They discovered that Lexend Increased reading speeds scientifically? They tested it on 20 people, a tiny sample. Additionally they were all the same age, strangely only 8 out of 20 were male (for an unexplained reason) and five or so of the fonts were Lexend with only one that wasn’t (times new roman). Just by standard distribution five out of every six reads would automatically go to Lexend. Surely they should’ve done six different fonts one of which was Lexend? Highly unreliable Edit 4 years later: Just remembered this video and the silly comment I made about there being strangely only 8 males. There's about a 50% chance to have a sex imbalance this severe (I'd have made a similar comment back then about 12 males and 8 females). So that point is rubbish but at least from skimming over the rest of the comment the rest of the trial issues still seem to be problematic.
I have heard (heresay) that there should have been scores and scores of scientific studies that had showed that fonts with serifs would be more readable - which is why newspapers would be printed in such fonts, such as Times.
@amazingbollweevil @findecanor I find it peculiar that some serifs are considered by some to be easier on the eyes/more readable, when organisations such as the British Dyslexia Association, recommend against serifs for the exact opposite reason
That's a very small study, and it was only tested against Times New Roman. If 4/5 fonts in the study are Lexend fonts, then there's a much higher likelihood that one of them works better than Times. I'd say more research is needed. Much more. Good idea though!
If I wanted to conclude Lexend is/isn't the best for sure, what I would do is test it vs. other fonts AND test the different versions against fonts that have similar characteristics to that particular Lexend variation.
There's so many factors that could go into play with that kind of experiment: only 1 of the 5 fonts WASN'T Lexend, not all kids are confident at reading aloud, only 19 kids were tested, the reading level was 2 levels higher so students that can guess pronunciation more accurately on words they don't know score higher...
Yes. Absolutely in know way at all is this experiment even close to being scientific and therefore the data collected, while maybe looking good on ads, does not prove anything. When it comes to more accurate reading I prefer OpenDyslexic, which may not look as good and clean, but at least it has been proven to work for most people by real science. I call that cheddar got sponsored by Lexend and Google
Also, when presenting their results, one variant of their type scored at the same level as the other font, but they still grouped this variant with the others to increase their effectiveness. That's cheating.
How does testing 20 3rd graders make this a scientifically proven success? This is not a scientific method, not peer reviewed, not big enough sample pool, & probably English biased.
It’s a starting point. And some of the most popular fonts, especially in BOLD, are atrocious, so any degree of improvement is welcome. And by the way, the test on one third grade classroom was probably very time consuming and expensive for someone without a research grant. If she had more financial support, she could have repeated it with more subjects. Someone should try to repeat the test! I do like the larger separation between letters. Arial, Microsoft’s favorite and default, is the opposite in that respect, and also has look-alike character shapes. Lower case R followed by lower case M, N, or R (even lower case J) can melt together: is “Arnie” read as “ARNIE” or “AMIE?” Is “Army” the word “ARMY” or “A_Y,” with an unknown symbol where the “_” goes? Upper case I, lower case L, and numeral 1 all look alike in Arial. “Is George III at ease?” could mean “Is [King] George the Third at ease?” or “Is [someone named] George ILL at ease?” Upper case O and numeral 0 (zero) are hard to tell apart in Arial unless there is at least one known example of both in the text. For that reason, codes like auto VIN numbers (yes, I know it’s redundant) appearing in a message text should always be copied and pasted into an open scratch Notepad window using monotype Courier New (a serif font) before being written on paper, or read aloud, preferably using the November Alpha Tango Oscar phonetics. Especially passwords, which combine mixed case letters, numerals, AND punctuation marks in unconventional patterns! I hope Windows and Windows apps will start using Lexend fonts very soon!
Yeah, I agree. I avoided bringing that up in my earlier comment. I was beefing over how difficult it is to read; it's aesthetics, which I dislike. The scientific merits of the method used isn't really scientific even if you look at how small the sample size is and the restricted application. It's almost like taking Babylonian Hebrew from stone tablets, and giving that to the subjects, or this text, and having a unanimous agreement that the lex-text is the best.....lol. With that business model I think we could find people stranded in the desert for a few days and sell them water.
They even said in the video *ONE* od these studies. That was one example of one of the studies. Hundreds of studies have been done. The one they chose was just an easy to explain example.
Also, the element of reading aloud is questionable. I can read with comprehension at an adequate rate, but wheweeee! I can hardly read Dick and Jane if i need to read aloud.
Ino did it! Is that how they did it? That’s so interesting. Thank you. The only time I did the Pepsi channel was at a midnight fair on LSD. Obviously a long time ago. They tasted the same to me then. But, I used to prefer coke. Now, I don’t drink soda at all. I like lots of water and iced tea with no sugar
Well, not exactly. First of all, this one just one study to illustrate the point for this video -- they're not basing an entire theory on that one study, but from many studies over many years that create a compelling body of evidence. Secondly, a small sample can be statistically valid if the effect is strong. In this case, 17/19 students improved, so around 90%. That's pretty strong -- we'd need some variance measures to calculate exactly how strong -- but it's a lot more statistically significant than something with a weak effect, i.e. closer to 50%. For something with a result of, say, 55%, you would need a much larger sample before you could say the effect was probably not due to chance sampling error. In other words, if the small sample result was due to chance alone (i.e. you just happened to randomly select more people for whom it worked), then that is a lot less likely for a 90% situation than for a 55% situation.
***Your results may vary. Consult with your teacher before beginning or changing your reading plan. Side effects may include dry eyes, dizziness, and headache. Do not operate a motor vehicle while using Lexand.
My non-scientific guess would be: measuring, recording, analysing, with a premise, a conclusion, a loop of those steps. Possibility of repetition of the same test by others.
I’d prefer an experience with: - More people - More fonts (like Century Gothic and Montserrat) - More casings types (readability in upper- or lowercase is very different) - More languages
There is no science and methods to teach understanding. Some information was taken and packed due to time consuming reasons, transferred to other person, decoded with unknown decoder and mapped onto unknown picture of the world.
There should be something to help these people in the video clip to pick better examples, if there are any. Even the description underneath starts with a false premise, to suit their “hot news”. Artform? Uhm, no. Readability was always the goal, ever since movable type.
You could’ve done something more interesting looking at the Dyslexie font which is more significantly adapted for readability. Also you missed the difference between font and and script, there being an exciting history of readability in calligraphy. Seriously, no mention of the Antiqua Fraktur dispute! This feels like an advert more than it does journalism
Also, the Antiqua Fraktur dispute has nothing to do with the video. These seem less like actual criticisms and more like reasons for you to show off your basic knowledge of design history.
Very similar to Avenir, which is used for Blu-ray subtitles. Avenir and its predecessor, Futura, are sometimes criticized for being highly legible but not as readable as humanist typefaces such as Frutiger, Myriad, Noto Sans, Calibri and Carlito. Old-style serifs, such as Garamond, Minion Pro and Centaur, are usually considered the most readable.
It's obvious that you are very knowledgeable about fonts! I created the original Lexend almost 20 yrs ago and the mission is big and needs supporters like you. We hope you sign up and offer your support! www.lexend.com/ info@lexend.com
As well as the many comments about 20 kids & the font choices not making a reliable sample ... the one question I have goes right to the core of the whole project - what evidence is there that “reading speed” has any influence on “reading comprehension” or overcoming learning difficulties?
I am a teacher in Germany and was taught to use Comic Sans for dyslexic students. From my experience over the years with many 100s of students ... Comic Sans does a really good job for those students.
One of the best things about using an e-reader is that I can read in whatever font I want (that's supported by the e-reader). Being able to read every book in a sans serif font makes reading much easier and comfortable on the eye.
But in order to understand a text, you must be able to read it properly. However, you cannot understand what is written if you cannot read it at all. (well, unless somebody reads it to you)
My favourite typeface is Helvetica, which (up until now!) has always been considered the most readable. I have now downloaded the Lexend typeface set and am keen to try it. Please note the difference between a typeface and a font. Lexend, Helvetica, and Times Roman are all examples of TYPEFACES. Times 10 point and Times 12 point are two DIFFERENT fonts! A font is made up of typeface, size (usually in points), stroke weight (eg bold, regular, light) and style (eg roman, italic). Thus Palatino 12 point bold italic is a font. Palatino is the *typeface*. Please also note that Linotype is pronounced as "LINE-o-type", because that is what it produced; a line of type at a time. Last, but not least, you do not "hone in" on anything; you *home* in; to 'hone' something (eg a knife) is to sharpen it!
