Yabancı Öğrencilere Türkçe Öğretiminde Kullanılan Dijital Ders Kitaplarında Okunurluk ve Okunabilirlik

Öz

Bu çalışma, yabancı öğrencilere Türkçe öğretiminde kullanılan dijital ders kitaplarının okunurluk ve okunabilirlik düzeylerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, dijital kitapların tipografik özelliklerinin öğrencilerin öğrenme süreçlerine etkisini değerlendirmek üzere kapsamlı bir değerlendirme sunmaktadır. Değerlendirmelerde karakter yapısı, tercihi ve büyüklüğü, metin hizalamaları ve özel efektler, satır uzunluğu, sütun genişliği, karakter boşluğu, satır ve kelime boşluğu, hiyerarşi ve kontrast olmak üzere okunurluk ve okunabilirlik ögeleri kullanılmıştır. Uygun tipografik özelliklere sahip kitapların öğrencilerin metinleri daha kolay anlamalarına ve dil becerilerini daha hızlı geliştirmelerine yardımcı olduğu değerlendirilmektedir. Çalışma, okunurluk ve okunabilirlik ögelerinin bir bütün olarak, okuma hızını ve metin anlama düzeyini nasıl etkilediğini vurgulamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın öne çıkan yanı, yabancı dil öğretiminde tipografik düzenlemelerin önemini vurgulayan detaylı bir değerlendirme sunmasıdır. Özgün değeri ise, eğitim materyallerinin tasarımında tipografik unsurların dikkate alınmasının, öğretim kalitesini artırma potansiyeline dikkat çekmesidir. Sonuç olarak, bu araştırma, Türkçe öğretiminde kullanılan ders kitaplarının daha etkili hâle getirilmesi için somut öneriler sunarak, yabancı öğrencilerin öğrenme deneyimlerini iyileştirmeye katkıda bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Okunabilirlik
• okunurluk
• dijital kaynak
• eğitim
• yardımcı kaynak
• yabancılara Türkçe öğretimi

Legibility and Readability in Textbooks Used in Teaching Turkish to Foreign Students

Öz

This study aims to examine the legibility and readability levels of digital textbooks used in teaching Turkish to foreign students. The study provides a comprehensive evaluation to assess the impact of typographic features of digital textbooks on students' learning processes. Readability and readability elements such as character structure, preference and size, text alignment and special effects, line length, column width, character spacing, line and word spacing, hierarchy and contrast were used in the evaluations. It is evaluated that books with appropriate typographic features help students understand texts more easily and develop their language skills faster. The study emphasizes how legibility and readability elements as a whole affect reading speed and text comprehension. What is outstanding about this study is that it provides a detailed evaluation that emphasizes the importance of typographic arrangements in foreign language teaching. Its unique value is that it draws attention to the potential of considering typographic elements in the design of educational materials to improve the quality of teaching. As a result, this study contributes to improving the learning experience of foreign students by providing concrete suggestions for making textbooks used in Turkish language teaching more effective.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Legibility
• readability
• digital resource
• education
• auxiliary resource
• teaching Turkish to foreigners

Kaynakça

1. Adibe, M. O., Igboeli, N. U., Ubaka, C. M., Udeogaranya, P. O., Onwudiwe, P. & Ita, O. O. (2015). Evaluation of information contained in drug advertisement and promotion materials in Nigeria. Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 14(3), 539-544.
2. Al-Harkan, I., M. & Ramadan, M., Z. (2005). Effects of pixel shape and color, and matrix pixel density of Arabic digital typeface on characters’ legibility. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35, 652-664.
3. Ambrose, G. & Harris, P. (2006). The fundemantals of typography. AXA Publishing
4. Arditi, A. & Cho, J. (2007). Letter case and text legibility in normal and low vision. Vision Research, 47(19), 2499-2502.
5. Bachfischer, G., Robertson, T. & Zmijewska, A. (2007). Understanding influences of the typographic quality of text. Journal of Internet Commerce, 2(2), 97-122.
