RESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate microscopically whether the print quality and accuracy of sizing of Landolt ring near vision charts are adequate for the calibration of reading charts. METHODS: Near vision charts with Landolt rings from Oculus GmbH (C-Test; Wetzlar, Germany), Precision Vision (Woodstock, IL) and the RADNER Charts were examined, as well as custom-made Landolt rings optimized for print quality. Microscopic investigations and measurements were performed by using a Huvitz HSZ 600 stereomicroscope (Nikon NIS Elements software) to evaluate the height of the Landolt rings, the thickness of the lines, and the width of the openings. The deviations from the mathematically correct values, which were calculated as given in the EN/ISO 8596 and by the International Council of Ophthalmology (ICO), were analyzed (calculated for a test distance of 40 cm). RESULTS: All the near vision charts showed notable deficiencies in print quality and aberrations from the nominal values in the height, thickness of the lines, and width of the openings. The openings were too narrow, whereas the height and thickness of the lines were larger than the nominal values. Even the openings of Landolt rings optimized for print quality were not always within an acceptable 5% tolerance and need further improvement. CONCLUSION: This study reports inaccuracies in the heights, thicknesses of the lines, and widths of the openings of Landolt rings in all the near vision charts investigated. The extent of these inaccuracies excludes such near vision charts as reference tests for the calibration of reading charts. The x-height in relation to the visual angle still seems to be the most reliable method for standardizing the print sizes for reading charts.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The purpose was to compare systematically the legibility of a font without serifs (Helvetica) and one with serifs (Times New Roman). METHODS: Three paragraphs that were equal in the number of words, syllables, characters, difficulty and reading length were printed at equal size, with equal spacing between the lines and equal layout (paperback style), in either the sans serif typeface Helvetica Neue T1 55 Roman (Adobe) or the serif typeface Times New Roman PS Roman (Adobe). They were also printed in newspaper format in the serif font. The paragraphs were presented in random order (Latin square design) to 36 participants between 18 and 38 years of age (wearing their best-corrected visual acuity). Reading duration was measured with a stopwatch. Reading time, reading speed and the number of reading errors were compared. RESULTS: For the paperback layout, no significant difference in reading time (p = 0.50) or reading speed (p = 0.56) was found between the two fonts. The correlation between the two fonts was high for both reading time and speed (r = 0.93). The mean number of reading errors was the same (0.31 ± 0.58 errors/text) for both fonts. There was a significant difference in reading time and speed between the paperback and the newspaper layout. CONCLUSION: The legibility of Helvetica and Times New Roman is similar when investigated under equivalent conditions. Thus, these two font types can be used as interchangeable standard typefaces.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of font choice on reading parameters by using the RADNER Reading Charts printed in two fonts (Helvetica vs. Times Roman) equalized in terms of x-height. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of 40 participants with healthy eyes (18 to 60 years of age; mean: 42.13 ± 12.28 years). Reading performance was evaluated binocularly with RADNER Reading Charts printed in either Helvetica Neue (T1) Roman sans serif (Adobe) or Times New Roman PS Roman serif (Adobe). The test distance was 40 cm. Reading charts were presented in random order. Reading acuity (RA), mean reading speed of all sentences read (MEAN-ALL RS), mean reading speed from 0.8 logRAD to 0.3 logRAD (MEAN-RS), maximum reading speed (MAX-RS), and critical print size (CPS) were compared. RESULTS: The RA values obtained for the Helvetica and Times Roman fonts (in full logarithmic units of 0.1 logRAD) did not differ between the two fonts (mean for both fonts: - 0.128 ± 0.064 logRAD; 95% CI for both: - 0.148; - 0.107 logRAD). The differences in all other reading parameters between the two fonts were small and not statistically significant. The analyses revealed narrow confidence intervals and good coefficients of reliability. Except for the CPS (r = 0.49) and RA (equal for Helvetica and Times Roman), the correlations for all parameters were high, ranging from r = 0.92 to r = 0.98. CONCLUSION: The equivalent reading performance obtained with Helvetica and Times Roman (when equalized in x-height and layout) makes these font types interchangeable as standards for reading charts.
