How does serif vs. sans serif typeface impact the usability of e-commerce websites?

  1. Vecino, Sara 1
  2. Mehtali, Jonas 2
  3. de Andrés, Javier 1
  4. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, Martin 1
  5. Fernandez-Lanvin, Daniel 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Oviedo
    info

    Universidad de Oviedo

    Oviedo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/006gksa02

  2. 2 University of Strasbourg
    info

    University of Strasbourg

    Estrasburgo, Francia

    ROR https://ror.org/00pg6eq24

Journal:
PeerJ Computer Science

ISSN: 2376-5992

Year of publication: 2022

Volume: 8

Pages: e1139

Type: Article

DOI: 10.7717/PEERJ-CS.1139 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: PeerJ Computer Science

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

This study tries to find evidence that points towards the best typeface to use in e-commerce websites to maximize usability, trust, loyalty, appearance and overall user satisfaction. We tested the difference between serif and sans serif inside the same font family. A total of 246 volunteers participating in the experiment were asked to complete a set of tasks and a questionnaire on an e-commerce website prototype. We measured task completion time, reading speed and reading comprehension. From the results, using multiple linear regression, we deduced that only gender determines user preferences. Females tend to prefer the serif version of the typeface under study. Although most e-commerce websites use sans serif typefaces, we could not find evidence supporting this decision. The serif and sans serif characteristic inside the same font family does not affect usability on a website, as it was found that it has no impact on reading speed and user preference.

€ View funding

Funding information

This work was funded by the Department of Science, Innovation, and Universities (Spain) under the National Program for Research, Development, and Innovation (project RTI2018-099235-B-I00). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Funders

Bibliographic References

  • Bernard ML, Chaparro BS, Mills MM, Halcomb CG. 2003. Comparing the effects of text size and format on the readibility of computer-displayed times new roman and arial text. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 59(6):823-835
  • Boyarski D, Neuwirth C, Forlizzi J, Regli SH. 1998. Study of fonts designed for screen display.
  • Chatrangsan M, Petrie H. 2019. The effect of typeface and font size on reading text on a tablet computer for older and younger people.
  • Dogusoy B, Cicek F, Cagiltay K. 2016. How serif and sans serif typefaces influence reading on screen: an eye tracking study. In: Marcus A, ed. Design, User Experience, and Usability: Novel User Experiences. DUXU 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer. 9747:578-586
  • Faisal CM, Gonzalez-Rodriguez M, Fernandez-Lanvin D, Andres-Suarez JD. 2017. Web design attributes in building user trust, satisfaction, and loyalty for a high uncertainty avoidance culture. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 47(6):847-859
  • Fernandez-Lanvin D, de Andres-Suarez J, Gonzalez-Rodriguez M, Pariente-Martinez B. 2018. The dimension of age and gender as user model demographic factors for automatic personalization in e-commerce sites. Computer Standards and Interfaces 59(3):1-9
  • Google. 2022. Analytics—Google Fonts.
  • Greene WH. 2018. Econometric analysis (Eighth Edition). Hoboken: Prentice Hall. 1126
  • Grobelny J, Michalski R. 2015. The role of background color, interletter spacing, and font size on preferences in the digital presentation of a product. Computers in Human Behavior 43(23):85-100
  • Hofstede G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  • Josephson S. 2008. Keeping your readers’ eyes on the screen: an eye-tracking study comparing sans serif and serif typefaces. Visual Communication Quarterly 15(1–2):67-79
  • Kemp S. 2022. Digital 2022: time spent using connected tech continues to rise—datareportal—global digital insights.
  • Latin M. 2017. Better web typography for a better web. San Francisco: Blurb.
  • Pušnik N, Možina K, Podlesek A. 2016. Effect of typeface, letter case and position on recognition of short words presented on-screen. Behaviour & Information Technology 35(6):442-451
  • Pušnik N, Podlesek A, Možina K. 2016. Typeface comparison—does the x-height of lower-case letters increased to the size of upper-case letters speed up recognition? International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 54(23):164-169
  • Rello L, Baeza-Yates R. 2016. The effect of font type on screen readability by people with dyslexia. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS) 8(4):1-33
  • Sasidharan S, Dhanesh G. 2008. Font personality and b2c e-commerce trust. In: 14th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2008. 4:2587-2597
  • Sauro J. 2015. Supr-q: a comprehensive measure of the quality of the website user experience. Journal of Usability Studies 10:68-86
  • Sienkiewicz R. 2020. Why do so many brands change their logos and look like everyone else?
  • Statistics and Data. 2021. Most popular websites in the world—1996/2021 + top websites in the us by traffic—statistics and data.
  • Wallace S, Treitman R, Huang J, Sawyer BD, Bylinskii Z. 2020. Accelerating adult readers with typeface: a study of individual preferences and effectiveness.