E-mail List Archives
Thread: Question About Script Fonts and Accessibility
Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)
From: Elle
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2012 7:54AM
Subject: Question About Script Fonts and Accessibility
No previous message | Next message →
All:
Are there any specific accessibility guidelines surrounding script fonts?
We're considering using this web font (http://imgur.com/a/TS8Xj#0) for
supplementary call-out information, like "Sign up!" or "See more!" where
the same information is also clearly identified via traditional CTAs like
button, arrows, etc. Thoughts? We're planning to take this into usability
testing, too, and get feedback from senior users.
Thanks very much,
Elle
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2012 8:18AM
Subject: Re: Question About Script Fonts and Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
2012-02-17 16:56, Elle wrote:
> Are there any specific accessibility guidelines surrounding script fonts?
The obvious problem is the risk of reduced readability. Cultural
differences are an important factor. For example, I know people who can
read Russian conveniently in normal print fonts but have great
difficulties with handwritten text - or in a font simulating that (and I
used to have the same problem). Similarly, if the Latin letters are not
your "native alphabet" and you are not used to writing them by hand or
reading handwritten text, script fonts can reduce understandability.
> We're considering using this web font (http://imgur.com/a/TS8Xj#0)
I can read the headings, to the extent that pig Latin is readable, but
copy text in that size in that font is very inconvenient to read.
> for
> supplementary call-out information, like "Sign up!" or "See more!" where
> the same information is also clearly identified via traditional CTAs like
> button, arrows, etc.
It might work reasonably well, but it really depends on the font, on the
texts (especially length) and on the users - especially whether the text
is in their native language.
Yucca
From: Carol E Wheeler
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2012 8:39AM
Subject: Re: Question About Script Fonts and Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
I suggest avoiding script typefaces except in very limited applications.
The problem with your example is that /Lorem Ipsum/ is specifically used
when trying NOT to focus on text, but layout. In considering typefaces,
use an example of actual text from your Website.
/Lorem/ is actual Latin text, Cicero in fact.
-- cew
*Carol E. Wheeler*
Web Co-ordinator
American Institute for Cancer Research
1759 R Street NW
Washington DC 20009
Direct Dial: 202-600-3001
Tel: 202-328-7744
Fax: 202-328-7226
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.aicr.org
From: Elle
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2012 8:45AM
Subject: Re: Question About Script Fonts and Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
Jukka:
Thanks for the reply. You bring up an excellent point with the native
language consideration. However, because it's a web font, and we will be
setting the default language (our users are either English or Spanish
speaking), I definitely agree that it should be pointed out to ensure that
it translates (as a web font, it should). I'll keep thinking on the other
points you mentioned, too.
Thanks,
Elle
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Jukka K. Korpela < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> 2012-02-17 16:56, Elle wrote:
>
> > Are there any specific accessibility guidelines surrounding script fonts?
>
> The obvious problem is the risk of reduced readability. Cultural
> differences are an important factor. For example, I know people who can
> read Russian conveniently in normal print fonts but have great
> difficulties with handwritten text - or in a font simulating that (and I
> used to have the same problem). Similarly, if the Latin letters are not
> your "native alphabet" and you are not used to writing them by hand or
> reading handwritten text, script fonts can reduce understandability.
>
> > We're considering using this web font (http://imgur.com/a/TS8Xj#0)
>
> I can read the headings, to the extent that pig Latin is readable, but
> copy text in that size in that font is very inconvenient to read.
>
> > for
> > supplementary call-out information, like "Sign up!" or "See more!" where
> > the same information is also clearly identified via traditional CTAs like
> > button, arrows, etc.
>
> It might work reasonably well, but it really depends on the font, on the
> texts (especially length) and on the users - especially whether the text
> is in their native language.
>
> Yucca
>
>
From: Angela French
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2012 9:39AM
Subject: Re: Question About Script Fonts and Accessibility
← Previous message | Next message →
I don't know about font choice and accessibility, but I know I've read research on script font and usability in the past. Could not find it quickly this morning, but encourage you to research this. My recollection is that reading time/comprehension falls with the user of script fonts in body text. This alone would make me stay away from it. As an aside, my short Google search for you did yield this interesting article about perceived "personality" of various script fonts.
http://www.surl.org/usabilitynews/81/PersonalityofFonts.asp
Angela French
>Are there any specific accessibility guidelines surrounding script fonts?
> We're considering using this web font (http://imgur.com/a/TS8Xj#0) for
>supplementary call-out information, like "Sign up!" or "See more!" where
>the same information is also clearly identified via traditional CTAs like
>button, arrows, etc. Thoughts? We're planning to take this into usability
>testing, too, and get feedback from senior users.
>
>
>
>Thanks very much,
>Elle
>
From: Elle
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2012 10:03AM
Subject: Re: Question About Script Fonts and Accessibility
← Previous message | No next message
Thanks, Angela, I will read the article and do some research shortly. One
point of clarification: this isn't going to be used for body copy or
anything lengthy. The goal was that our designers wanted to provided some
personalized looking text that called out already apparent call-to-action
items, like "See more!"
Cheers,
Elle
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Angela French < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I don't know about font choice and accessibility, but I know I've read
> research on script font and usability in the past. Could not find it
> quickly this morning, but encourage you to research this. My recollection
> is that reading time/comprehension falls with the user of script fonts in
> body text. This alone would make me stay away from it. As an aside, my
> short Google search for you did yield this interesting article about
> perceived "personality" of various script fonts.
>
> http://www.surl.org/usabilitynews/81/PersonalityofFonts.asp
>
> Angela French
>
>
> >Are there any specific accessibility guidelines surrounding script fonts?
> > We're considering using this web font (http://imgur.com/a/TS8Xj#0) for
> >supplementary call-out information, like "Sign up!" or "See more!" where
> >the same information is also clearly identified via traditional CTAs like
> >button, arrows, etc. Thoughts? We're planning to take this into
> usability
> >testing, too, and get feedback from senior users.
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks very much,
> >Elle
> >