6. Bernard, M. L., Chaparro, B. S., Mills, M. M. & Halcomb, C. G. (2003). Comparing the effects of text size and format on the readibility of computer- displayed Times New Roman and Arial text. International Journal. Human-Computer Studies, 59, 834-835.
7. Bertolus, C., Bailleul, D. & Mersiol, M. (2017). Viewing distance requires large characters to ensure legibility on TV-set. 29th Conference on l'Interaction Homme-Machine,147-155. Poiters: France.
8. Bix, L. L. (2001). Toward a performance standard for typeface legibility: The Lockhart Legibility Instrument. Doctor of Philosophy, Michigan State University

9. Bix, L., Lockhart, H., Selke, S., Cardos, F. & Olenhik, M. (2003). Is x-height a Better Indicator of Legibility than Type Size for Drug Labels?. Packaging Technology and Science, 16, 199-207.
10. Blodsworth, J. G.(1993). Legibility of Print. School of Education University of South Carolina at Aiken
11. Borges, M. A. & Silva, F. M. (2015). User-sensing as part of a wayfinding design process. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 5912-5919.
12. Boulton, M. (2005). Five simple steps to better typography. https:// markboulton.co.uk/journal/five-simple-steps-to-better-typography/ (29.01.2025)
13. Bradley, S. (2011). The Two Functions of Type: Readability And Legibility.https://vanseodesign.com/web-design/display-text-type/ (29.01.2025)
14. Bringhurst, R. (1997). The elements of typographic style. Canada: Hartley&Marks Publisher
15. Buchner, A., Mayr, S. & Brandt, M. (2009). The advantage of positive text-background polarity is due to high display luminance. Ergonomics, 52(7), 882-886.
16. Buse, R., P., L. & Weimer, W., R. (2010). Learning a Metric for Code Readability. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 36(4), 546-558.
17. Cai, T., Wallece, S. Rezvanian, T., Dobres, J., Kerr, B., Berlow, S., Huang, J., Sawyer, B. D. & Bylinski, Z. (2022). Personalized font recommendations: Combining ML and typographic guidelines to optimize readability. ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 1-25. New York.
18. Cardenas, D. G., Ginters, E., Rio, M. S. & Martin-Gutierrez, J. (2021). Determining the legibility of fonts displayed in augmented reality apps for senior citizens. 62nd International Scientific Conference on Information Technology and Management Science of Riga Technical University (ITMS), s.1-11. Riga: Latvia.
19. Cengizhan, C., Ateş, D. (2006). Görsel tasarım ilkelerinin BÖTE bölümü öğrencileri tarafından değerlendirilmesi, XV. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, 1-13. Muğla
20. Čerepinko, D., Keček, D. & Periša, M. (2017). Text readabılıty and legibility on iPad with comparison to paper and computer screen. Tehnički vjesnik, 24(4), 1197-1201.
21. Chan, A. H. S. & Lee, P. S. K. (2005). Effect of display factors on Chinese reading times, comprehension scores and preferences. Behaviour & Information Technology, 24(2), 81-91.
22. Cortez, B., E. F. & Vielma, C. G. (2021). Readability analysis of informed consent forms for genetic tests in Mexico. Gaceta Medica de Mexico, 157(1), 52-57.
23. Crompton, A. (2014). How to look at a reading font. Word & Image, 30(2), 79-89.
24. Denzen, E. M., Santibanez, M. E. B., Moore, H., Foley, A., Gersten, I. D., Gurgol, C., Majhail, N. S., Spellecy, R., Horowitz, M. M. & Murphy, E., A. (2012). Easy-to-read informed consent forms for hematopoietic cell transplantation clinical trials. Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, 18(2), 183-189.
25. Dotan, S. & Katzir, T. (2018). Mind the gap: Increased inter-letter spacing as a means of improving reading performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 174, 13-28.
26. Drucker, J. (1984). letterpress language: typography as a medium for the visual representation of language. Leonardo, 41(1), 8–16.
27. Dyson, M. C. & Haselgrove, M. (2001). The influence of reading speed and line length on the effectiveness of reading from screen. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54(4), 585-612.