@@dlbstl My pleasure! I grew up in the 'hot metal' typesetting era when the distinction was MUCH more important. Frankly, I mostly blame Microsoft and Apple for the confusion, as they both label typefaces as 'fonts' in their applications. Libre Office is almost as bad, sadly. The confusion may have arisen with early HP laser printers which had a variety of FONT cartridges. The most popular of these had up to 14 different fonts, in ONLY two typefaces! (They were 'TmsRmn' and 'Helv'.) The LaserJet III range introduced typeface scaling, with embedded typefaces, which eliminated the restrictions of the past. You could still use the older font cartridges, but could now also download 'soft' typefaces to the printer to dramatically increase the range of typefaces available to print.. Unfortunately, HP called these "soft fonts". OOPS!
@@123-t9f8t Bonny did tests on just 20 students which isn't NEALRY enough to "scientifically prove" something. Ali is making fun of the studies saying if he could dislike the video 20 times with each one counting, he could "scientifically" dislike it
I was in college as a graphic design student during the time that this was happening... and I have to say that this wasn't entirely a novel idea. We already knew in design that the kind of typeface you choose has an impact on legibility, and that's why certain types are chosen over others for specific situations. Also... as a designer I have to say you're wrong in citing a sans serif type face is easier to read. this is objectively incorrect and is the reason why smaller type is typically printed in a serif type instead of a sans serif. This specific sans serif might be highly legible, but sans serif type in general is harder to read than serif.
That's what I've always heard too after taking graphic design courses. I agree with you. There has to have been more to this then one trial of 19 kids.
I’ve been writing for many years, started out with Times New Roman. I wanted to switch to something easier to read years ago, so I switched to Helvetica. I will give Lexend a try, as well as several others I see mentioned in the comments.
I would also suggest Atkinson Hyperlegible too. It's a font specifically designed for people who have issues differentiating between letters while still keeping an aesthetic that regular people can be comfortable with. Mayhaps this could also help in reading faster too? I'd actually like to hear about what you think of the several fonts you said you'd try.
The font I personally find the easiest to digest (i.e., fastest to read) is Trebuchet MS - as noted elsewhere in the comments, it helps having the uppercase "I" and the lowercase "l" be immediately visually distinct and, thus, unambiguous. The font I find most aesthetically pleasing is Garamond.
This is so true. I remember being in English class, and when the book had a tiny serif font with little spacing in the paragraph, I groaned and really didn't want to read my homework. It was hard to track and I felt like I was getting nowhere on the page because I had to keep rereading things.
As a Swiss graphic designer I‘m sure those claims are not actually 100% true. If you would give me 5 different than serif fonts I could make them all readable and say which one will work best. But since it seems the only increased the spacing it does not work if you scale the font. The spacing should be dynamic considering the font size.
Serif vs Sans Serif - I remember hearing that Serif fonts were designed to be _easier_ to read on paper and signs, especially at high dpi, because it draws your eye to the beginning and end of each character. But on digital screens that don't have the same dpi as print, the serifs become a hindrance and so Sans Serif was created to clean it up.
my favorite font is Terminus. I set my terminal application to it because I'm writing code in NeoVim а text editor works in terminal application. Terminus makes easier to distinguish 1 (one) from l (letter L) or I (capital letter I), 0 (zero) from O (letter O), and it condensed so more information fits on the screen. Terminus is a perfect font for a programmer or system administrator.
It's curious that the factors cited as responsible for this typeface's improved readability include its being sans serif. From time immemorial typographers have insisted that serif fonts are better for body copy due to their superior readability, as serifs guide the reader's eyes. Correspondingly, they have recommended that sans serif faces be used mainly for headlines and subheadings. How could thousands of committed professionals have gotten it so wrong for so long? Does one study, involving so few people and so few typefaces, really prove all of them wrong?
Yes. I've heard different people's reactions. Several years ago I thought I liked Ariel. (non-serif). And Google sure did (Ariel was their default font). But in a writing class several people expressed they passionately hate Ariel, finding it very wearing to read. Looking it up I found Ariel and some other non-serif fonts were designed for and good at headlines. But annoying and wearing as text. For many people, moderate serif fonts are easier to read as the body of a work.
Looking it up I found Ariel and some other non-serif fonts were designed for and good at headlines. But annoying and wearing as text. For many people, moderate serif fonts are easier to read as the body of a work.
I've been using Verdana for everything I write, cause it is the most readable of the standard fonts to me. I like that Lexend font. Gonna try that out. Seems pretty neat.
i had a teacher in 8th grade who made us type everything up in century gothic, its always been the easiest for me to read (and the nicest looking that i've seen) and i still use it today in everything from work, resumes, and just my own projects. but i see how this font can be good :)
Omg. I’m a high school teacher and I literally taught a lesson about this exact thing today... students were fascinated by it and now I’m excited to find this video now and share it with them
That's a good start, but it looks like the experiments essentially tested the effects of spacing/stretching on readability. So, there's a lot more to experiment with. I also wonder if the results would have been much closer if a generic sans-serif font was used as the baseline, rather than times new roman. It might very well be that sans-serif fonts are more legible in general.
This feels like a 7 minute long ad with very little actual scientific evidence, kinda like those infomercials they get news readers to do, so it looks like an news story rather than a ad. Thats not a very cool thing to do Cheddar
Well, it IS a clear and legible font. Had to go searching, but what sold me was that the capital I and the lowercase L (l) can be distinguished from each other, unlike whatever font I'm writing in now! Kudos for that! I kept falling back to Times New Roman because of that problem, despite having direct knowledge that that particular font was not as easy for many others to read. Now if can just be made available in Word....
Interesting, I'll have to take a look at Lexend. I've been using DejaVu Sans in my documents and DejaVu Sans Mono on the terminal. Lexend appears to be similar. I'm glad someone is finally looking into fonts though. As someone who spends many hours of the day looking at lots and lots of text I've learned that the font makes a huge difference on eyestrain and how fast I can read through it. I only found DejaVu Sans by random chance by seeing some folks mention it in a blog post somewhere and then seeing it in Linux.
You say "finally" as though it's actually novel. This is just an example that's getting money spend on ads like this video. There are plenty of literacy-optimized fonts out there.
I read a lot. A LOT. On screens and paper. I read fast. I can’t have a font slowing me down. I have found that where I have control over the font, using Calibri is best. Both on screens and paper. I used to use a san serif for screen, and a serif on printed material. Calibri works for both. Actually better.
Bonnie, why doesn't it have Serifs? I was taught serifs guide the eyes and you don't loose the line. Therefore, it does make reading more pleasant and faster, doesn't it?
But Lexend, as you said is tested in English, sure maybe for other Latin script based languages it will show similar results, but in the case of Cyrillic will it make it easier? Maybe, but in Russian typed letter tend to look differently than written, a good example is the letter D in Russian, when typed it is (Д) (д) but when written by hand its (D) (g), will this make a difference in the font?... Another one, what about Arabic - where the letters are conjoined and are effected how they are written depending where they are placed in the word... for me that is interesting seeing how language/script can determine what is the easy font to read.
