←back to thread

Rubio stages font coup: Times New Roman ousts Calibri

(www.reuters.com)
386 points italophil | 1 comments | 10 Dec 25 00:08 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
WhyOhWhyQ ◴[10 Dec 25 22:35 UTC] No.46224941[source]▶
Is Calibri actually more accessible? Every step of this story seems pointless and fake.
replies(5): >>46224996 #>>46225153 #>>46225174 #>>46225199 #>>46225226 #
papercrane ◴[10 Dec 25 22:41 UTC] No.46224996[source]▶
One of the reasons Calibri was selected over Times New Roman was it has a lower rate of OCR transcription errors, making documents using it easier for people using screen readers.
replies(2): >>46225285 #>>46227403 #
blueflow ◴[10 Dec 25 23:05 UTC] No.46225285[source]▶
Link on that, as OCR should be more reliable with Times New Roman due to significant serifs.
replies(3): >>46225527 #>>46226162 #>>46227942 #
1. nerevarthelame ◴[11 Dec 25 05:19 UTC] No.46227942{3}[source]▶
I don't know what studies Blinken's State Department considered, but here are 2 studies on the matter.

https://www.academia.edu/72263493/Effect_of_Typeface_Design_...: "For Latin, it was observed that individual letters with serif cause misclassification on (b,h), (u,n), (o,n), (o,u)."

https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10220037: [Figure 5 shows higher accuracy for the two sans-serif fonts, Arial and DejaVu compared to Times New Roman, across all OCR engines]