ArticlePloS one2026
Assessment of newly designed fonts for visual accessibility.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe visual accessibility of fonts refers to the range of print sizes and efficiency with which readers can access text. One goal of font design may be to maximize accessibility for a wide range of users including those with low vision. Here, we compare behavioral and automated methods for evaluating the accessibility of a font for both normal and simulated low vision.
methodWe evaluated the accessibility of a newly designed font, ACT Easy. In Experiment 1, we used a behavioral (psychophysical) approach to compare regular and bold versions of ACT Easy to Courier, Frutiger, and Gotham. 22 normally sighted young adults were tested with a computerized version of MNREAD in two conditions: normal viewing, and text digitally filtered to simulate moderate low vision (20/90 acuity). The outcome measures were reading acuity, critical print size, maximum reading speed, and participants' preference rankings. In Experiment 2, we used an automated method to estimate the equivalent of reading acuity for eleven state-of-the-art Optical Character Recognition models. The models read MNREAD sentences in ACT Easy and five mainstream fonts. We explored how accurately the models mimicked human performance.
resultsIn Experiment 1, ACT Easy Regular compared well in reading acuity and critical print size with Courier, the best of the other fonts for both normal and simulated low-vision conditions. ACT Easy Regular and Gotham were favored in the preference rankings. In Experiment 2, nine of the eleven OCR models showed changes in reading acuity similar to humans in the normal and simulated low-vision conditions. Two of the models also exhibited human-like variations across fonts.
conclusionsBehavioral and automated methods are both capable of revealing subtle differences in the visual accessibility of fonts. The behavioral method requires labor-intensive human testing. The automated method does not require human testing, and may sometimes provide a practical alternative.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.