Lexend Arabic is now available. The hope is to create a Hangul script next...with the vision of making Lexend available in every major script. Oh course, wouldn't it be wonderful if it was available in all scripts?😊
@@bonnieshaver-troup131 Thank you for informing me, I will check the font out. I really would love to see it in every script, and the studies that have been done to find the optimum font. Thank you again.
tl;dr This video appears to do a bad job of explaining the actual purpose of Lexend and this video. Lexend is presented here as the best typeface that designers and Google could come up with, with the suggestion that it is maybe the best ever. That seems . . . dubious considering the vast array of sans-serif typefaces already out there in the world. I probably would be less fired up if it was more simply stated that, "hey, Lexend is pretty great! What do you think though? Download it if you like it!" The real thing of novelty is the focus on letter width and the entrepreneurial mentality and idea of "You should take all text from around the web, plug it into Google Docs, and change the font to a Lexend variant with the letter spacing that's most readable for you!" which sounds terribly clunky to me, though I could see it being worthwhile in some situations. Plenty of typefaces have a whole family of font variations like a bold, narrow, spaced, or italicized variants among others. Granted, few are designed to have more subtle variations only serving to provide different fonts that would be more readable to different people, but I don't know why one couldn't at least theoretically take Avenir, Helvetica, or Arial and come up with a variant that's even more readable than one of the Lexend variants. At least, no evidence is cited here to convince me in any way that this couldn't work. And that's fine if Lexend is just presented as an average, typical typeface that's a great one size fits all typeface family. Lexend is, as stated, a composite of different typefaces produced from Dr. Shaver-Troup's clients. But there's conflicting information here: Lexend is propped up as a superior typeface if not the absolute best, yet it's necessarily limited to only four variants, and no one of those variants is the best for everyone, so no single typeface could be the best anyway! The contradiction here is so obvious, it's no wonder so many of us TH-cam commenters stepped up to the plate when we were presented a ball on a tee (insert indignant comment on the non-representative nature of a sample size of twenty American schoolchildren reading five paragraphs here). But I gather that the reason why this isn't brought up is that someone's got a typeface to sell! Which is fine, but the presentation sure seems pretty cynically motivated to just get people to download Lexend and use Google Docs more. Not everything can be cut down to a scientific truth, but that's how this story on typeface design was told. That's a shame, because I'm glad there's a new typeface in the world, but it has no right to cut down all the others (I'm looking straight at that very relatable attack on Comic Sans) unless you present me with a true meta-analysis of readability studies across hundreds if not thousands of typefaces. And I gotta see some proper, rigorous statistics: confidence intervals, percent error, etc. Granted, it'd be exceptionally, unreasonably difficult to accumulate all the grants for all those primary studies, but we can handle it if you tell us the research just doesn't exist yet. We're in a post-Replicability Crisis era, and I think a lot more people have an appetite for modesty and restraint in presenting scientific research (or at least the peer-reviewed stuff). Other dislike reasons: 1) No citations in the doobly-doo, particularly regarding the claims of what makes a readable typeface, which I think could have partially satiated critics of this video. 2) I didn't find any peer-reviewed research on this particular typeface, let alone independent, third-party research, and as a result, 3) This just seems like a marketing video produced by Cheddar. 4) BUT DID THEY TEST AGAINST COMIC SANS THO? 5) I'll just ask. Placebo effect? 6) Times New Roman wasn't compared against Lexend 1:1 but instead had the deck stacked against it 1:4 and it STILL beat Lexend ~10% of the time without readers being able to choose the Times New Roman that's best for them. That seems pretty good for a typeface that is a) generally regarded as being poor for readability, b) is pitted against the purported BEST typeface on the planet, and c) readers are primed to expect to read fastest with at least one of the Lexend variants anyway. 7) This paragraph on the Lexend website (parentheses are my comments): "Lexend has been discussed (I'm sorry, 'discussed'? What does that even mean?) in two Stanford labs (So wait, are they hinting that there's at least one research paper in the works?), at HP & Microsoft (HP and Microsoft are only discussing this typeface?), was listed on Apple K-12 Assistive Technology from 2003-2005 (Wait, exactly how old is this typeface? What happened in 2006?), has recently been referenced in research and patents by Adobe, and is available both on Google Fonts & as an open-source download."
Recently, I had to make a presentation. I used PowerPoint, and chose a very minimalistic design, making it easy to navigate. However, I conscientiously chose the font that was used for telegraph communication, not only for the style and the hommage, but also because it's very thin, and therefore slightly harder to read. The goal (as there wasn't much information on the screen) was to force people to make the effort of reading consciously what I had written. I also blackened the keywords, to make sure they stood out. The font choice was therefore extremely conscious of the impact it would have on the readers, in a way, controlling their experience to make sure they would follow me.
I’m not familiar with lexend. But my favorite font is bookman old style. Apparently for some of the reasons lexend was created. The wider letters for one. One thing that bookman has that San serifs don’t always have - that is important to me - is the fact that all letters and numerals are different. For instance a Capital I, a lower case l and the number 1 are all distinct. It’s the same with a capital O and the number 0. This isn’t the case with all San serif fonts. For me, I can, at times have a 0 and an O next to each other or a 1 and an I. The font used by TH-cam happens to show them differently, but a lot of fonts do not.
Lexend Deca is my new favourite sans serif typeface for body text, and Lexend Exa for headings. Calibri was my workhorse sans serif for many years, however, and it served me well. Calibri was a good replacement for both Arial and Times New Roman. Georgia is my favourite serif typeface. I use it for most text documents now. It's distinct, elegant, and fairly easy to read in my experience. When I need a monospace typeface, I typically use Consolas or Source Code Pro. Both are quite legible to me and have true italics. Whether for emphasis or style, true italics are very useful for their distinctiveness from upright letter forms.
Check out software.sil.org/andika/ -- It's designed for literacy work, so it's wonderfully easy to read, while also having far more interesting and nuanced than a boring geometric sans serif like Lexend. (It's easier on your brain when "lo" and "b" aren't exactly the same shapes, for example.)
i really like cambria math as an alternative to times new roman it has the same characteristics and feel, but its more line consistent. the serif and the curves on letters dont thin out in mock imitation of pen writing, and there are no visually disturbing dimples either. i've printed an entire book with this font and i think its pleasant to read. i recommend it highly if you want a font thats not painfully preposterous. it has a soft plumb feel so that it fits a wider range of moods
When studying font design back at art university in the late 80’s, before the computers took over the world, we learned that a letter is legible in relation to the letters beside it and all the letters in a word. Easy examples are combinations like LI, LA, LT, IT, DT. Or lil, civ, rip, diw. Obviously the design of the L and the T should be different in the different combinations, and the spacing on the side of the i’s should be different. And a font hence not only have one L, one T, one i, etc. When printing was done with types there wasn’t just one L or one A, etc, there were many different of each depending on the combination. And different spacings between letters were taken into account for. And sometimes the were two letter combination types available. This is one reason to why the original Times News Roman was regarded as legible. All L’s weren’t the same, but adapted to the letter beside it, The I’s weren’t the same, but the spacing on either side of the I could be different. Today’s designers don’t seem to be aware of this… And I can’t understand how they can’t notice these things. But they just use letter as they are served. And the programmers providing apps like Words or Pages seem to have no clue. I mean today the selected version of a specific letter in the alphabet could be made rather automatic. Really every single word in the dictionary could be designed so the different letters are modified to make the word as eligible or aesthetically (the spacings between letters and inside letters…. e.g. the space inside the D… are balanced) as possible. Although just like color management in professional art and design software still doesn’t apply knowledge known before Adobe was even a business name, the use of fonts neither applies knowledge known since the day of parchment and crow-quill pens. And unfortunately I don’t think it will ever change because not even professionals of today seem to know or care. Anyway, if even more legibility is asked for, one must pay attention to this.
Georgia is a good clear one. I also like Bookman, New Century School Book, and some others. I get sick of Times New Roman . (TNR is quite readable. But it's been out to force people to conform and can be dull, overdone & restrictive).
I didn't think it was possible to have a font that was MORE difficult for me to read. Dyslexia is such a challenge, so I know this Lex font isn't made for people like me. But dang I didn't think it would make things THIS much harder to read. I'm glad for those who like this font and can now read faster, but for me I'll stick with my OpenDyslexic font. The letters just get less jumbled for me.
Over the centuries, printers tried to find type faces, not fonts which as ignorant computer geeks apparently thought could stand for both. Traditionally, a font is a certain typeface in a certain size. One of the reasons for using Comic Sans is that it is somewhat condensed and, therefore, takes up less room. This new typeface will take up more room. Sans serif typefaces are taller than serif type. IDK why.
