barcodecontrol.com

r Designing Effective Web Surveys in .NET Generate Data Matrix ECC200 in .NET r Designing Effective Web Surveys




How to generate, print barcode using .NET, Java sdk library control with example project source code free download:
148 r Designing Effective Web Surveys using .net vs 2010 todisplay data matrix barcode in asp.net web,windows application interleaved 25 Figure 4.8 Typeface Examples. What this communicates t o the browser is, if you have Verdana installed, render the text in that font. If not, use Arial, or Helvetica, or the generic sans serif font, in that order. Among these sans serif fonts, Verdana is designed speci cally for screen display, while Arial and Helvetica are more generic fonts used for screen and print, and are likely to be available in most settings (see Gillespie s useful Web site, Web Page Design for Designers, www.

wpdfd.com). Now that there are many font options available, it might be tempting to get creative, and many Web sites do indeed do this.

But this is not a good idea for Web surveys. One should use a font that is appropriate for the task. For example, a comic or script font may be appropriate for some Web sites (communicating fun), but not for a survey site.

Similarly, a highly stylized font such as Old English may be used to convey a particular message, but again these are not likely to be used in Web surveys. In choosing a typeface, once should focus on (1) how common the typeface is to a variety of platforms and settings, (2) the readability or legibility of the typeface, and (3) the emotional meaning of typefaces. Figure 4.

8 shows some examples of typefaces unsuited for use in Web surveys. The rst font in Figure 4.8 is Dauphin, the second is Staccato, and the last is Old English.

The latter is similar to that used for the New York Times logo (see www.nytimes.com), which serves an important branding function, but imagine the entire newspaper (print or online) produced using this font.

Kostelnick and Roberts (1998) refer to these as noisy typefaces. Related to the third point, the fonts in Figure 4.8 may not only be dif cult to read, but they may also carry meaning beyond that of the words themselves.

So far, I ve been talking about the functional properties of typefaces those that relate to readability. But typefaces also have semantic properties (see Childers and Jass, 2002; McCarthy and Mothersbaugh, 2002; Rowe, 1982). These affect a typeface s apparent tness or suitability for different functions, and .

. . imbue it with the power to evoke in the perceiver certain emotional and cognitive responses (Bartram, 1982, p.

38). For example, Childers and Jass (2002) tested a variety of typefaces used in advertising. They found that typefaces signi cantly in uenced consumer perceptions of brands and their memory of the brands.

Novemsky, Dhar, Schwarz, and Simonson. General Layout and Design r 149 Figure 4.9 Confusing Letters and Numbers. (2007) looked at the eff datamatrix 2d barcode for .NET ect of font type on the expression of subjective preferences and in making choices. They demonstrated that fonts that are easier to read make it easier both subjectively and objectively for users to make choices between different objects.

In other words, in addition to affecting the readability of the text, the typeface itself conveys meaning and may affect behavior. Given this, one should select a typeface that matches the content and function of the survey. A typeface that may be appropriate for a survey focused on teenage leisure-time utilization might not be suitable for a survey of cancer survivors, for example.

As Lynch and Horton (2001, p. 126) note, each typeface has a unique tone that should produce a harmonious t between the verbal and visual ow of your content. Some typeface issues like readability and tone are common to both paper and Web.

But a factor speci c to screen-based fonts is whether they are aliased or anti-aliased. Aliasing describes the staircase appearance ( jaggies ) of curved edges of forms composed of pixels (Staples, 2000, p. 26).

This stairstepping is compounded in typefaces with serifs and in type rendered in small sizes, since fewer pixels are available to create each letter. Anti-aliasing solves this problem by blurring the edge of the letter into its background. Text rendered as graphics can use anti-aliasing (using Adobe Photoshop, for example), which means that smaller font sizes can be rendered more legible.

This is useful for text included in artwork or graphic images. HTML text is aliased, and therefore one should avoid small font sizes in HTML. One additional consideration in the choice of typefaces relates to potential confusion between similar-looking letters and numbers.

Sans serif fonts may be particularly susceptible to this confusion. Figure 4.9 shows an example of this problem.

From left to right, the respective characters are one, zero, lowercase el, capital eye, and capital oh. In the sans serif font, the lowercase l and uppercase I are indistinguishable, and in the other two fonts, the number 1 and letter l are virtually identical. Zero and the letter o can be similarly confused.

In general, because of the potential for confusion illustrated above, it s not a good idea to mix letters and numbers or mix upper and lower case letters (for example in passwords, or e-mail addresses), but often this admonition is easier said than done.. 150 r Designing Effectiv e Web Surveys In 6 (see Section 6.3), I show one consequence of using both numbers and letters for passwords. So, which typeface should one use It is fair to say that the research results are mixed, and depend on the medium (paper or screen), the type size, and whether the fonts are aliased or anti-aliased.

It is argued (e.g., see Bernard and Mills, 2000) that serif fonts are easier to read on paper because the serifs help distinguish among individual letters.

In contrast, the argument is that the quality of computer displays reduces the bene ts of serifs and may make the letters harder to read, especially at smaller font sizes. The evidence is by no means strong. Boyarski, Neuwirth, Forlizzi, and Regli (1998) found that serif typefaces were more pleasing and legible to the eye than sans serif typefaces on a computer interface.

On the other hand, Bernard and Mills (2000) did a laboratory study to compare reading speed and accuracy, perceptions of legibility and sharpness, and general preference of several different typefaces on a computer screen. They found a slight advantage for the sans serif (Arial) font than the serif (Times New Roman). In a later study with twenty-two subjects and twelve different fonts, Bernard, Mills, Peterson, and Storrer (2001) found no signi cant differences in legibility between serif and sans serif fonts.

In general, most designers recommend sans serif fonts for Web sites. Schriver (1997, p. 508), for example, recommends sans serif for its simple, highly legible, modern appearance.

The Microsoft User Interface Guidelines (1997) similarly suggests avoiding serif fonts, as do the National Institutes of Health, in their guide, Making Your Web Site Senior Friendly (www.nlm.nih.

gov/pubs/checklist.pdf). But Lynch and Horton (2001, p.

127) recommend a serif typeface such as Times New Roman for body text and sans serif face such as Verdana or Arial for headlines in Web pages. Mixing typefaces is also an effective way to distinguish between different survey elements (e.g.

, heading versus text, or questions versus instructions). But be careful of overdoing it both Schriver (1997) and Lynch and Horton (2001) recommend using no more than two different typefaces. There is also general agreement that at larger font sizes the choice of serif versus sans serif fonts makes little difference.

But what is meant by a larger font size This is a question I will take up next..
Copyright © barcodecontrol.com . All rights reserved.