Effectiveness of predominant letterforms in different small type sizes

Thai universal design font versus familiar Thai text fonts





Earlier researchers have investigated and suggested how to design legibility for Thai letterforms that evolved into the Thai universal design typeface (Thai UD typeface), which supports Thai readers and visually impaired people. Prior researchers measured the letterforms of the Thai UD typeface for effectiveness on various psychological methodologies, such as blur simulation, short exposure, and distance threshold method. To continually investigate the effectiveness of the Thai UD typeface, in the present study, we tested its capability by adapting the methods involved in critical print size (CPS), letter acuity (LA), and reading acuity (RA) compared to familiar text typefaces. In the current study, we compared the effectiveness of three typefaces: FT Manifest UD (Thai UD typeface), Cordia New, and TH Sarabu New, which employed 36 Thai consonants in 15 different type sizes of the three typefaces. We presented the Thai characters to 32 Thai volunteers, including 12 males and 20 females between 18 and 62 years old, and we also divided the volunteers into three groups: adolescent adults, older adults, and graphic designers and related fields, into three different results. The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test showed that at a significance level of 0.05, the FT Manifest UD typeface was different in overall effectiveness from (better than) the Cordia New and TH Sara bun new typefaces. For the finding of each group, the FT Manifest UD typeface was different in effectiveness from (better than) the Cordia New and TH Sara bun new typefaces among the adolescent-young adults and the older adults. The finding for the graphic designers' group revealed that the FT Manifest UD typeface differed in effectiveness from (was better than) the TH Sarabu New typeface. However, the effectiveness of FT Manifest UD was similar to the Cordia New typeface. The study suggests that the most critical characteristics of FT Manifest UD provided better effectiveness than the other typefaces on various small type sizes. However, certain letterforms should be improved to enhance sufficient legibility for using the types in small and diminutive.


Arango, T., Yu, D., Lu, Z. L., & Bex, P. J. (2020). Effects of Task on Reading Performance Estimates. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2005. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02005.

Beartai, (2016). Why should we use TH Sarabun New font instead of TH Sarabun PSK? Beartai Weekly. Retrieved August 25, 2023. https://www.beartai.com/article/tech-article/104166. (In Thai).

Beier, S., & Oderkerk, C. (2019). Smaller visual angles show greater benefit of letter boldness than larger visual angles. Acta Psychologica, 199, 102904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102904.

Beier, S., Oderkerk, C., Bay, B., & Larsen, M. (2021). Increased letter spacing and greater letter width improve reading acuity in low vision readers. Information Design Journal, 26 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.19033.bei.

Cheong, A.M., Lovie-Kitchin, J.E. and Bowers, A.R. (2002), Determining magnification for reading with low vision. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 85: 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2002.tb03042.x.

Legge, G. E. (2007). Psychophysics of reading in normal and low vision. Boca Raton: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482269482.

Legge, G. E., & Bigelow, C. A. (2011). Does print size matter for reading? A review of findings from vision science and typography. Journal of vision, 11(5), https://doi.org/10.1167/11.5.8.

Mansfield, J. S., Legge, G. E., & Bane, M. C. (1996). Psychophysics of reading. XV: Font effects in normal and low vision. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 37(8), 1492–1501. https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2161324.

Mansfield, S., West, T., & Dean, Z. (2018). Is the critical print size for reading linked to letter recognition? Journal of Vision, 18(10), 1163. https://doi.org/10.1167/18.10.1163

National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA), (2018). 13 standard free fonts from the National Software Industry Promotion Agency (SIPA). Retrieved December 19, 2023. https://www.nstda.or.th/home/news_post/thai-font/. (In Thai).

Punsongserm, R. (2010). Glyph designing approach for Thai fonts. Research Report, Faculty of Fine and Applied Arts, Thammasat University. (In Thai).

Punsongserm, R. (2019a). Approach to design a Thai universal design font [Doctoral thesis, Kyushu University]. http://hdl.handle.net/2324/2236251.

Punsongserm, R. (2019b). Thai universal design font versus familiar Thai text fonts: The role of distinctive letterforms and suitable inter-letter space influence in blurred words. Heritage & Vision: The 2019 International Conference on Design for Experience and Wellbeing (143–202), Xi'an, Northwestern Polytechnical University. https://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/67548586/2019_DEW_proceedings.pdf.

Punsongserm, R. (2020). Comparative effectiveness of homologous Thai letterforms on visual word recognition: Thai universal design font versus familiar Thai text fonts. Archives of Design Research, 33(3), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2020.

