Editing ClearType (section)

===Empirical studies===
A 2001 study, conducted by researchers from [[Clemson University]] and [[The University of Pennsylvania]] on "18 users who spent 60 minutes reading fiction from each of three different displays" found that "When reading from an LCD display, users preferred text rendered with ClearType. ClearType also yielded higher readability judgments and lower ratings of mental fatigue."<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1889/1.1831776 | title=47.4: Empirical Evaluation of User Responses to Reading Text Rendered Using ClearType Technologies | journal=SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers | date=2001 | volume=32 | issue=1 | pages=1205–1207 | first=Richard A. | last=Tyrrell| s2cid=62772542 }}</ref> A 2002 study on 24 users conducted by the same researchers from Clemson University also found that "Participants were significantly more accurate at identifying words with ClearType than without ClearType."

According to a 2006 study, at the University of Texas at Austin by Dillon et al., ClearType "may not be universally beneficial".  The study notes that maximum benefit may be seen when the information worker is spending large proportions of their time reading text (which is not necessarily the case for the majority of computer users today).  Additionally, over one third of the study participants experienced some disadvantage when using ClearType.  Whether ClearType, or other rendering, should be used is very subjective and it must be the choice of the individual, with the report recommending "to allow users to disable [ClearType] if they find it produces effects other than improved performance".<ref>Dillon, A., Kleinman, L., Choi, G. O., & Bias, R. (2006). [http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~ct/chi_p618.pdf Visual search and reading tasks using ClearType and regular displays: two experiments] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110120074818/http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~ct/chi_p618.pdf |date=2011-01-20 }}. CHI ’06: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, 503-511.</ref>

Another 2007 empirical study, found that "while ClearType rendering does not improve text legibility, reading speed or comfort compared to perceptually-tuned grayscale rendering, subjects prefer text with moderate ClearType rendering to text with grayscale or higher-level ClearType contrast."<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1016/j.displa.2007.09.016 | title=ClearType sub-pixel text rendering: Preference, legibility and reading performance | journal=Displays | date=2008 | volume=29 | issue=2 | pages=138–151 | first=Jim | last=Sheedy}} http://www.pacificu.edu/vpi/publications/documents/ClearTypesub-pixeltextrenderingPreferencelegibilityandreadingperformance.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140809142408/http://www.pacificu.edu/vpi/publications/documents/ClearTypesub-pixeltextrenderingPreferencelegibilityandreadingperformance.pdf |date=2014-08-09 }}</ref>

A 2007 survey, of the literature by Microsoft researcher Kevin Larson presented a different picture: "Peer-reviewed studies have consistently found that using ClearType boosts reading performance compared with other text-rendering systems. In a 2004 study, for instance, Lee Gugerty, a psychology professor at Clemson University, in South Carolina, measured a 17 percent improvement in word recognition accuracy with ClearType. Gugerty’s group also showed, in a sentence comprehension study, that ClearType boosted reading speed by 5 percent and comprehension by 2 percent. Similarly, in a study published in 2007, psychologist Andrew Dillon at the University of Texas at Austin found that when subjects were asked to scan a spreadsheet and pick out certain information, they did those tasks 7 percent faster with ClearType."<ref>Kevin Larson (May 2007) "[https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-technology-of-text The Technology of Text]", ''[[IEEE Spectrum]]''</ref>