I like the concept of the most readable font, but I think there should be multiple fonts (outside of different weights and widths) for optimal readability for the sake of variety. I’m sure there could be other fonts as readable as Lexend. The fonts I like are Source Sans Pro, Yantramanav, and Open Sans, all if which are also on Google Fonts and I think can serve easy readability. I’m not sure if it’s as readable as Lexend or as Lexend is claimed to be. I understand that designing a font, let alone one for perfect readability, is no easy task and takes loads of time and ingenuity. Maybe I might have to wait 30 years or so for a plethora of refined fonts as readable as Lexend. Who knows? I’m not calling Lexend a bad font or a bad font concept. However, as a graphic designer, I long for variety.
To answer your closing questions: the default fonts on MSWindows range from blech to meh, and the defaults on macOS and common Linux installations are only slightly better. My defaults are Bookman Old Style, Book Antiqua, Adobe Garamond, Gill Sans, ProFont (only for programming), and the Noto family.
I go along with the majority. Times New Roman, the default WinWord font IS NOT especially readable. No surprise, because it was designed to maximize newsprint on a page. Of the built in Windows fonts, I prefer Century Schoolbook or Bookman Old Style more. And I DO like Comic Sans Serif for special purposes.
Great idea. I’m interested in fonts because I know how they effect reading and comprehension. I was never a good speller but my grades went drastically down when they switched the font to cursive in the spelling book. I had never really learned cursive and this made it hard. In college, I found out I was dyslexic.
I love Edward Johnston's London Transport Underground Railway Type Font (1916). Free versions are available. Still in copyright is the 1984 version. Used on LT's maps, posters, bus destination boards (condensed) and notices.
As far as I am concerned The most important trait for a font is that it does not confuse letters. For instance is it an “I” or is it an “l”? One is a miniscule “L” and the other is majuscule “I” (as in “India”). If i have to explain if this was an “I” or an ”l” then its an unuseable font as far as I am concerened. Why? Because first you make your habbits and then your habbits make you. Your habbits can also destroy in a short instance when you make a slightest mistake in a time critical moment. A font that confuses information is a ticking time bomb. Eventually it is going to blow up and it is going ro blow your life or business up. Same applies to miniscule “Oh” and “zero”. Which one is it? Is it “o” or a “0”. In many fonts, the “l” , “1” and “I” look very similar.Try it on long passwords or entering important info - for instance that “one time code”. Consola is good only for coding. But for writing everyrhing else I use exclusively Georgia.
Century Gothic is the font I find most readable. Just a side note, please don’t say “hone in” when you mean “home in “. To hone is to sharpen something. Homing in means to get closer to your target.
From my past experiences with Times New Roman, Merriweather, and Georgia, Lexend definitely has an increase in speed among the 20 or so friends which I timed, reading the same excerpt written by myself. Although there is an improvement, a lot of it is psychological. Additionally, the currently business standard font is Times New Roman, and I doubt organizations will switch to fonts that appear very child-like. Lexend is essentially an easier to read version of Comic Sans, a font which I greatly dislike for its appearance alone.
As a person with LD I suffered through the " your lazy " crowd of educators in rural MN. One of them was the insistence that "serf' type was best for me. Back when fonts were built in to printers. I had a hard time looking for fixed sans fonts until I started work as a UNIX admin in the early-mid 90s. This seems to be a bit like this.
Former art director and communications manager here, the comprehension of typography involves a lot of different factors. The font is only one of them. Kerning, or the tightness of the letters, has nothing to do with the font specifically. Kerning can apply to any font. Readability in a printed book is vastly different than a web page based on the lighting in the room and the illumination of the page. Line length and line spacing also impact comprehension. Look at a typical Wikipedia page with its its long 120 character lines and liberal line spacing. Hover over any link on the page and it displays a message with much shorter lines with the same line spacing. Note how the shorter message is much easier to comprehend. For decades Apple used ITC Garamond, a serif fypeace, It was condensed and tightly kerned and helped to make the Macintosh a big seller with graphic designers like me. This comment at roughly 90 characters per line I suspect is set in Lexend since Google is using it. Is it easy to read? And how important is your browser magnification or your computer type size in its comprehension? Change your magnifcation to see how different type sizes with the same line length impact reading;
I really get what is happening here. I'm currently 66 and I find expanded fonts much more readable i.e. has more space between the letters. I find sans-serif fonts generally more readable and have elected Verdana as my preferred choice, although I will accept calibre if I have to, Arial is too condensed for my liking. I have not heard of Lexand before now but I definitely see where they are coming from and agree with the approach they are taking which matches my non-scientific but actual real experience. Well done!
They discovered that Lexend Increased reading speeds scientifically? They tested it on 20 people, a tiny sample. Additionally they were all the same age, strangely only 8 out of 20 were male (for an unexplained reason) and five or so of the fonts were Lexend with only one that wasn’t (times new roman). Just by standard distribution five out of every six reads would automatically go to Lexend. Surely they should’ve done six different fonts one of which was Lexend? Highly unreliable
Edit 4 years later: Just remembered this video and the silly comment I made about there being strangely only 8 males. There's about a 50% chance to have a sex imbalance this severe (I'd have made a similar comment back then about 12 males and 8 females). So that point is rubbish but at least from skimming over the rest of the comment the rest of the trial issues still seem to be problematic.
A single study using only 20 sample subjects is only mildly more "scientific" than a cola taste test run by Pepsi serving warm, flat Coke.
I have heard (heresay) that there should have been scores and scores of scientific studies that had showed that fonts with serifs would be more readable - which is why newspapers would be printed in such fonts, such as Times.
@@FindecanorNotGmail Yup! New Century Schoolbook in particular. The serifs make scanning the pages very easy on the eyes.
@amazingbollweevil @findecanor
I find it peculiar that some serifs are considered by some to be easier on the eyes/more readable, when organisations such as the British Dyslexia Association, recommend against serifs for the exact opposite reason
Football Stat’66 why is 8 males out of 20 strange? Just asking
As an intellectual, I prefer reading in wingdings.
i prefer Minecraft Enchantment Table
💣☜ ❄🏳🏳
i prefer bghfbnmndhduqhdbber
I prefer braille
i prefer sign language
That's a very small study, and it was only tested against Times New Roman. If 4/5 fonts in the study are Lexend fonts, then there's a much higher likelihood that one of them works better than Times. I'd say more research is needed. Much more. Good idea though!
Yeah, I was going to say that this doesn't "scientifically prove" anything
Interesting theory, identical to mine but interesting nonetheless
Its "scientifically proven" so it cannot be wrong.
If I wanted to conclude Lexend is/isn't the best for sure, what I would do is test it vs. other fonts AND test the different versions against fonts that have similar characteristics to that particular Lexend variation.
4:28 "Here's an example of one of those tests" If it were only tested against Times New Roman, they would have identified that as the only test
The font that makes everyone* read** faster***!
*at least 20 people
**only in English
***faster than reading Times New Roman
a a Hahaha😂 I love this comment.
It wouldve fine if it said "could"
My thoughts exactly. Calling it scientifically proven is a bit of a stretch.
because the 20 kids were the only test they ever ran
Read Bonnie Shaver-Troup's reply to the video. All of your objections are addressed.
There's so many factors that could go into play with that kind of experiment: only 1 of the 5 fonts WASN'T Lexend, not all kids are confident at reading aloud, only 19 kids were tested, the reading level was 2 levels higher so students that can guess pronunciation more accurately on words they don't know score higher...
Thank you for pointing that out, so I don't have to
This experiment sucks and is super biased
Yes. Absolutely in know way at all is this experiment even close to being scientific and therefore the data collected, while maybe looking good on ads, does not prove anything. When it comes to more accurate reading I prefer OpenDyslexic, which may not look as good and clean, but at least it has been proven to work for most people by real science.
I call that cheddar got sponsored by Lexend and Google
Also, when presenting their results, one variant of their type scored at the same level as the other font, but they still grouped this variant with the others to increase their effectiveness. That's cheating.
I didn't even think of the pronounciation... In my mother tongue we write things like 98% of the time how we would say it XD
Yup, that test was biased
True
How does testing 20 3rd graders make this a scientifically proven success? This is not a scientific method, not peer reviewed, not big enough sample pool, & probably English biased.
I think their hearts are in the right place, but yeah. This isn't even close to proof lol
It’s a starting point. And some of the most popular fonts, especially in BOLD, are atrocious, so any degree of improvement is welcome. And by the way, the test on one third grade classroom was probably very time consuming and expensive for someone without a research grant. If she had more financial support, she could have repeated it with more subjects. Someone should try to repeat the test!