Punsongserm, R. (2023). Effectiveness of Predominant Letterforms in Multi-Viewing Distances: Thai Universal Design Font Versus Familiar Thai Text Fonts. Archives of Design Research, 36(4), 87–113. https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2023.

Punsongserm, R., Sunaga, S., & Ihara, H. (2015). The typeface priority of Thai characters for identification: Studying based on blurring tests. Annual Conference of the 5th Branch of Japanese Society for the Science of Design (JSSD), Fukuoka. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375773566_The_Typeface_Priority_of_Thai_Characters_for_Identification_Studying_Based_on_Blurring_Tests.

Punsongserm, R., Sunaga, S., & Ihara, H. (2017a). Thai typefaces (part 1): Assumption on visibility and legibility problems. Archives of Design Research, 30 (1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2017.

Punsongserm, R., Sunaga, S., & Ihara, H. (2017b). Thai typefaces (part 2): Criticism based on legibility test of some isolated characters. Archives of Design Research, 30(2), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2017.

Punsongserm, R., Sunaga, S., & Ihara, H. (2018a). Effectiveness of the homologous Thai letterforms on visibility under a simulated condition of low visual acuity. Annual Conference of the 11th Typography Day, Mumbai: Industrial Design Centre (IDC) and Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT Bombay). https://www.typoday.in/2018/spk_papers/rachapoom-punsongserm-typoday-2018.pdf.

Punsongserm, R., Sunaga, S., & Ihara, H. (2018b). Effectiveness of homologous Thai letterforms presented in parafoveal vision. Information Design Journal, 24(2), 92–115. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.00002.pun.

Punsongserm, R., & Suvakunta, P. (2022a). Do the Small Thai Font Sizes on Drug Labels and Documentation Facilitate Thai Readers? A Practical Review. Archives of Design Research, 35(1), 51–73. https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2022.

Punsongserm, R., & Suvakunta, P. (2022b). Optimal typeface and type size on Thai drug labeling and drug documentation: A recommendation for legal development. Archives of Design Research, 35(4), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2022.

Radner W. (2017). Reading charts in ophthalmology. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 255(8), 1465–1482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-017-3659-0.

Rae, S., Latham, K., and Katsou, M. F. (2015). Distance word acuity, critical print size and driving vision standards. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 98(5), 459–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12292.

Rubin G. S. (2013). Measuring reading performance. Vision Research, 90, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2013.02.015.

Rattanakasamsuk, K. (2013). Elderly vision on legibility of Thai letters presented on LED panel. ACA 2013 Thanyaburi: Blooming Color for Life (70–73), Thanyaburi: Asia Color Association and Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi. http://www.repository.rmutt.ac.th/dspace/bitstream/123456789/1187/1/ELDERLY%20VISION%20ON%20LEGIBILITY%20OF....pdf.

Santayayon, M., Pipitpukdee, J., & Phantachat, W. (2011). A study of the legibility of Thai letters in Thai young adults aged 19–25 years old and older adults aged 60 years old and over. The 5th International Conference on Rehabilitation Engineering & Assistive Technology (i-CREATe '11), Bangkok, Swissotel Nai Lert Park. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/2500753.2500780.

Suveeranont, P. (2002). Tracing of Thai font. Bangkok. SC Matchbox. (In Thai).

Suveeranont, P. (2017). Sarabun: A national font. Matichon weekly. Retrieved August 25, 2023. https://www.matichonweekly.com/art/article_20392. (In Thai).

Teeravarunyou, S., & Laosirihongthong, T. (2003). Dynamic legibility of standard Thai fonts on traffic highway sign. The 6th Asian Design International Conference, Tsukuba, Tsukuba International Congress Center. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365977323_Dynamic_Legibility_of_Standard_Thai_Fonts_on_Traffic_Highway_Sign.

Waleetorncheepsawat, B., Pungrassamee, P., Obama, T., & Ikeda, M. (2012). Visual acuity of Thai letters with and without cataract experiencing goggles. Journal of the Color Science Association of Japan, 36(1), 216–217. https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/10749825.

Xiong, Y. Z., Calabrèse, A., Cheong, A. M. Y., & Legge, G. E. (2018). Reading Acuity as a Predictor of Low-Vision Reading Performance. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 59(12), 4798–4803. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.18-24716.

Image of the first page of the article. The name of the article, the authors, and the abstract are displayed.




How to Cite

Punsongserm, R. (2024). Effectiveness of predominant letterforms in different small type sizes: Thai universal design font versus familiar Thai text fonts. Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, 14(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.17411/jacces.v14i1.467