28. Dyson, M. C. & Kipping, G. J. (1997). The Legilibity of Secreen Formats: Are Three Columns Better Than One?. Computers & Graphics, 21(6), 703-712.
29. Falk, J., Eksvard, S., Schenkman, B. N., Andrén, B., & Brunnström, K. (2021). Legibility and readability in Augmented Reality. Quality of Multimedia Experience, 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1109/ QOMEX51781.2021.9465455
30. Fuchs, J., Kraft, S., Vettermann, A. & Reiche, M. (2017). Typographic changes in package leaflets of the European Union based on the example of German versions between 2005 and 2015. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 51(4), 431-438.
31. Fukuzumi, S., Yamazaki, T., Kamijo, K. & Hayashi, Y. (1998). Physiological and psychological evaluation fo r visual displaycolour readability: A visual evoked potential study and asubjective evaluation study. Ergonomics, 41(1), 89-108.
32. Galiano, A., R., Augereau-Depoix, V., Baltenneck, N. & Latour, L. (2023). Luciole, a new font for people with low vision. Acta Psychologica, 236, 1-15.
33. Garcia, M., R. (1981). Contemporary newspaper design: A structural approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
34. Greco, M., Stucchi, N, Zavagano, D. & Marino, B. (2008). On the portability of computer-generated presentations: The effect of text-background color combinations on text legibility. Human Factors, 50(5), 821- 833.
35. Gribas, C., Skyes, L. & Dorockhoff, N. (1996). Creating Great Overheads with Computers. College Teaching, 44(2), 66-68.
36. Griffee, A., W. & Casey, C., A. (1988). An introduction to typographic fonts and digital font resources. IBM systems Journal 27(2), 206–218.
37. Grozdanovic, M., Marjanovic, D., Janackovic, G. L. & Djordjevic, M. (2017). The impact of character/background colour combinations and exposition on character legibility and readability on video display units. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 39(10) 1454- 1465.
38. Güneş, F. (2012). Okumada küçük harflerin büyük gücü. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(10), 93-108.
39. Gyöngi, B. (1997). With or without typography, EMES’97, Oradea, Romaina
40. Hartel, M. J., Staub, L. P., Röder, C. & Eggli, S. (2011). High incidence of medication documentation errors in a Swiss university hospital due to the handwritten prescription process. BMC Health Services Research, 11, 1-6.
41. Hasegawa, S., Omori, M., Watanabe, T., Matsunuma, S. & Miyao, M. (2009). Legible character size on mobile terminal screens: Estimation using pinch-in/out on the ipod touch panel. Human Interface, 2, 395-402.
42. Hou, G. & Hu, Y. (2023). Designing combinations of pictogram and text size for ıcons: Effects of text size, pictogram size, and familiarity on older adults’ visual search performance. The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 65(8), 1577-1595.
43. Hou, G., Anicetus, U. & He, J. (2022). How to design font size for older adults: A systematic literature review with a mobile device. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-19.
44. Hsiao, C. Y., Wang, M. J., Liu, Y. J. & Chang, C. C. (2019). Effects of Chinese character size, number of characters per line, and number of menu items on visual search task on tablet computer displays for different age groups. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 72, 61-70.
45. Huang, D., L., Rau, P., L., P. & Liu, Y. (2009). Effects of font size, display resolution and task type on reading Chinese fonts from mobile devices. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39, 81-89.
46. Huang, S., M. (2019). Effects of font size and font style of Traditional Chinese characters on readability on smartphones. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 69, 66-72.
47. Humar, I., Gradisar, M. & Turk, T. (2008). The impact of color combinations on the legibility of a Web page text presented on CRT displays. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38, 885-889.
48. İgit, A. (2022). Resimli kitaplarda tipografi kullanımı: okunaklılık ve okunabilirlik üzerinden bir içerik analizi. İMÜ Sanat Tasarım ve Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (2), 187-206.
49. Irwin, J. W., & Davis, C. A. (1980). Assessing readability: The checklist approach. Journal of Reading, 24(2), 124–130
50. Jacobs, J., Barbe, B., Gillet, P., Aidoo, M., Casas, E. S., Erps, J. V., Daviaud, J., Incardona, S., Cunningham, J. & Visser, T. (2014). Harmonization of malaria rapid diagnostic tests: best practices in labelling including instructions for use. Malaria Journal, 13, 1-10.
