|
CHARACTER FONT PROJECT In 2002 the Manchester Environmental Group of Blind & Partially-Sighted People (MEGOBAPP) discussed at one of its meetings the variation in font sizes used for large print production as well as the fonts. They were aware that some organisations considered that 16 pt was adequate; others felt that 18 pt Was more appropriate. As one of the objectives of MEGOBAPP is to encourage the provision of information in an accessible format, it was agreed that the Group circulate as many visually-impaired people as possible able to access large print in an endeavour to ascertain their preferred character font as well as the size at which they preferred this to be produced.
Although it was considered that the cost of a project to ascertain the answers to these questions would not be excessive, MEGOBAPP itself did not possess the resources to cover the likely expenditure involved. An application was made to Manchester Community Chest for Neighbourhoood Renewal funding which, amongst other things, would cover the likely costs to be incurred in carrying out this research. The application to Manchester Community Chest for Neighbourhood Renewal funding was successful and MEGOBAPP was thus able to look at pursuing the project in early 2003.
As MEGOBAPP is a small organisation without any paid staff, it was realised that all the work involved would have to be undertaken by its members in their free time. In view of this and the extent of the funding sought, it was decided that the project should be undertaken initially on a limited basis, aiming at a circulation to at least 150 visually-impaired people. The first decision that had to be taken was to determine which, and how many, character fonts to offer for the consideration of recipients. It was appreciated that a number of organisations and groups (and perhaps Authorities) still persisted in the use of Times/New Roman; it was therefore decided to include this as an option, even if this proved to be somewhat negative. We were aware that a locally-based, regional charity used a Windows print font for circulation to its large print users. A decision was therefore reached to incorporate this Swiss BT721 font within the project. At the same time, the Group knew that some local organisations of disabled people advocated that Arial character fonts should be used. It was, perhaps, obvious that the Microsoft Word Arial character font should form part of the project. Publicity had been seen indicating that the Royal National Institute of the Blind, in conjunction with Moorfield Eye Hospital, had produced software that they considered to be more clearly defined and therefore more accessible to visually-impaired people. A copy of the Tiresias software was purchased to provide a fourth and final element of the options. To avoid the possibility of a respondent being influenced in their judgment by being aware of the actual character font being used in each specimen, it was decided to substitute the font names by the letters “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”, The actual fonts allocated to each letter being known only to the producer of the specimens. Having determined the character fonts to be used, a decision was required as to the size of these to be offered. It was eventually decided that three font sizes should be provided for consideration, 14, 16 and 18 pts. The question of background colour was discussed. Members were aware that a recommended contrast between background and foreground colours was black on yellow. Though such a contrast would not normally be used by way of general communication, it was nevertheless decided to use this contrast in the hope that it would prove easier for recipients to make a judgment.
MEGOBAPP members then gave consideration to the kind of information they would be seeking from the people responding. It was agreed that respondents should be asked to look at the various options available and then indicate on the Response form the character font they preferred and the size of character they were able to access by ticking the relevant box on the Response form. For those respondents only able to access the print by way of magnification equipment (hand held or otherwise) they were asked to indicate their preferred character font by ticking the appropriate box in a separate chart. The opportunity was also given for respondents to indicate their second choice of character font if they wished to do so. A further section on the Response form was provided for those completing it to make any comments.
The Group were
now in a position to produce packs consisting of a letter of explanation,
four separate specimen character fonts in three sizes and a reply form
for completion by the recipients before returning this to us in a stamped-addressed
envelope provided. Attention was then directed to the distribution of
these packs. In addition, local individuals were sent packs, but it became obvious that some contacts outside the immediate area would be necessary if our target of at least 150 contacts was to be achieved in order to provide a reasonable response level. By taking this action, a total of 193 packs were distributed.
Of the 193 packs distributed, a total of 88 Response forms were returned (45.59 per cent) of which 80 (41.45 per cent of the total circulation) could be used in the final analysis. Of the 80 referred to above, 77 were positive, whereas 3 were indecisive as to their preferred character font but were able to identify a preferred font size. Of the remaining 8 responses, 3 indicated that a larger font size would be needed for them to respond, whilst it was not possible to secure a definite response from the remaining five respondents as to their preferred font or size due to their multiple choice of fonts and sizes. The 77 positive responses were analysed and this analysis showed that 63 respondents (79.22 per cent of the positive responses) were able to access the specimen fonts without magnification assistance. Examination of these produced a split between the four specimen character fonts of:- Font “A”” (Times/New Roman) – 5 (7.93 per cent of the 63 positive responses); Font “B” (Swiss BT721) – 12 (19.05 per cent); Font “C” Arial) – 16 (25.39 per cent); Font “D” (Tiresias) – 30 (47.62 per cent). As regards the character font size required by the above 63 respondents and the 3 who could only be assessed on their character font size (66 in all), the split was:- 14 pt – 8 (12.12 per cent); 16 pt – 19 (28.79 per cent); 18 pt – 39 (59.09 per cent). Of the remaining 14 positive respondents, these were only able to access the information by means of some form of magnification. Their preferred character fonts were:- Font “A” – 3; Font “B” – 3; Font “C” – 2; Font “D” – 6. By amalgamation of the two tables of preferred character fonts produced the following results:- Font “A” – 8 (10.39 per cent of the 77 analysed); Font “B” – 15 (19.49 per cent); Font “C” – 18 (23.37 per cent); Font “D” – 36 (46.85 per cent). The foregoing shows that character font “D” had twice as many people preferring it than any of the others offered. The outcome of this limited project would seem to suggest that, as far as MEGOBAPP is aware, the preferred character font is one that is not currently recommended or offered to visually-impaired people.
The opportunity was provided for people to make comments on the Response form. Some took advantage of this opportunity. Amongst the comments made which had some relevance (other than those requiring character in a larger font size) were:- More than one of those responding commented that they would have preferred white paper to have been used rather than the yellow. The significance of the use of alphabetic recognition of character fonts was justified in that one respondent indicating that they used a particular character font which was their preference, but, in actual fact, ticked other than the one they normally used. Attention was drawn to the use of the Tahoma character font in the large print circulation by a substantial organisation and this has been noted. A further person commented that they would have liked to have more options on which to make a choice. A further relevant point was made. It was suggested that increased gaps between the lines would have made the text even more accessible. Though Tiresias proved the most popular character font, two of those commenting had negative views towards this font.
In embarking on this project, MEGOBAPP set itself a target which was considered to be a reasonable one in view of the lack of criteria. Much thought was given to the presentation of the options and, whilst it is felt that the procedures and scope adopted were adequate, it is realised, as a result of the experience, that a wider circulation, using a different approach, might now be possible. With an increased circulation and adjustment of the options offered, together with an opportunity of identifying a preferred background colour, visually-impaired people would be able to press national, regional and local authorities organisations (and particularly those Charities addressing issues related to disabled people) to adopt a policy of information provision which is more likely to meet the needs of those with a sight loss. Despite the limitations imposed upon the project, MEGOBAPP is of the view that the results justify the work undertaken and feel that the research should be taken that one step further. For MEGOBAPP to pursue this to the next level, some resources will need to be secured. Whilst such resources are not expected to be extensive, they are, nevertheless, outside the Groups current resources at this point in time. This is thought to be the first research of its kind carried out and MEGOBAPP are anxious to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. Any enquiries
should be directed to Ron Goulden, Chair of MEGOBAPP, E-mail: |