13

I know Google does A LOT of user interface/experience testing and I'm looking for any type of scientific research on User Experience when it comes to typefaces used on a monitor display.

As such, I'm going to use Google as an example.

Why doesn't Google use the typeface of Verdana or Tahoma (instead of helvetica/arial)?

Verdana/Tahoma were both typefaces primarily designed for the screen (and are much easier to read on the screen than helvetica/arial).

I'm curious to know if there is any type of computer science research indicating that Helvetica / Arial on the screen is better to use than other typefaces.

**Please note this is a computer science interaction research question instead of just a subjective web development question.

UPDATE:

People have been mentioning in the answers that Verdana/Tahoma are typically not available on Linux. But that answer doesn't make sense because CSS allows for this exact situation (of non-available fonts through the use of hierarchical typeface naming).

For example, in CSS you'd do 

font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;

meaning - if the user has "verdana" us it, otherwise default to the system sans-serif typeface.

UPDATE 2

Google is already font stacking on the front page of Google.com using a Windows only font.

Per the CSS on google.com, they have:

font-family:arial,sans-serif

So all of the answers related to google not using certain fonts because of licensing issues, or not available on non-Windows machines, or filesize of the page are all wrong. Obviously, from the pasted code above, Google is explicitly defining a Windows only font (Arial) in such a way that increases the overall page size.

As such, my original question still stand: is any type of computer science research indicating that Helvetica / Arial on the screen is better to use than other typefaces.

**Please note this is a computer science interaction research question instead of just a subjective web development question.

jackio_e
  • 155
  • 1
  • 5
  • Look, we all know about font stacking with CSS. Google started out to be minimalistic - the font of the web (or almost everything for that matter) **is** Helvetica (or Arial). Yes, you are right Verdana/Tahoma were designed for screens, but as pointed out below they are Windows only fonts. Google most probably started out on Linux systems - without Tahoma/Verdana. On a side note: Apple's primary font is Lucida Grande, then Arial. Microsoft's primary font is Tahoma. – Dennis G Nov 23 '10 at 16:21
  • @moontear, please refer to UPDATE 2 of the original post. What you state is incorrect. – jackio_e Nov 23 '10 at 16:41
  • 1
    @jackio_e: I downvoted because you're asking why a specific company does a specific thing. The only definitive answer must come from the company itself, everything else is speculation. If that's not the real question you're asking, modify the title to better reflect what you really want to know. – Bryan Oakley Nov 23 '10 at 16:58
  • 1
    @Bryan Oakley, the title is updated. Please un-downvote. Thanks – jackio_e Nov 23 '10 at 17:09
  • Downvoted because of exactly what Bryan said and because it is not programming related. As to your update *"indicating [...] Arial on the screen is better [...]"*: No. As you said previously Tahoma/Verdana were designed for the screen, hence they look "better" than Arial - definition of "better" is an explanation looking into font kerning etc. As for my "incorrect" statement: I didn't state anything incorrectly, I was merely assuming (refer to the usage of the words "most probably"). – Dennis G Nov 23 '10 at 17:12
  • 1
    @moontear, what you just stated isn't my question - so you wrongly downvoted me. My question is **s any type of computer science research indicating that Helvetica / Arial on the screen is better to use than other typefaces.** – jackio_e Nov 23 '10 at 17:32
  • @jackio_e: You ask for research about which is "better" - better, how? More attractive? Easier on the eyes? More ubiquitous? More dense? Less dense? More often then not, fonts are chosen not for their superior readability but more because of availability or aesthetics. Google in particular probably doesn't care about the readability as much as they do the aesthetic appeal and ubiquity of a font. People don't spend inordinate amounts of time reading text on a google page, so a font highly tuned for readability just isn't very important. – Bryan Oakley Nov 23 '10 at 18:06
  • 1
    @Bryan Oakley, Google was given as an example because THEY DO PERFORM massive amounts of UX research, hence, why my question is being asked. My question remains, *has anyone found any scientific research on verdana/tahoma vs helvetica/arial as it relates UX on a monitor display?* – jackio_e Nov 23 '10 at 19:16
  • This question has been flagged a couple times; if you're thining of flagging this for mod attention as off topic, don't bother; we've already seen it. This one is definitely gray area for being OT. If you believe it is off topic, vote to close. I don't think any mod is going to make a decision one way or another. –  Nov 24 '10 at 16:57
  • Don't for get about the Segoe UI font that is now standard on Windows Vista and Windows 7 which mainly leaves Tahoma for backwards compatible apps and Windows XP users. – jpierson Jun 01 '11 at 10:56

