Sugar's fonts too small even for fully-sighted people

[Bert Freudenberg]

On Sep 28, 2007, at 9:51 , Zarro Boogs per Child wrote:
> Ticket URL: <https://dev.laptop.org/ticket/3221#comment:6>

I wonder if comparative studies have been made with the XO screen? My  
gut feeling is that it is more comparable to paper-based text books  
than CRTs. Now Colbert says gut feeling is all you need, but maybe  
some research is still in order. I found this overview of research  
articles about "Accessible Instructional Materials":

	http://nimas.cast.org/downloads/nimas_anno_research-2005-07-15.doc
	(see below for an excerpt for those who can't read .doc)

by Nicole Strangman of NIMAS Centers, which incidentally is just 15  
mi north of Boston ...

Apparently there is more research about children with learning  
disabilities than about "normal" kids, but what helps those children  
can't be bad for others, right?

- Bert -


  Hughes, L. E., & Wilkins, A. J. (2000). Typography in children's  
reading schemes may be suboptimal: Evidence from measures of reading  
rate. Journal of Research in Reading, 23(3), 314.

This study investigated the effect of text size and spacing on the  
reading speed and accuracy of children age five to eleven.  Reading  
accuracy was significantly higher with large versus small text size.   
There was a similar direct relationship between reading speed and  
text size for children five to seven years old.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2000). Using objective data sources to  
enhance teacher judgments about test accommodations. Exceptional  
Children, 67(1), 67.

This quantitative research study compared the overall test  
performance of students with and without learning disabilities under  
standard conditions and with each of three accommodations: extended  
time, large print, and read aloud.  Large print test accommodations  
significantly improved the overall test performance for students with  
and without learning disabilities.