51. 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), 67-79.
52. Kane, L., Carthy, J., & Dunnion, J. (2006). Readability applied to information retrieval (pp. 523–526). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https:// doi.org/10.1007/11735106_56
53. Karataş, S. (2003). Öğretim amaçlı web sayfası tasarımında renk kullanımı. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(2), 139-148.
54. Kemp, N., & Towers, S. (2014). Creating readable text: The role of a typographic style in the development and preparation of instructional texts. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 8(1), 27-34
55. Keyes, E. (1993). Typography, color, and information structure. Technical Communication, 40(4), 638-654.
56. Kilpeläinen, M. & Häkkinen, J. (2023). An effective method for measuring text legibility in XR devices reveals clear differences between three devices. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 4, 1-11.
57. Kıral, B. (2020). Nitel veri analizi yöntemi olarak doküman analizi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15, 170-189.
58. Koornneef, A. & Kraal, A. (2022). Does BeeLine Reader’s gradient- coloured font improve the readability of digital texts for beginning readers?. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 6, 1-15.
59. Kupferschmid, I. (2015). Between Frutigerization and tradition: diversity, standardization, and readability in contemporary typographic landscapes. Social Semiotics, 25(2), 151-164.
60. Lau, N., & Chu, V. H. T. (2015). Enhancing children’s language learning and cognition experience through interactive kinetic typography. International Education Studies, 8(9), 36–45.
61. Lee, S. E., Sim, M. S., Yang, C. M. & Kim, C. W. (2019). Evaluation of the legibility of the on-screen contents of in-vehicle transparent displays. Journal of Information Display, 20(3), 123-133.
62. Leira-Feijoo, Y., Ledesma-Ludi, Y., Seoane-Romero J.M., Blanco- Carrio´n, J., Seoane, J. & Varela-Centelles, P. (2015). Available webbased dental implants information for patients. How good is it? Clinical Oral Implants Research, 26, 1276-1280.
63. Li, R., Qin, R., Zhang, J., Wu, J. & Zhou, C. (2015). The esthetic preferenc of Chinese typefaces – An event-related potential study. Brain Research, 1598, 57-65.
64. Lupton, E. (2010). Thinking with type. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
65. Lynch, P. P. & Horton, S. (1999). Web Style Guide Basic Design Principles for Creating Web Sites. London: Yale University Press.
66. Mackey, M. A. & Metz, M. (2009). Ease of reading of mandatory information on Canadian food product labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 369-381.
67. Masulli, F., Galluccio, M., Gerard, C., L., Peyre, H., Rovetta, S. & Bucci, M., P. (2018). Effect of different font sizes and of spaces between words on eye movement performance: An eye tracker study in dyslexic and non-dyslexic children. Vision Research, 153, 24-99.
68. McLean, M. (1992). The Thames and Hudson manual of typography. New York: Thames and Hudson.
69. MEB. (2011). Grafik ve fotoğraf: yazı düzenlemeleri. AMEB Yayınları
70. Mills, C. B. & Weldon, L. J. (1987). Reading text from computer screens. ACM Computing Surveys 19 (4), 329–358.
71. Myung, R. (2003). Conjoint analysis as a new methodology for Korean typography guideline in Web environment. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 32, 341-348.
72. Na, N., Choi, K. & Suk, H., J. (2016). Adaptive luminance difference between text and background for comfortable reading on a smartphone. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 51, 68-72.
73. Neto, E. P. S., Grousson, S., Duflo, F., Gandreau, S., Rousson, D., Cornu, C., Mottolese, C., Froment, J. C. & Dailler, F. (2010). Design and evaluation of the quality of information written for scanner and magnetic resonance imaging in neuropediatria. Annales Francaises d’Anesthe´ sie et de Re´animation, 29, 704-709.
74. Oliveira, D., Santos, R., Madeiral, F., Masuhara, H. & Castor, F. (2023). A systematic literature review on the impact of formatting elements on code legibility. The Journal of Systems & Software, 203, 1-17.
