<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Optimize Your Digital Signage Text Size, Comprehension and Readability</title>
		<description>Discuss Optimize Your Digital Signage Text Size, Comprehension and Readability</description>
		<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/485-optimize-your-digital-signage-text-size-comprehension-and-readability</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2026 23:39:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="https://www.wirespring.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>estone says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/485-optimize-your-digital-signage-text-size-comprehension-and-readability#comment-251</link>
			<description><![CDATA[hi ,looking for electronic billboard for the mines which are acid proof resistance
redards
estone]]></description>
			<dc:creator>estone</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 07:25:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/485-optimize-your-digital-signage-text-size-comprehension-and-readability#comment-251</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bill Gerba says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/485-optimize-your-digital-signage-text-size-comprehension-and-readability#comment-250</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Peter,
Great comment and questions. I'll answer what I can:
With regard to the phrase "common wisdom," I guess I meant "operational knowledge," since that's really what it is. Newspapers, magazines and books all publish with serif faces, and the effect of using sans-serif in place on printed materials is well known and documented. I did provide a link to one such report, and appreciate you providing another.
As to why this effect doesn't translate to digital signs, I don't really know. One possibility is that the serifs don't hold up as well on screens, or that antialiasing algorithms make them looks lighter or blurrier at a distance. Another possibility is that the layout of a typical digital signage spot is such that the text tends to be blocked together more. I just don't know why that is.
All I know is that we ran a study on several hundred screens for over a month, and this is the data that we came up with.
As much as I'd like to run more studies to dig deeper here, they're very expensive, and it's quite difficult to find networks willing to participate, so I'm afraid the real answer will have to wait for now.
On your comment about comprehension versus understanding, again you make a good point. However, the mere definitions of words like "comprehension" and "understanding" are fuzzy enough that I can't make a counter argument for you. We measured one specific thing: did people glean enough information from the displayed ad(s) to recall some of its premises and make a decision based on them? We decided to call that "comprehension." If you have another word that better fits that definition, feel free to use it instead :)
Thanks,
Bill]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Bill Gerba</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/485-optimize-your-digital-signage-text-size-comprehension-and-readability#comment-250</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Peter Martin says:</title>
			<link>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/485-optimize-your-digital-signage-text-size-comprehension-and-readability#comment-249</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Forgive me, but when I see the words "common wisdom" I think of Galileo, and things like flat earths.
When I hear about increased speed of reading, I think "maybe that helps people who need to set speed reading records". When I see the terms "legibility" and "readability" referred to as though they are the aims of presenting written material, I reach for my gun, given that they generally refer to speed of recognition of individual letters and words.
I draw my gun when I see them equated with comprehension and understanding. Much as it might be postulated they help comprehension and understanding, they are not the same thing.
Because I assume the purpose of presenting written material is actually to achieve comprehension and understanding, not speed records.
Meanwhile, if comprehension tests show printed body typefaces in serif fonts are more effective at achieving understanding than their sans serif equivalents (Wheildon, C.), and you say sans serif is better for comprehension in lower visual resolution situations (screens online).. are you really telling me that somehow sans serif is improved by worse viewing conditions, or are you actually saying that serif fonts lose their serifs and their advantage -- and presumably just become very similar to sans serifs, with slightly different spacing ? I'm not sure what you are saying, except you seem to come to a strange conclusion. To put it crudely, why don't we all just squint anyway, if physical limits improve visual discrimination?
I've just been reading a study which showed that people "like" online text in sans serif fonts, so it seems to win the popularity stakes. But the same study showed the same people actually understood the text better in a body font in a serif style.
Get the jury back for another run. There must be more in this.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Peter Martin</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:01:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://www.wirespring.com/30-legacy-blog-digital-signage-insider/485-optimize-your-digital-signage-text-size-comprehension-and-readability#comment-249</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
