Learning and Fonts — Bigger And Easier is Maybe Not Better — Should We Really Make Websites Harder to Understand?

Counter-intuitive research reported in the New York Times raises some questions about how we design self-help materials.

A study to be published this year in the journal Psychological Science, led by Dr. Kornell, shows how strong this effect [The brain automatically associates perceptual fluency, or ease of storage, with retrieval fluency, ease of recall] can be. Participants studied a list of words printed in fonts of varying sizes and judged how likely they would be to remember them on a later test. Sure enough, they were most confident that they’d remember the words in large print, rating font size (ease of processing) as more likely to sustain memory even than repeated practice. They got it exactly backward. On real tests, font size made no difference and practice paid off, the study found [bold added].

And there is similar error in perceptions of the implications of font familiarity.

. . .[T]he researchers conducted a large experiment involving 222 students at a public school in Chesterland, Ohio. One group had all its supplementary study materials, in English, history and science courses, reset in an unusual font, like Monotype Corsiva. The others studied as before. After the lessons were completed, the researchers evaluated the classes’ relevant tests and found that those students who’d been squinting at the stranger typefaces did significantly better than the others in all the classes — particularly in physics.

“The reason that the unusual fonts are effective is that it causes us to think more deeply about the material,” a co-author of the study, Daniel M. Oppenheimer, a psychologist at Princeton, wrote in an e-mail. “But we are capable of thinking deeply without being subjected to unusual fonts. Think of it this way, you can’t skim material in a hard to read font, so putting text in a hard-to-read font will force you to read more carefully.”

I do not think this means that we should redesign all our websites to be as hard to understand as possible.  At a minimum, small and unfamiliar fonts will scare readers off, and even if they try to read, understand, and remember, they may start with more anxiety.

At a minimum, we should not be swayed by this research until we see it replicated with our target constituencies.

But the idea that you want people to work when engaging material is a very valuable one, and we should consider how to build sites that facilitate user investment in the process.  The trick, of course, is not scarring people away.  I think the way is to design interactive systems in which there is work required, but also immediate feedback.  Self-tests do that.  Asking people to repeat something aloud might do that (and be very helpful for court preparation.)

Ideas, please share.

P.S. Kate Bladow, in the comment below, links to an important study: “Jakob Nielsen has shown that low-literacy users don’t scan,” but rather read slowly and carefully.


About richardzorza

I am deeply involved in access to justice and the patient voice movement.
This entry was posted in Self-Help Services, Technology and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Learning and Fonts — Bigger And Easier is Maybe Not Better — Should We Really Make Websites Harder to Understand?

  1. I agree with Kate and based on my own experience watching adults try to make sense of information on the web they need to understand.

    Many of these adults are already in crisis by the time they get to our website. They are not students and many of them would never be able to take physics even at a high school level.

    I am entirely behind the practice and work idea by engaging users in interactive activities. To that end we have been working on putting together quizzes – we only have one posted as a demo and are working on the technical solution to doing more.
    the quiz provides immediate feedback no scoring – no judging, nothing to make you feel like you are stupid because you didn’t get the right answer and a chance to try again as well as an explanation for why the correct answer is correct and information to help you figure out the correct answer if you guess wrong.

    I am hoping that within the next 4 weeks we will have this up and running as a feature in the Unemployment Insurance section of MassLegalHelp. The demo – how it should appear to the user is at the bottom of Can I get Unemployment Insurance.

  2. Liz keith says:

    http://www.writeclearly.org, developed by Legal Aid of Western New York and Transcend, also has some helpful guidance and templates for designing visually accessible legal materials, including examples in Spanish.

  3. Gretchen says:

    But a hallmark of our constituents is that they won’t be studying. They’re paying us a one-time(ish) visit to get something done. Maybe studies on long-term retention of information are less relevant to us.

  4. Kate says:

    Richard – I would suspect that this study isn’t relevant to many of the self-represented litigants who we are trying to reach. Jakob Nielsen has shown that low-literacy users don’t scan. They read word for word, which requires a lot of time and focus. Adding another barrier that requires even more focus in order to decipher the text seems like it would cause them to completely skip more information more often. Likely parsing the text would also take more time and leave their eyes more fatigued. – K

Comments are closed.