I do like the larger separation between letters. Arial, Microsoft’s favorite and default, is the opposite in that respect, and also has look-alike character shapes.
Lower case R followed by lower case M, N, or R (even lower case J) can melt together: is “Arnie” read as “ARNIE” or “AMIE?” Is “Army” the word “ARMY” or “A_Y,” with an unknown symbol where the “_” goes?
Upper case I, lower case L, and numeral 1 all look alike in Arial.
“Is George III at ease?” could mean “Is [King] George the Third at ease?” or “Is [someone named] George ILL at ease?”
Upper case O and numeral 0 (zero) are hard to tell apart in Arial unless there is at least one known example of both in the text.
For that reason, codes like auto VIN numbers (yes, I know it’s redundant) appearing in a message text should always be copied and pasted into an open scratch Notepad window using monotype Courier New (a serif font) before being written on paper, or read aloud, preferably using the November Alpha Tango Oscar phonetics.
Especially passwords, which combine mixed case letters, numerals, AND punctuation marks in unconventional patterns!
I hope Windows and Windows apps will start using Lexend fonts very soon!
Yeah, I agree. I avoided bringing that up in my earlier comment. I was beefing over how difficult it is to read; it's aesthetics, which I dislike. The scientific merits of the method used isn't really scientific even if you look at how small the sample size is and the restricted application.
It's almost like taking Babylonian Hebrew from stone tablets, and giving that to the subjects, or this text, and having a unanimous agreement that the lex-text is the best.....lol. With that business model I think we could find people stranded in the desert for a few days and sell them water.
They even said in the video *ONE* od these studies. That was one example of one of the studies. Hundreds of studies have been done. The one they chose was just an easy to explain example.
Also, the element of reading aloud is questionable. I can read with comprehension at an adequate rate, but wheweeee! I can hardly read Dick and Jane if i need to read aloud.
A single study using only 20 sample subjects is only mildly more "scientific" than a cola taste test run by Pepsi serving warm, flat Coke.
Ino did it! Is that how they did it? That’s so interesting. Thank you. The only time I did the Pepsi channel was at a midnight fair on LSD. Obviously a long time ago. They tasted the same to me then. But, I used to prefer coke. Now, I don’t drink soda at all. I like lots of water and iced tea with no sugar
Quit ragging on warm coke already
Well, not exactly. First of all, this one just one study to illustrate the point for this video -- they're not basing an entire theory on that one study, but from many studies over many years that create a compelling body of evidence.
Secondly, a small sample can be statistically valid if the effect is strong. In this case, 17/19 students improved, so around 90%. That's pretty strong -- we'd need some variance measures to calculate exactly how strong -- but it's a lot more statistically significant than something with a weak effect, i.e. closer to 50%. For something with a result of, say, 55%, you would need a much larger sample before you could say the effect was probably not due to chance sampling error. In other words, if the small sample result was due to chance alone (i.e. you just happened to randomly select more people for whom it worked), then that is a lot less likely for a 90% situation than for a 55% situation.
Carl Smith I love it when I read TH-cam comments and learn something. Much better than me having to intelligently stop bullies.
*One of the studies* stop criticizing
This is like one of those: "every time they say BLANK it gets faster" memes.
Every time they say font the word is skipped and the video speeds up and all the times they say font is said at the end
Whoever edited this should get a raise.
yea
Why
Why
Whoever edited the intro should get thrown in a lake
That moment when you underestimate the intelligence of your audience and get called out for it.
It wasn't the only study they did, Bonnie herself clarified that in a pinned comment above.
Should’ve put it into the video then.
***Your results may vary. Consult with your teacher before beginning or changing your reading plan. Side effects may include dry eyes, dizziness, and headache. Do not operate a motor vehicle while using Lexand.
comic sans ms team where you at
Here
While I do use Comic Sans, I have a preference for Freestyle Script.
Here
Here!
Satisfy users where you at
Do you even know what "scientifically prove" means?
My non-scientific guess would be: measuring, recording, analysing, with a premise, a conclusion, a loop of those steps.
Possibility of repetition of the same test by others.
I’d prefer an experience with:
- More people
- More fonts (like Century Gothic and Montserrat)
- More casings types (readability in upper- or lowercase is very different)
- More languages
You should read the pinned comment by the font author.
“ONE of the tests”. There should be something to help these people in the comment section to listen better
People on the internet need to hate everything.
There is no science and methods to teach understanding. Some information was taken and packed due to time consuming reasons, transferred to other person, decoded with unknown decoder and mapped onto unknown picture of the world.
Nice profile pic, btw
There should be something to help these people in the video clip to pick better examples, if there are any.
Even the description underneath starts with a false premise, to suit their “hot news”. Artform? Uhm, no. Readability was always the goal, ever since movable type.
You could’ve done something more interesting looking at the Dyslexie font which is more significantly adapted for readability.
Also you missed the difference between font and and script, there being an exciting history of readability in calligraphy.
Seriously, no mention of the Antiqua Fraktur dispute! This feels like an advert more than it does journalism
The video was about a font, not scripts. Why would they talk about scripts when that's not what the video is about?
Also, the Antiqua Fraktur dispute has nothing to do with the video. These seem less like actual criticisms and more like reasons for you to show off your basic knowledge of design history.
5:30 sans serif*
Very similar to Avenir, which is used for Blu-ray subtitles. Avenir and its predecessor, Futura, are sometimes criticized for being highly legible but not as readable as humanist typefaces such as Frutiger, Myriad, Noto Sans, Calibri and Carlito. Old-style serifs, such as Garamond, Minion Pro and Centaur, are usually considered the most readable.
It's obvious that you are very knowledgeable about fonts! I created the original Lexend almost 20 yrs ago and the mission is big and needs supporters like you. We hope you sign up and offer your support!
www.lexend.com/
info@lexend.com
What's the difference between "legible" and "readable"?
garamond readable what
As well as the many comments about 20 kids & the font choices not making a reliable sample ... the one question I have goes right to the core of the whole project - what evidence is there that “reading speed” has any influence on “reading comprehension” or overcoming learning difficulties?
Common sense tells me that if less energy is spent deciphering the text then more energy can be spent understanding it.
@@t0dd000 common sense isn't scientific evidence tho
@@doctorscoot You couldn't fathom how it could be possible. I was trying to help you through your confusion. Holding your hand, so to speak.
@@t0dd000 righto, have you got a journal link? pubmed, muse, jstor, any of the big journal sites will do.
I won't abandon Comic Sans for all my public anouncements! I just love to please one half of people and enrage the other at the same time.
I am a teacher in Germany and was taught to use Comic Sans for dyslexic students. From my experience over the years with many 100s of students ... Comic Sans does a really good job for those students.
congrats on your 20th like bro
One of the best things about using an e-reader is that I can read in whatever font I want (that's supported by the e-reader). Being able to read every book in a sans serif font makes reading much easier and comfortable on the eye.
Without watching the video, I’m making a prediction: Helvetica.
Midway though video: WTF is Lexend?
A shitty substitute for Helvetica masquerading as a scientific breakthrough!
Everybody gangsta till the fonts start fonting
20 people does not constitute a scientific study. Especially with most fonts being a form of Lexand.
Bass Stuff ONE of the studies, Jesus
You didn't watch the video.
Faster reading doesn't mean better understanding of what you are reading.
Daryl Bg yeah but the only thing that can make you understand is yourself
But in order to understand a text, you must be able to read it properly. However, you cannot understand what is written if you cannot read it at all. (well, unless somebody reads it to you)
My favourite typeface is Helvetica, which (up until now!) has always been considered the most readable. I have now downloaded the Lexend typeface set and am keen to try it.
Please note the difference between a typeface and a font. Lexend, Helvetica, and Times Roman are all examples of TYPEFACES. Times 10 point and Times 12 point are two DIFFERENT fonts!
A font is made up of typeface, size (usually in points), stroke weight (eg bold, regular, light) and style (eg roman, italic). Thus Palatino 12 point bold italic is a font. Palatino is the *typeface*.
Please also note that Linotype is pronounced as "LINE-o-type", because that is what it produced; a line of type at a time.