75. Omori, M., Hasegawa, S., Watanabe, T., Matsunuma, S. & Miyao, M. (2009). Influence of vertical length of characters on readability in mobile phones. Human Interface, 2, 430-438.
76. Öz, H. (2006). Sinema jeneriklerinde görsel tasarım açısından grafik öğelerin kullanımı (Yayınlanmamış sanatta yeterlilik tezi). Hacettepe üniversitesi, Ankara.
77. Palmen, H., Gilbert, M. & Crossland, D. (2023). How bold can we be? The impact of adjusting font grade on readability in light and dark polarities. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-11. Hamburg: Germany.
78. Pantaleo, S. (2012). Middle years students thinking with and about typography in multimodal texts. 20(1), 37-50. https://www.questia.com/library/ journal/1G1-279891025/middle-years-students-thinking-with-andabout- typography
79. Payne, S., Large, S., Jarret, N. & Tumer, P. (2000). Written information given to patients and families by palliative care units: A national survey. The Lancet, 355, 1792-1792.
80. Pektaş, H. (2001). İnternette görsel kirlenme. TÜBİTAK Bilim ve Teknik Dergisi, 400, 72-75.
81. Pektaş, H. (2010). Türkiye’deki gazetelerin web sitelerinin tipografik açıdan incelenmesi. II. Uluslararası Siber Gazetecilik Kongresi. Portekiz.
82. Perea, M., Rosa, E. & Marcet, A. (2017). Where is the locus of the lowercase advantage during sentence reading? Acta Psychologica, 177, 30-35.
83. Pires, C., Vigario, M. & Cavaco, A. (2015a). Graphical content of medicinal package inserts: an exploratory study to evaluate potential legibility issues. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 33(2), 121–139.
84. Pires, C., Vigario, M. & Cavaco, A. (2015b). Readability of medicinal package leaflets: a systematic review. Revista de Saude Publica 49(3), 1-13.
85. Pouessel, B., Ceccon, V. G., Sergant, P., Deschildre, A. & Santos, C. L. (2017). Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 (FIC-INCO) may help reduce food allergy reactions at school. Revue Française d’allergologie, 57, 91- 96.
86. Pusnik, N., Podlek, A. & Mozina, 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, 164-169.
87. Rajpurohit, S., Musunuri, B., Mohan, P. B., Vani, L. R., Bhat, G. & Shetty, S. (2023). Development and evaluation of patient information leaflet for liver cirrhosis patients. Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health, 24, 1-5.
88. Rello, L. & Baeza-Yates, R. (2016). The Effect of Font Type on Screen Readability by People with Dyslexia. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 8(4), 1-33.
89. Rocha, B. S., Moraes, C. G., Okumura, L. M., Cruz, F., Sirtori, L. & Pons, E., S. (2021). Interventions to reduce problems related to the readability and comprehensibility of drug packages and labels: a systematic review. Journal of Patient Safety, 8(1), 1494-1506.
90. Sarıkavak, N. (2009). Çağdaş tipografinin temelleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık
91. Scharff, L. F. V., Hill, A. L. & Ahumada, A., J. (2000). Discriminability measures for predicting readability of text on textured backgrounds. Optics Express, 6(4), 81-91.
92. Sekhar, S. M., Unnikrishnan, MK. Vyas, N. & Rodrigues, G. S. (2017). Development and evaluation of patient ınformation leaflet for diabetic foot ulcer patients. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 15(3), 1-7.
93. Serafini, F., & Clausen, J. (2012). Typography as Semiotic Resource. Journal of Visual Literacy, 31(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/23796529 .2012.11674697
94. Sheedy, J., E., Subbaram, M. V., Zimmerman, A., B. & Hayes, J. R. (2005). Text legibility and the letter superiority effect. Human Factors, 47(4), 797-815.
95. Shoshin, A. V. & Shvets, E. A. (2021). Veiling glare removal: synthetic dataset generation, metrics and neural network architecture. Computer Optics, 45(4), 615-626.
