Women's glance times were not noticeably different when comparing
the two font styles, Reimer added. For women, the figures were
equivalent in the first group and showed a 3.3 percent improvement in the
"I would have expected to find, based on [information from] font
experts...to find a couple percent difference. I was shocked by the
level we found it at," Reimer said in an interview. Male "drivers
are keeping their eyes on the road longer with the humanist-style
type face. When they look off the road it takes shorter time" with
Reimer said the difference in test results between the genders remains
unexplained. "It's possible women are…more efficient at moving
information" that is displayed, he said "It could
also be a neurobiological difference."
Lessons being learned
While not directly relevant to hardware design, there are some
lessons here for electronics designers.
"In terms of inside the vehicle, the electronics are going to have
more intelligence and a focus is always on the technology," Reimer
said. "Let's think about the basics and work with the human-factors
folks [as to] what's the use case going to be."
Asked whether he thought there would be much difference if he had
studied a heads-up display, where the electronics output is
projected onto the inside of the windshield, Reimer said he expected
a similar result. A driver's "vision is still restricted to an object projected. You're
not actually looking at the road environment and information at same
time, but your eyes aren't quite as far away from the road," he concluded.
Duane, you didn't look at the fonts sufficiently carefully before commenting. Helvetica is an example of a "grotesque" font, at least if Wikipedia is to be believed. Follow the links in the article, quite revealing.
As an aging driver I have noticed over the last decade that it takes significantly longer to “acquire” the data and “see” what is in the scene. This may account for a number of accidents where fast moving vehicles are missed by aging drivers exiting side roads. As eyesight deteriorates the ability to change focus from infinity [as when looking straight ahead] to shorter distances as little as 60 cm [called accommodation] for reading displays and instruments also deteriorate. Correct prescription glasses will help, but the impact of the contrast ratio of font to background and light level are also important.
This kind of strikes me as a bit of a "blinding flash of the obvious." Helvetica/Ariel is known to be one of the more readable fonts. Old english and script type fonts are much more difficult to read.
I wouldn't even have to run a study to conclude that people will read faster, get the meaning faster and thus be distracted for less time with an easy to read font vs a difficult to read font.
This article is confusing. It would have been instructive to get the actual glance times of men and of women, when viewing the two font types. As written, the only thing I can conclude is that the simpler font has a more beneficial impact on men. What I cannot tell is whether women are having to look longer regardless of font.
Here's the issue:
"For women, the figures were equivalent in the first group and showed a 3.3 percent improvement in the second group."
The way I read this, women's glance times are about the same as men's for the Eurostyle font, the bad one, and hardly improve at all with the good font. To me, that sounds like women are spending less time looking at the road, overall. Yet, the article says:
"It's possible women are…more efficient at moving information" that is displayed, he said "It could also be a neurobiological difference."
Which makes me think that something is missing somewhere in the explanation?
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.