Last, but not least, you do not "hone in" on anything; you *home* in; to 'hone' something (eg a knife) is to sharpen it!
Thank you for the distinction between fonts and typeface. I have always gotten that confused. Your explanation will help me remember.
@@dlbstl My pleasure! I grew up in the 'hot metal' typesetting era when the distinction was MUCH more important. Frankly, I mostly blame Microsoft and Apple for the confusion, as they both label typefaces as 'fonts' in their applications. Libre Office is almost as bad, sadly. The confusion may have arisen with early HP laser printers which had a variety of FONT cartridges. The most popular of these had up to 14 different fonts, in ONLY two typefaces! (They were 'TmsRmn' and 'Helv'.) The LaserJet III range introduced typeface scaling, with embedded typefaces, which eliminated the restrictions of the past. You could still use the older font cartridges, but could now also download 'soft' typefaces to the printer to dramatically increase the range of typefaces available to print.. Unfortunately, HP called these "soft fonts". OOPS!
I think Helvetica is better than lexend
Helvetica CE is the best font for reading articles, it occupies less space as well. Legend Deccan is more round, and occupies more space.
I use Arial 12. If I receive a document in Times New Roman, I immediately try to convert it to a more readable font. Lexand is exactly what I need.
If i had 20 dislikes, I could have scientifically dislike this video
I wish I had a gold to give you!
redditing at youtube
it does have that and more
Ali Ak I don’t get it
@@123-t9f8t Bonny did tests on just 20 students which isn't NEALRY enough to "scientifically prove" something. Ali is making fun of the studies saying if he could dislike the video 20 times with each one counting, he could "scientifically" dislike it
I was in college as a graphic design student during the time that this was happening... and I have to say that this wasn't entirely a novel idea. We already knew in design that the kind of typeface you choose has an impact on legibility, and that's why certain types are chosen over others for specific situations.
Also... as a designer I have to say you're wrong in citing a sans serif type face is easier to read. this is objectively incorrect and is the reason why smaller type is typically printed in a serif type instead of a sans serif. This specific sans serif might be highly legible, but sans serif type in general is harder to read than serif.
That's what I've always heard too after taking graphic design courses. I agree with you. There has to have been more to this then one trial of 19 kids.
@@dlbstlWatch the video again. It wasn't one trial with 20 kids. Geez. It was more like ... 20 years is research with a zillion subjects.
I’ve been writing for many years, started out with Times New Roman. I wanted to switch to something easier to read years ago, so I switched to Helvetica. I will give Lexend a try, as well as several others I see mentioned in the comments.
I would also suggest Atkinson Hyperlegible too. It's a font specifically designed for people who have issues differentiating between letters while still keeping an aesthetic that regular people can be comfortable with. Mayhaps this could also help in reading faster too?
I'd actually like to hear about what you think of the several fonts you said you'd try.
The font I personally find the easiest to digest (i.e., fastest to read) is Trebuchet MS - as noted elsewhere in the comments, it helps having the uppercase "I" and the lowercase "l" be immediately visually distinct and, thus, unambiguous. The font I find most aesthetically pleasing is Garamond.
hooray another trebuchet MS fan!! One of my favorite of all time
@@jamestillman5247 It deserves more love than it gets, for sure.
I've looked for the "best" font but never found anything scientific until now. Thank you, Cheddar!
This is so true. I remember being in English class, and when the book had a tiny serif font with little spacing in the paragraph, I groaned and really didn't want to read my homework. It was hard to track and I felt like I was getting nowhere on the page because I had to keep rereading things.
As a Swiss graphic designer I‘m sure those claims are not actually 100% true. If you would give me 5 different than serif fonts I could make them all readable and say which one will work best. But since it seems the only increased the spacing it does not work if you scale the font. The spacing should be dynamic considering the font size.
Keep repeating the paragraph that way they won't remember what they just read. Good job
Serif vs Sans Serif - I remember hearing that Serif fonts were designed to be _easier_ to read on paper and signs, especially at high dpi, because it draws your eye to the beginning and end of each character. But on digital screens that don't have the same dpi as print, the serifs become a hindrance and so Sans Serif was created to clean it up.
I see a lot of negatives listed However my tired old eyes may find the Lexend Font less of a strain. Surely worth a test. Thanks.👍
my favorite font is Terminus. I set my terminal application to it because I'm writing code in NeoVim а text editor works in terminal application. Terminus makes easier to distinguish 1 (one) from l (letter L) or I (capital letter I), 0 (zero) from O (letter O), and it condensed so more information fits on the screen. Terminus is a perfect font for a programmer or system administrator.
absolutely no editorial or journalistic rigor was applied in the making of this video, apparently...
This is a video production house named after a type of Cheese, a presumption of journalistic rigour is hardly appropriate!
The fact that OBLIQUE type is displayed every time the word ITALIC is spoken may be one indication of how thorough the research for this video was.
It's curious that the factors cited as responsible for this typeface's improved readability include its being sans serif. From time immemorial typographers have insisted that serif fonts are better for body copy due to their superior readability, as serifs guide the reader's eyes. Correspondingly, they have recommended that sans serif faces be used mainly for headlines and subheadings.
How could thousands of committed professionals have gotten it so wrong for so long? Does one study, involving so few people and so few typefaces, really prove all of them wrong?
Regardless if it is proven or not to help increase reading speed or not, it’s actually a nice font 👌🏻
Calibri Light is my most favorite font, I use it everywhere where it is possible
I've found it on google fonts a while ago - the wide variants look weird but it's cool to have a font based on readability
Aren't all text fonts based around readability?
@@remotefaith no
Personally, I find that serif fonts are better to read when I'm reading a printed document, and sans serif fonts are nice when they're on a screen.
I heard studies about this. That Lexend website, however, is just propaganda. 0% failure, 100% accuracy of readers...seriously
I don't know whether it is my age and therefore what I am most used to, but I find fonts with serifs easier to read than similar non-serif fonts.
Yes. I've heard different people's reactions. Several years ago I thought I liked Ariel. (non-serif). And Google sure did (Ariel was their default font). But in a writing class several people expressed they passionately hate Ariel, finding it very wearing to read. Looking it up I found Ariel and some other non-serif fonts were designed for and good at headlines. But annoying and wearing as text. For many people, moderate serif fonts are easier to read as the body of a work.
Looking it up I found Ariel and some other non-serif fonts were designed for and good at headlines. But annoying and wearing as text. For many people, moderate serif fonts are easier to read as the body of a work.
Well edited video. Wow, give a raise to the editor. As for this font, calling it the most readable font in the world is a stretch at best.
I've been using Verdana for everything I write, cause it is the most readable of the standard fonts to me. I like that Lexend font. Gonna try that out. Seems pretty neat.
I usually pick Verdana as well. Mostly because of the stigma Comic Sans has. I get distracted when reading denser text.
well? how was it?
i had a teacher in 8th grade who made us type everything up in century gothic, its always been the easiest for me to read (and the nicest looking that i've seen) and i still use it today in everything from work, resumes, and just my own projects. but i see how this font can be good :)
I prefer something where l and I are visually different and perfectly distinguishable.
Omg. I’m a high school teacher and I literally taught a lesson about this exact thing today... students were fascinated by it and now I’m excited to find this video now and share it with them
My favorite font has always been Palatino Linotype.
That's a good start, but it looks like the experiments essentially tested the effects of spacing/stretching on readability. So, there's a lot more to experiment with.
I also wonder if the results would have been much closer if a generic sans-serif font was used as the baseline, rather than times new roman. It might very well be that sans-serif fonts are more legible in general.
This feels like a 7 minute long ad with very little actual scientific evidence, kinda like those infomercials they get news readers to do, so it looks like an news story rather than a ad. Thats not a very cool thing to do Cheddar
Check out the Lexend website. Reads like north Korean propaganda.
Well, it IS a clear and legible font. Had to go searching, but what sold me was that the capital I and the lowercase L (l) can be distinguished from each other, unlike whatever font I'm writing in now! Kudos for that! I kept falling back to Times New Roman because of that problem, despite having direct knowledge that that particular font was not as easy for many others to read. Now if can just be made available in Word....