96. Skoff, E. (1967). Irradiation as a Function of Hue. Doctor of Philosphy, Loyolo university, State of Illinois.
97. Smith, N. M. (1999). A plain English handbook: How to vreate clear sec disclosure documents. Washington DC: Diane Publishing
98. Smith, S. L. (1979). Letter Size and Legibility. Human Factors, 21(6), 661-670.
99. Someric, N. M. (2000). Practical Strategies For Avoiding Problems in Graphic Communication. Public Relations Quarterly, 45(3), 32-34.
100. Steele, M., Dow, L. & Baxter, G. (2011). Promoting public awareness of the links between lifestyle and cancer: A controlled study of the usability of health information leaflets. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80(12), 214-229.
101. Tarasov, D. A., Sergeev, A. P. & Filimonov, V., V. (2015). Legibility of textbooks: a literature review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1300-1308.
102. Toh, B., Leng, H. K. & Phua, Y. X. P. (2023). Effect of colours on sponsor recall. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 35(4), 797-808.
103. Uçar, T. F. (2004). Görsel İletişim ve Grafik Tasarım. İstanbul: İnkılap Yayınevi
104. Ukonu, M. O., Ohaja, E. U., Okele, S. V. & Okwumbu, R. O. (2021). Interactive effects of institutional requirements and screen vs. Print platforms on preference of Times New Roman and Calib among university students. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1-17.
105. van Beusekom, M. M., Grootens-Wiegers, P., Bos, M., J., W., Gunchelaar, H. J. & van den Broek, J., M. (2016). Low literacy and written drug information: information-seeking, leaflet evaluation and preferences, and roles for images. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 38(6), 1372-1379.
106. Voshi, V., Kaur, N. & Wason, R. (2014). Font legibility for printed text and onscreen text. International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom), 629-631. New Delhi: India.
107. Walker, S. (2000). Typography & Language in Everyday Life: Prescriptions and Practices. https://www.amazon.com/Typography-Language- Everyday-Life-Social/dp/0582357551
108. Walker, S. (2001). Typography and Language in Everyday Life. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315839332
109. Wang, L., Sato, H., Rau, P. L. P., Fujimura, K., Gao, Q. & Asano, Y. (2008). Chinese text spacing on mobile phones for senior citizens, Educational Gerontology, 35(1), 77-90.
110. Wang, Y. (2012). Designing restaurant digital menus to enhance user experience. Master of Fine Arts, Iowa state university, Ames
111. Watzman, S. (1992). Typography in contect: a use-oriented approach to topography principles. International Professional Communication Conference, 523–524. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.1992.673091
112. Weiss, M., A., Junior, L., D., S., Bliacheriene, F., Murphy, C., Chinappa, V., Carmona, M., J. & Margarido, C., B. (2018). What does the Internet teach the obstetric patient about labor analgesia?. Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia, 68(3), 254-259.
113. Wilson, T., Pfister, F. & Fleury, B. (1981). The design of printed ınstructional materials: Research on ıllustrations and typography. Clearinghouse on Information Resources. New York: Syracuse University
114. Yang, C., L., Sun, J., T. (2011). Preference investigation on the readability of Chinese chracter font, font size and graphic layout, The Online Journal on Computer Science and Information Technology, 1(2), 34-37.
115. Yıldırım, A. (1999). Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinin temel özellikleri ve araştırmalarındaki yeri ve önemi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 112(23), 7-16.
116. Yılmaz, M., Topraktaş, E. (2014). Tipografik özellikler açısından bilimsel dergi makalelerinin okunaklılık düzeyleri ile ilgili akademisyenlerin görüşleri. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(48), 216-234.
117. Zhang, Y. (2006). The fffect of font design characteristics on font legibility. Master Thesis, Concordia university, Montral.
118. Zorko, A., Ivancic, S., Tomisa, M., Keček,, D. & Čerepinko, D. (2017). The impact of the text and background color on the screen reading experience. Technical Journal, 11(3), 78-82.
119. Zuffi, S., Brambilla, C., Beretta, G. & Scala, P. (2007). Human computer interaction: Legibility and contrast. International Conference on Image Analysis and Processing, 1-6. Modena:Italy.