A NUSY OF LEGIB'ELWY FACFQRS
FQR $TATEMENTS Cl? CQN'F'EN'ES ON
CQNSUMER 60095 FQQE PACKAGES

“tests for flu: Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Neii I. Giib-ert
1967

". C‘rfiYY‘ “fl , , 1"‘m ".F‘
h L) l UJ)Y kjil‘ “a4 vahlkfi.‘ AJ-L A. 4 1 3V .LO;\‘I

r v. * *=*r Tan-v ‘*

I
7», .- Cf“ l‘ m .\.- ‘ ‘y’mr' "‘ ,st'f') -. "V‘I: nu: F“T ‘ y‘.w -
1‘ OA{ 01.11; LAKLJULA) Of Vu.\!l:u\ LA: \Jl! CJ.‘!LJIJ .';LL{

GOODS ETIX) PnCKnGES
by Neil I. Gilbert

Prompted by such ambiguous reg“latory terms of the
Fair Packaging and Labeling Act as ”conspicuous” and ”easily
legible" for statements of contents on consumer commodity
package labels, the author compiled a list of legioility fac-
tors which contains specific recommendations for improvin

the legibility of printed material. The list, a compilation

#6)

of results of many earlier studies in the area of type-ace
legibility, contains some factors which are supported by only
one study or investigator, but contains many factors given

support by several different investigations or investigators.

‘3

Next is presented a discussion of the Fair Packsc

ms;

U

and Labeling Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act proposed modifications affecting net weight statements on
consumer food packages. The two areas of concern were: (l)
the required size of type in relation to the area of the pack-

ge principal display panel, and (2) the required placement

‘

p

of the net weight statement in the lower twenty per cent of
the principal display panel area. Were these requirements
fair and just to not only the consumer but also to the manu-
facturer of a product?

Through a process of visually analyzing seven pack-

Neil I. Gilbert

age display panels, determining the time required for sub-
jects to locate and orally read tne net weight statements on
each, it was concluded that the above-mentioned regulations
did not create significant differences in the ease with which
a consumer could "obtain accurate information as to the cuan-
tity of contents." Therefore, it was concluded that the regu-
lations were fair to both consumer and manufacturer.

Also included, as Appendix II, is a list of sixty-six sources
pertaining to studies conducted in the area of visual analy-
sis of typographic material. It was felt these sources would

prove useful to someone interested in this work.

A STUDY OF LEGIBZLITY FACTORS
FOR STATEHENT" or CONTENTS on com 3x33
GOODS FOOD PACKaGES
By

Neil I. Gilbert

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCILNCE

School of Packaging

Department of Forest Products

1967

ACKNOWLEDGEENTS

Dr. Harold J. Raphael and Dr. Hugh E. Lockhart of the
School of Packaging, Michigan State University, furnished
valuable suggestions and guidance throughout this study.
Their contributions are greatly appreciated.

The author also wishes to thank his wife and fami‘y

without whose continuing encouragement, understanding, and

patience this work would not have been possible.

ii

F3
“1*

LT!
t“
[13
O
*1

O
O
./
F]
t:
d
U)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF APPENDIXES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter
I. LEGIBILITY OF PRINTED NATTER. . . . . . . . . .

Typography's Role in Package Design . . . . .
Legibility Factors and Requirements of Each
for Legible Printed Material. . . . . . . .

II. CONSUMER PACKAGE LABELING LEGISLATION . . . . .

General Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (Net Weight
Statement Labeling Requirements). . . . . .
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Net
Weight Statement Labeling Requirements) . .
Summary and Comparison of the Acts. . . . . .

III. PRINCIPAL DISPLAY PANEL VISUAL ANALYSIS . . . .

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In-Store Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Size of Net Weight Statement Type in Relation
to the Area of the Package Principal Dis-
play Panel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Placement of Contents Statement in Lower
Twenty Per Cent of Display Panel Area . . .

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . ..

LIST OF REFEREI:CES . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

APPENDIXES. .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

Page

’J.

tJ-

9
O\

. 22

Table

Net Weight Statement Compliance with the 3
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Proposed Modiiica-

‘

v-1

('3
c

deral

tions (Minimum Type Size and Placement) . . . . .

Specifications of Display Panels Analyzed (Panel
Size and "Net Weight” Type Size).

Times Required for Subjects to Locate and Read
the Net Weight Statements on the Various Display

Panels. 0 C O O O O O O O O O

O 0

Mean Times Required for Subjects to Locate and
Various

Read the Net Weight Statements on the

Display Panels. . . . . . . . . . . .