2 Answers2

21

I am assuming your question is about general studies comparing Arial to Tahoma/Verdana.

Let me state beforehand that any kind of "better" is highly subjective, but yet there are studies trying to do the impossible.

The first study I want to show you comparing Arial to Tahoma/Verdana shows that from the surveyed people Arial was the most preferred font, with Verdana coming in at second place and Tahoma third (out of the three). However that Arial was the preferred choice might be due to the study at hand as the researches indicate:

[...] since it has been most preferred in our previous font studies that examined children (Bernard, Mills, Frank, & McKown, Winter/2001), older adults (Bernard, Liao, & Mills, Winter/2001), and college students (Bernard & Mills, Summer/2000)
from A Comparison of Popular Online Fonts: Which is Best and When?

Interestingly the study was conducted on a computer, so even though Verdana was designed for the screen the participants still chose Arial over Verdana - maybe because people are so accustomed to seeing Arial/Helvetica everywhere?

A newer study (2002 compared to the last study from 2001) suggests that Verdana is the best choice:

Of the fonts studied, Verdana appears to be the best overall font choice. Besides being the most preferred, it was read fairly quickly and was perceived as being legible.
from A Comparison of Popular Online Fonts: Which Size and Type is Best?

Yet another study would classify Verdana as "dull", Arial as "unimaginative, stable, conformist" which you can read all about here: Perception of Fonts: Perceived Personality Traits and Uses.

If you are looking for results for only elderly people, Arial is the way go at 14 point size, but at 12 point size Verdana wins: Determining the Best Online Font for Older Adults.

A even more recent study (2007) investigating the "Psychology of onscreen type: investigations regarding typeface personality, appropriateness, and impact on document perception" (btw that is 652 pages of font goodness!) shows that Verdana has the highest legibility ranking of all fonts, the same study also finds that 21 people voted Verdana as their favorite, but 60 voted for Arial (again maybe because they KNOW the look of Arial?).

If anything I would suggest you read the last mentioned 652-page study. As for your question why Google chose Arial over Verdana - I don't know. Verdana was designed for the screen using hinting to snap the stems to pixels - hence it looks clearer on screen. People are accustomed to seeing Arial everywhere though, so they might get a feeling of "being at home".

If you want to open another can of worms, look into serif vs sans-serif fonts. Serif fonts are more legible in print, but on the web sans-serif fonts predominate - several studies exist comparing these findings.

Dennis G
  • 20,757
  • 17
  • 90
  • 129
2

Verdana and Tahoma are fonts from Microsoft, and might not be universally available. On Linux for example, you need to get the msttfonts (or similar name) package to install some Microsoft fonts, but that one includes Verdana only.

ustun
  • 6,593
  • 5
  • 41
  • 55
  • That doesn't make sense, because CSS allows for the situation of non-available fonts through the use of hierarchical typeface naming. For example, in CSS you'd do *font-family:Verdana, sans-serif;* meaning - if the user has "verdana" us it, otherwise default to the system sans-serif typeface. – jackio_e Nov 23 '10 at 15:26
  • This answer is still invalid. Refer to UPDATE 2 of the original post. – jackio_e Nov 23 '10 at 16:41