Interesting, I'll have to take a look at Lexend. I've been using DejaVu Sans in my documents and DejaVu Sans Mono on the terminal. Lexend appears to be similar. I'm glad someone is finally looking into fonts though. As someone who spends many hours of the day looking at lots and lots of text I've learned that the font makes a huge difference on eyestrain and how fast I can read through it. I only found DejaVu Sans by random chance by seeing some folks mention it in a blog post somewhere and then seeing it in Linux.
You say "finally" as though it's actually novel. This is just an example that's getting money spend on ads like this video. There are plenty of literacy-optimized fonts out there.
I read a lot. A LOT. On screens and paper. I read fast. I can’t have a font slowing me down. I have found that where I have control over the font, using Calibri is best. Both on screens and paper.
I used to use a san serif for screen, and a serif on printed material. Calibri works for both. Actually better.
When did Cheddar start making videos based on opinions not facts? And why did I subscribe?
Bonnie, why doesn't it have Serifs? I was taught serifs guide the eyes and you don't loose the line. Therefore, it does make reading more pleasant and faster, doesn't it?
But Lexend, as you said is tested in English, sure maybe for other Latin script based languages it will show similar results, but in the case of Cyrillic will it make it easier? Maybe, but in Russian typed letter tend to look differently than written, a good example is the letter D in Russian, when typed it is (Д) (д) but when written by hand its (D) (g), will this make a difference in the font?... Another one, what about Arabic - where the letters are conjoined and are effected how they are written depending where they are placed in the word... for me that is interesting seeing how language/script can determine what is the easy font to read.
Lexend Arabic is now available. The hope is to create a Hangul script next...with the vision of making Lexend available in every major script. Oh course, wouldn't it be wonderful if it was available in all scripts?😊
@@bonnieshaver-troup131 Thank you for informing me, I will check the font out. I really would love to see it in every script, and the studies that have been done to find the optimum font. Thank you again.
tl;dr This video appears to do a bad job of explaining the actual purpose of Lexend and this video.
Lexend is presented here as the best typeface that designers and Google could come up with, with the suggestion that it is maybe the best ever. That seems . . . dubious considering the vast array of sans-serif typefaces already out there in the world. I probably would be less fired up if it was more simply stated that, "hey, Lexend is pretty great! What do you think though? Download it if you like it!"
The real thing of novelty is the focus on letter width and the entrepreneurial mentality and idea of "You should take all text from around the web, plug it into Google Docs, and change the font to a Lexend variant with the letter spacing that's most readable for you!" which sounds terribly clunky to me, though I could see it being worthwhile in some situations. Plenty of typefaces have a whole family of font variations like a bold, narrow, spaced, or italicized variants among others. Granted, few are designed to have more subtle variations only serving to provide different fonts that would be more readable to different people, but I don't know why one couldn't at least theoretically take Avenir, Helvetica, or Arial and come up with a variant that's even more readable than one of the Lexend variants. At least, no evidence is cited here to convince me in any way that this couldn't work. And that's fine if Lexend is just presented as an average, typical typeface that's a great one size fits all typeface family. Lexend is, as stated, a composite of different typefaces produced from Dr. Shaver-Troup's clients. But there's conflicting information here: Lexend is propped up as a superior typeface if not the absolute best, yet it's necessarily limited to only four variants, and no one of those variants is the best for everyone, so no single typeface could be the best anyway! The contradiction here is so obvious, it's no wonder so many of us TH-cam commenters stepped up to the plate when we were presented a ball on a tee (insert indignant comment on the non-representative nature of a sample size of twenty American schoolchildren reading five paragraphs here).
But I gather that the reason why this isn't brought up is that someone's got a typeface to sell! Which is fine, but the presentation sure seems pretty cynically motivated to just get people to download Lexend and use Google Docs more. Not everything can be cut down to a scientific truth, but that's how this story on typeface design was told. That's a shame, because I'm glad there's a new typeface in the world, but it has no right to cut down all the others (I'm looking straight at that very relatable attack on Comic Sans) unless you present me with a true meta-analysis of readability studies across hundreds if not thousands of typefaces. And I gotta see some proper, rigorous statistics: confidence intervals, percent error, etc. Granted, it'd be exceptionally, unreasonably difficult to accumulate all the grants for all those primary studies, but we can handle it if you tell us the research just doesn't exist yet. We're in a post-Replicability Crisis era, and I think a lot more people have an appetite for modesty and restraint in presenting scientific research (or at least the peer-reviewed stuff).
Other dislike reasons:
1) No citations in the doobly-doo, particularly regarding the claims of what makes a readable typeface, which I think could have partially satiated critics of this video.
2) I didn't find any peer-reviewed research on this particular typeface, let alone independent, third-party research, and as a result,
3) This just seems like a marketing video produced by Cheddar.
4) BUT DID THEY TEST AGAINST COMIC SANS THO?
5) I'll just ask. Placebo effect?
6) Times New Roman wasn't compared against Lexend 1:1 but instead had the deck stacked against it 1:4 and it STILL beat Lexend ~10% of the time without readers being able to choose the Times New Roman that's best for them. That seems pretty good for a typeface that is a) generally regarded as being poor for readability, b) is pitted against the purported BEST typeface on the planet, and c) readers are primed to expect to read fastest with at least one of the Lexend variants anyway.
7) This paragraph on the Lexend website (parentheses are my comments):
"Lexend has been discussed (I'm sorry, 'discussed'? What does that even mean?) in two Stanford labs (So wait, are they hinting that there's at least one research paper in the works?), at HP & Microsoft (HP and Microsoft are only discussing this typeface?), was listed on Apple K-12 Assistive Technology from 2003-2005 (Wait, exactly how old is this typeface? What happened in 2006?), has recently been referenced in research and patents by Adobe, and is available both on Google Fonts & as an open-source download."
"Fonts are designed to express a mood"
That's a whole can of worms right there. You've got like 80% of font designers disagreeing with that statement.
Recently, I had to make a presentation. I used PowerPoint, and chose a very minimalistic design, making it easy to navigate. However, I conscientiously chose the font that was used for telegraph communication, not only for the style and the hommage, but also because it's very thin, and therefore slightly harder to read. The goal (as there wasn't much information on the screen) was to force people to make the effort of reading consciously what I had written. I also blackened the keywords, to make sure they stood out. The font choice was therefore extremely conscious of the impact it would have on the readers, in a way, controlling their experience to make sure they would follow me.
I doubt anything will ever replace Tahoma as my favorite font. :)
I’m not familiar with lexend. But my favorite font is bookman old style. Apparently for some of the reasons lexend was created. The wider letters for one. One thing that bookman has that San serifs don’t always have - that is important to me - is the fact that all letters and numerals are different. For instance a Capital I, a lower case l and the number 1 are all distinct. It’s the same with a capital O and the number 0. This isn’t the case with all San serif fonts. For me, I can, at times have a 0 and an O next to each other or a 1 and an I. The font used by TH-cam happens to show them differently, but a lot of fonts do not.
You forgot to actually put in a slab serif font @ 1:44
Lexend Deca is my new favourite sans serif typeface for body text, and Lexend Exa for headings. Calibri was my workhorse sans serif for many years, however, and it served me well. Calibri was a good replacement for both Arial and Times New Roman.
Georgia is my favourite serif typeface. I use it for most text documents now. It's distinct, elegant, and fairly easy to read in my experience.
When I need a monospace typeface, I typically use Consolas or Source Code Pro. Both are quite legible to me and have true italics. Whether for emphasis or style, true italics are very useful for their distinctiveness from upright letter forms.
My favorite font is called Poppins, check it out on Google fonts
YES. ITS SO GOOD.
Strange, that's my least favourite font! Each to their own
terminus will and always will be the best font
I tend to use TNR most frequently, since I find it the easiest to read. Will definitely test out Lexend Fonts now!
Check out software.sil.org/andika/ -- It's designed for literacy work, so it's wonderfully easy to read, while also having far more interesting and nuanced than a boring geometric sans serif like Lexend. (It's easier on your brain when "lo" and "b" aren't exactly the same shapes, for example.)
i really like cambria math as an alternative to times new roman
it has the same characteristics and feel, but its more line consistent. the serif and the curves on letters dont thin out in mock imitation of pen writing, and there are no visually disturbing dimples either. i've printed an entire book with this font and i think its pleasant to read. i recommend it highly if you want a font thats not painfully preposterous. it has a soft plumb feel so that it fits a wider range of moods
With this "a" looking like "o" this font cannot be the most readable one.