T-Test Results Between Kean Times for

StUdied a o o o o o o o o o 0

Times Required for Subjects to Locate

Net Weight Statement on Panel

iv

G

O

Page

Figure

1.

Panel

Panel

Panel

A--With

B--With

C--Nith

D--With

E—-With

F--With

G--With

LIST OF ILLUSTRAT

Specifications.
Specifications.
Specifications.
Specifications.
Specifications.
Specifications.

Specifications.

IONS

m

\u n) Cu
C ) \O m

\N
H

'53
35
37
50

LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendix . Page
I. Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

II. Visual Testing Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . 53

vi

INTRODUCTION

Nrs. Esther Peterson, a past Advisor to the President
on Consumer Affairs, referred to 1966 as the "Year of the
Consumer."1 Mrs. Peterson's statement was undoubtedly
prompted by the then-current boom in consumer protection leg-
islation. The most recent examples were the National Traf-
Ific and Motor Vehicle Act-~the first federal law to order
compulsory safety standards for new and used automobiles and
for automobile tires, and the_§EEEME§353§22§~E§quab¢Linfli593:”
éesigned to protect the shopper from deceptive packaging prac-
tices such as hard-to-find net weight statements, and such
misleading and often meaningless terms as "jumbo poundi>

The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, signed into law
November 3, 1966, was the culmination of proposals and hearings
before the Congress which began in 1961. The Act requires
that consumer products in interstate commerce be_h3n§§tly*and_

infgrmatively labeled, to enable_a_shoppegmtgueasily_and

quickly determine the best value for her_money1

Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

Declaration of Policy

Sec. 2. Informed consumers are essential to the

 

1"Consumer: King or Vassal of the Economy?” Senior
Scholastic, February 10, 1967, p. 13.

l'\)

fair and efficient functioning of a free market econ-
omy. Packages and their labels should enable con-
sumers to obtain accurate information as to the quan-
tity of the contents and should facilitate value com-
parisons. Therefore, it is hereby declared to be the
policy of the Congress to assist consumers and manu-
facturers in reaching these goals in the marketing
of consumer goods.
Briefly, what the Act requires on a consumer product
package is the following:
1. Product identification.
2. Name and place of the manufacturer or distrib-
utor.
3. Net quantity of contents in terms of weight, meas-
ure, or numerical count.
4. Net quantity of each serving if the label indi-
cates a particular number of servings is contained.
The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act is administered
by two governmental agencies: the Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare--regarding foods, drugs, and cosmetics;
and the Federal Trade Commission--regarding other consumer
products. Each has the authority to promulgate additional
regulations--according to Sec. 5 of the Fair Packaging and
Labeling Act-~with respect to the consumer products over which

it has regulatory authority. Such regulations will take the

form of modifications of existing regulations covering the

 

2U.S., Congress, Fair PackagingAand Labeling Act,
Public Law 89-755, 89th. Cong., s. 985, 1966, p. 1.

affected products; for the Act is not intended to repeal, in-
validate, or supersede:

l. The Federal Trade Commission Act or any statute
defined therein as an antitrust Act.

2. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

3. The Federal Hazardous Substances Labeling Act.3

The scope of this thesis shall be restricted to a

study of net weight statements on packages--classified as con-
sumer food packages-~for the following reasons:

1. A very large percentage of the consumer products
affected by the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act
are food products. -

2. In today's giant impersonal supermarket--as much
or more than in any other type of retail outlet--
the shopper must rely almost totally on the pack-
age to give him the basic product information-he
once received from the salesman.

3. Price-value relationships are becoming apparently
more important to the grocery shopper, who is
quite frankly often confused by the barrage of ad-
vertising claims for a given product category.

First, a brief discussion of typography, specifically

a discussion of factors that contribute to the legibility of

 

3Ibid., Sec. 11.

printed matter is presented. This is done in the hepe of making

a meaningful contribution to those in the packaging industry

J

directly concerned with the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act
and subsequent regulations, and who are faced with such am—
biguous regulatory labeling terms as "conspicuous” and ”easily
legible."

Next is presented a discussion of the Fair Packaging
and Labeling Act regulations and the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act proposed modifications affecting net weight
statements on consumer food packages. The two areas of con-
cern were: (1) the required size of type in relation to the
area of the package principal display panel, and (2) the re-
quired placement of the net weight statemen in the lower.20%
of the principal display panel area. The question to be an-
swered was whether these regulations were fair and just to
not only the consumer but also the manufacturer of a pro-
duct. The approach taken to answer this question was not
that of personal opinion nor sentiment, but rather a process

of factual investigation and visual testing.

