Ricardo Baeza-Yates. 2015. How to present more readable text for people with dyslexia. Universal Access Inf. 16, 1 (Nov. 2015), 29–49. Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-015-0438-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Luz Rello and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2017. Good Background Colors for Readers. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/3132525.3132546Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Luz Rello and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2017. Good Background Colors for Readers. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, New York, NY, 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/3132525.3132546Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Luz Rello, Martin Pielot, and Mari-Carmen Marcos. 2016. Make It Big!. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, San Jose California USA, 3637–3648. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858204Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Linda Reynolds and Sue Walker. 2004. ’You can’t see what the words say’: Word spacing and letter spacing in children’s reading books. J. Res. Read. 27, 1 (Feb. 2004), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00216.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Somipam R Shimray, Chennupati Keerti, Chennupati K Ramaiah, 2015. An overview of mobile reading habits. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology 35, 5 (2015), 343–354.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Yu-Chi Tai, Shun-nan Yang, John Hayes, and James Sheedy. 2012. Effect of Character Spacing on Text Legibility. Technical Report. Vision Performance Institute, Pacific University, Oregon, USA. 24 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomas S Tullis, Jennifer L Boynton, and Harry Hersh. 1995. Readability of fonts in the windows environment. In Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems. 127–128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Shaun Wallace, Zoya Bylinskii, Jonathan Dobres, Bernard Kerr, Sam Berlow, Rick Treitman, Nirmal Kumawat, Kathleen Arpin, Dave B. Miller, Jeff Huang, and Ben D. Sawyer. 2022. Towards Individuated Reading Experiences: Different Fonts Increase Reading Speed for Different Individuals. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 29, 4 (Aug. 2022), 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/3502222Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Shaun Wallace, Zoya Bylinskii, Jonathan Dobres, Bernard Kerr, Sam Berlow, Rick Treitman, Nirmal Kumawat, Kathleen Arpin, Dave B. Miller, Jeff Huang, and Ben D. Sawyer. 2022. Towards Individuated Reading Experiences: Different Fonts Increase Reading Speed for Different Individuals. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 29, 4 (Aug. 2022), 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/3502222Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Arnold Wilkins, Roanna Cleave, Nicola Grayson, and Louise Wilson. 2009. Typography for children may be inappropriately designed. J. Res. Read. 32, 4 (Nov. 2009), 402–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01402.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Tetsuo Yamabe and Kiyotaka Takahashi. 2007. Experiments in Mobile User Interface Adaptation for Walking Users. In The 2007 International Conference on Intelligent Pervasive Computing (IPC 2007). IEEE, IEEE, 280–284. https://doi.org/10.1109/ipc.2007.94Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Shangshang Zhu, Xinyu Su, and Yenan Dong. 2021. Effects of the Font Size and Line Spacing of Simplified Chinese Characters on Smartphone Readability. Interact. Comput. 33, 2 (March 2021), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwab020Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Marco Zorzi, Chiara Barbiero, Andrea Facoetti, Isabella Lonciari, Marco Carrozzi, Marcella Montico, Laura Bravar, Florence George, Catherine Pech-Georgel, and Johannes C. Ziegler. 2012. Extra-large letter spacing improves reading in dyslexia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 28 (June 2012), 11455–11459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1205566109Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Preferred Reading Formats for Mobile Devices: Results from Readability Studies

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          MobileHCI '23 Companion: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction
          September 2023
          256 pages

          Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 26 September 2023

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • extended-abstract
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate202of906submissions,22%
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)74
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format