Agree
When studying font design back at art university in the late 80’s, before the computers took over the world, we learned that a letter is legible in relation to the letters beside it and all the letters in a word. Easy examples are combinations like LI, LA, LT, IT, DT. Or lil, civ, rip, diw. Obviously the design of the L and the T should be different in the different combinations, and the spacing on the side of the i’s should be different. And a font hence not only have one L, one T, one i, etc.
When printing was done with types there wasn’t just one L or one A, etc, there were many different of each depending on the combination. And different spacings between letters were taken into account for. And sometimes the were two letter combination types available.
This is one reason to why the original Times News Roman was regarded as legible. All L’s weren’t the same, but adapted to the letter beside it, The I’s weren’t the same, but the spacing on either side of the I could be different.
Today’s designers don’t seem to be aware of this… And I can’t understand how they can’t notice these things. But they just use letter as they are served.
And the programmers providing apps like Words or Pages seem to have no clue. I mean today the selected version of a specific letter in the alphabet could be made rather automatic. Really every single word in the dictionary could be designed so the different letters are modified to make the word as eligible or aesthetically (the spacings between letters and inside letters…. e.g. the space inside the D… are balanced) as possible.
Although just like color management in professional art and design software still doesn’t apply knowledge known before Adobe was even a business name, the use of fonts neither applies knowledge known since the day of parchment and crow-quill pens. And unfortunately I don’t think it will ever change because not even professionals of today seem to know or care. Anyway, if even more legibility is asked for, one must pay attention to this.
My favorite font is Georgia 😌
Georgia is a good clear one. I also like Bookman, New Century School Book, and some others. I get sick of Times New Roman . (TNR is quite readable. But it's been out to force people to conform and can be dull, overdone & restrictive).
I didn't think it was possible to have a font that was MORE difficult for me to read. Dyslexia is such a challenge, so I know this Lex font isn't made for people like me. But dang I didn't think it would make things THIS much harder to read. I'm glad for those who like this font and can now read faster, but for me I'll stick with my OpenDyslexic font. The letters just get less jumbled for me.
I teach the psychology of fonts in an infographics class
Over the centuries, printers tried to find type faces, not fonts which as ignorant computer geeks apparently thought could stand for both.
Traditionally, a font is a certain typeface in a certain size.
One of the reasons for using Comic Sans is that it is somewhat condensed and, therefore, takes up less room. This new typeface will take up more room. Sans serif typefaces are taller than serif type. IDK why.
This is why my favorite font is comic sans
it would be also interesting to find out if there is a connection between language and reading speed
Just waiting the comic san user's comments
I like the concept of the most readable font, but I think there should be multiple fonts (outside of different weights and widths) for optimal readability for the sake of variety. I’m sure there could be other fonts as readable as Lexend.
The fonts I like are Source Sans Pro, Yantramanav, and Open Sans, all if which are also on Google Fonts and I think can serve easy readability. I’m not sure if it’s as readable as Lexend or as Lexend is claimed to be.
I understand that designing a font, let alone one for perfect readability, is no easy task and takes loads of time and ingenuity.
Maybe I might have to wait 30 years or so for a plethora of refined fonts as readable as Lexend. Who knows?
I’m not calling Lexend a bad font or a bad font concept. However, as a graphic designer, I long for variety.
Typeface! Not fonts
To answer your closing questions: the default fonts on MSWindows range from blech to meh, and the defaults on macOS and common Linux installations are only slightly better. My defaults are Bookman Old Style, Book Antiqua, Adobe Garamond, Gill Sans, ProFont (only for programming), and the Noto family.
I don’t know about you but I will still take Arial and Helvetia over this.
Helvetica*
Most of the time I attempt to use think-traced sans-serif fonts. Calibri is my most frequent choice, but I also like Ubuntuand Libre Franklin.
“Readable”
*uses comic sans*
I go along with the majority. Times New Roman, the default WinWord font IS NOT especially readable. No surprise, because it was designed to maximize newsprint on a page. Of the built in Windows fonts, I prefer Century Schoolbook or Bookman Old Style more. And I DO like Comic Sans Serif for special purposes.
Bruh “happy monkey” is my absolutely favorite font and all my friends hate it lol
Great idea. I’m interested in fonts because I know how they effect reading and comprehension. I was never a good speller but my grades went drastically down when they switched the font to cursive in the spelling book. I had never really learned cursive and this made it hard. In college, I found out I was dyslexic.
Hoping you will try Lexend!
Haha, I’m one of those weirdos who switched backed to Times New Roman over Calibri, I like serif fonts
Wow, awesome! Do you have a breakdown of the intended audience for different versions of the font?
"SAN SERIF"
Yep, cringed hard on that one
Is that in the Bay Area? Or down by LA?
I love Edward Johnston's London Transport Underground Railway Type Font (1916). Free versions are available. Still in copyright is the 1984 version. Used on LT's maps, posters, bus destination boards (condensed) and notices.
Is it normal to be sexually attracted to fonts.??
Oooh!! Yeah!! Italics, you dirty font...
As far as I am concerned The most important trait for a font is that it does not confuse letters.
For instance is it an “I” or is it an “l”?
One is a miniscule “L” and the other is majuscule “I” (as in “India”). If i have to explain if this was an “I” or an ”l” then its an unuseable font as far as I am concerened. Why? Because first you make your habbits and then your habbits make you. Your habbits can also destroy in a short instance when you make a slightest mistake in a time critical moment. A font that confuses information is a ticking time bomb. Eventually it is going to blow up and it is going ro blow your life or business up.
Same applies to miniscule “Oh” and “zero”. Which one is it? Is it “o” or a “0”. In many fonts, the “l” , “1” and “I” look very similar.Try it on long passwords or entering important info - for instance that “one time code”.
Consola is good only for coding. But for writing everyrhing else I use exclusively Georgia.
Century Gothic is the font I find most readable. Just a side note, please don’t say “hone in” when you mean “home in “. To hone is to sharpen something. Homing in means to get closer to your target.
From my past experiences with Times New Roman, Merriweather, and Georgia, Lexend definitely has an increase in speed among the 20 or so friends which I timed, reading the same excerpt written by myself. Although there is an improvement, a lot of it is psychological. Additionally, the currently business standard font is Times New Roman, and I doubt organizations will switch to fonts that appear very child-like. Lexend is essentially an easier to read version of Comic Sans, a font which I greatly dislike for its appearance alone.
As a person with LD I suffered through the " your lazy " crowd of educators in rural MN. One of them was the insistence that "serf' type was best for me. Back when fonts were built in to printers. I had a hard time looking for fixed sans fonts until I started work as a UNIX admin in the early-mid 90s. This seems to be a bit like this.
Former art director and communications manager here, the comprehension of typography involves a lot of different factors. The font is only one of them. Kerning, or the tightness of the letters, has nothing to do with the font specifically. Kerning can apply to any font. Readability in a printed book is vastly different than a web page based on the lighting in the room and the illumination of the page. Line length and line spacing also impact comprehension. Look at a typical Wikipedia page with its its long 120 character lines and liberal line spacing. Hover over any link on the page and it displays a message with much shorter lines with the same line spacing. Note how the shorter message is much easier to comprehend. For decades Apple used ITC Garamond, a serif fypeace, It was condensed and tightly kerned and helped to make the Macintosh a big seller with graphic designers like me. This comment at roughly 90 characters per line I suspect is set in Lexend since Google is using it. Is it easy to read? And how important is your browser magnification or your computer type size in its comprehension? Change your magnifcation to see how different type sizes with the same line length impact reading;
I really get what is happening here. I'm currently 66 and I find expanded fonts much more readable i.e. has more space between the letters. I find sans-serif fonts generally more readable and have elected Verdana as my preferred choice, although I will accept calibre if I have to, Arial is too condensed for my liking. I have not heard of Lexand before now but I definitely see where they are coming from and agree with the approach they are taking which matches my non-scientific but actual real experience. Well done!