I. LEGIBILITY OF PRINTED MATTER

Typography's Role in Package Design

 

”Typography" is defined by Webster's New International
Dictionary as the "act or art of expressing by types or sym-
hbols; emblematic representation."# Clearly therefore, the
typographer's main goal is communication.5 This communication
should be clear with as little interference as possible. The
medium for conveying the message is the printed matter--the
type. Therefore, type becomes an integral part of the mes-
sage; and every attempt should be made to employ legible type.

Prompted by such statement of contents regulatory
terms as "easily legible" and "in distinct contrast," the
author felt that some form of guidelines should be established
to assist the package label designer in determining what in-
deed does constitute "legible” type and "distinct contrast"
of printed material.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act proposed mod-

ifications list several requirements which must be met in or-

 

"Typography," Webster's New International Dictionary
(Springfield, Nass.: G. & C. Nerriam Co., 1957), p. 2751.

5John Lewis, Typography: Basic rincipals — Influ-
ences and Trends Since the 19th. Century (New York: Rein-
hold Publishing Corporation, l96h), p. 42.

 

 

O\

der for the net weight statement to qualify as ”conspicuous”
and "legible" in the legal sense. Not included in this list,
however, is a discussion of type face characteristics which
enhance the legibility of the type, nor any mention of what
brightness gradient differentials between the symbol and the
background are necessary to produce "distinct contrast.”
Therefore, a list of legibility factors was compiled from a
study of many reports of earlier investigators in the field
of visual analysis of typographic matter. These factors are
intended to aid the package designer in developing a label
which will clearly communicate all mandatory printed infor-
mation.

Legibility Factors and Requirements of Each

For Legible Printed Material

"Legibility" was defined by one investigator as "the
total amount of characteristics of symbols which determine
the visual ability to recognize and read them correctly."
The specific means for measuring type face legibility are
dictated by the particular study involved. Burtt and Basch7

listed five general methods for measuring legibility of type

 

6Curt Berger, "Some Experiments on the Width of Sym-
bols as Determinantof Legibility," Acta Qphthalmologia, XXVI
(1948). pp- 517-550.

7Harold E. Burtt and Coryne Basch, "The Legibility of
Bodoni, Baskerville Roman, and Cheltenham Type Faces," Journal
of Applied Psychology, VII (1923), pp. 237-245.

face:
1. haximum distance at which the type can be read.
2. Time taken to read a passage.
3. Number of letters read in a tachistoscope or min-
imum exposure at which they can be seen.
A. Minimum illumination under which type can be seen.
5. Extent to which letters can be thrown out of focus
and still be legible.
Regardless of the specific method employed, the conclusions
of the various investigators studied were in general agreement.
Most of the legibility factors listed below were sup-
ported by more than one investigation, and therefore shall
not be individually footnoted. A few, however, were conclu-
sions of only one study or one investigator. These are indi-

vidually credited.

I. The FORM or CONFIGURATION of the letter.
There is a distinct difference in the legibility of
printed material printed in different type faces, and
between different characters of the same type face.
Suggestions for contributing to more legible form
are:
A. Simple outlines should be employed whenever pos-

sible.

B. The use of a type face having few hairlines is

07)

recommended.
C. Characteristic parts of each symbol should be em-
phasized in the type face design.

let—

9.

D. Regular letter width rather than condense
ter width should be utilized wh never possible.

(Breadth of the character is more important than

H,

character height because breadth allows or‘
greater visibility of the letter's internal
spaces.)9

a. The use of caps and lower case letters in combi-
nation (first letter of each word capitalized)
is better than the use of all upper case letters

for tasks such as headline reading. (Visually

grasping the net weight statement on a packag

G)

principal display panel is similar to the headline
reading task.)
F. A symbol width-to—height ratio of 5:5 is recom-

mended.10

 

8Miles A. Tinker, ”The Relative Legibility of the Let-
ters, the Digits, and of Certain hathematical Signs,” Journal
of General Psychology, I (1928), pp. 472-496.

9E.C. Sanford, "The Relative Legibility of the Small
Letters," American Journal of Psychology, I (1888), pp. AC2-

435.

 

lO,. ' , .. .
Charles A. Baker and halter F. Grether, "Visual
Presentation of Information," WADC Technica Report 54-160
United States Air Force, Wright Air Development Center,
August, 1954, p. 57. '

 

II. The SIZE of the letter.

F"

orinted matter is about 28 inches

A. When the p rom
the observer's eye, the recommended minimum let-
ter height is 0.10 inches when the level 01

mination is above one foot-candle.

ing constant.

C. Distance recognition is better for capitals than
for lower case letters. (This is due to the ap-
parent larger size of an upper case character.)

III. The STROKE WIDTH of the letter.

A. Light strokes are poor.

B. There is generally an increase in the legibilitv
of printed matter with increased stroke width.

C. The stroke width should be uniform.

D. The stroke width should be approximately 25% of
the mean letter width.12

E. The optimum height to stroke-width ratio appeared

to vary with the particular type face involved,

 

11Ibid., p. 57.

2Mason N. Crook, J.A. Hanson, and A. fieisz, "The Legi-
bility of Type as Determined by the Combined Effects of Typo-
graphical Variables and Reflectance of Background," WADC
Technical Report 55-4Al United States Air Force, Wright Air
Development Center, March, 1954, p. 12.

 

IO

and differed slightly from upper to lower case

'ght to stroke-width ratios

0
:3
93
*1
m
0
d
(D
H
U)
0
r—3
:5
(D
:3
(D
’J

J
F"

discovered ranked

5

row 4.6:1 to 8.0:1, with the

U

IV. The SPACING between characters.
Optimum spacing appeared to be about 50% of mean let-
ter width.13
V. The SIZE of the CRITICAL DETAIL.

As mentioned earlier, the critical detail can be im-
proved by expanding the letters. Such increased
breadth gives more visibility to the internal spaces
of the Characters.

VI. The CONTRAST between FIGURE and BACKGROUND.

Concerning the relative legibility of black charac-

ters on a white background versus white characters

on a black background, differing conclusions w re dis-

covered:

A. Three studies indicated that black printing on a
white background proved more legible.

B. Two studies reported no apparent difference in

the legibility of the two combinations.

 

l-

13,

‘.N. Crook, J.A. Hanson, and A. Weisz, "Th Le
bility of Type as a Function of Stroke Width, Letter ”i
and Letter Spacing Under Low Illumination," TADS Techni
Report 53-A40 United States Air Force, Wright Air DeveIOp-
ment Center (Submitted to Aero Medical Laboratory, march,

1954), p0 190

:Lm

‘n
‘T

.—
LI

2']

\‘.~

()

 

 

11

’9

C. Only one study indicated that-~under nigh illu-

mination--wlite printing on a blaCA background

q

was more 1e ble than black printing on a white

gi -
, .14
baCAground.
VII. The BRIGHTNESS CONTRAST between S'KBOL AREA and BACKGROUND
The studies agreed generally that the greater the
brightness contrast between syn pool area and back kgr ound
the greater is the legibility of the material. Spe-
cifically, one study reported the relative le egi bility

15

of several color combinations. The following list,

taken from that study, is in descending order of legi—

bility.

. GOOD FAIR POOR-
Blue on White Green on Red Orange on Black
Black on Yellow Red on Yelldw Black on Purple
Green on White Red on White Orange on Lhite
Black on White Red on Green

These combinations are but a few of the possible com-

binations of color employed in package label design;

 

ng. Dunlap, Report of the Highway Rese

are 0“
(National Research Council, Division Office, 1952), apne.-
dix E, Article 4, p. 3. -

l . H .

5Katherine Preston, Howard P. Schwankl, and -iles n.

Tinker "The Effect of Variations in Color of Print and Back-
9

ground on Legibility,” Journal of General Psychology, VI

(1932). pp. 459-461.

b-J

12

and there is room for question concerning what value
of each hue the researchers employed. The list does
provide, however, a point from which to start when
considering what color combinations could be employed
to create the desired design effect and still be con-

sidered "in distinct contrast."

The most unfavorable combination of the above-listed

 

factors of legibility is: (1) condensed letters, (2) close-

er should bear in

I).

spaced, 'ith (3) narrow strokes. The rea
mind, however, that what may be optimally legible in one in-
stance may prove much less so in another.) Frederic W. Goudy,
designer of more type faces than any other type creator in
history, was quoted as saying, "I feel that too few (design-
ers) realize that a type amply legible for one purpose may
not prove so for another--there is no universal type--there
is no universal quality of legibility for types of all pur-
poses."1

However, if a package designer considers the above-
mentioned legibility factors when planning the printed mes—
sage on his package, and employs combinations yielding what
is generally accepted as legible print in contrasting colors,

he should encounter little difficulty in developing copy

 

l6Earl English, "Study of Readability of Four Newc-

paper Headline Types," Journalism Quarterly, XXI (l9h4), pp.
217-229.

 

*4
\J.‘

which will be considered ”legible" and ”in distinct contrast”

by the governmental regulatory bodies.

II. CONSUMER PACKAGE LABELING LE~ISLATI X

 

H)

The legislation applicable to th area 0 net weigh

.11

91
.11.
*1

statements for food packages and herein discussed is the
Packaging and Labeling Act, and 21 CFR Part 1 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic act as proposed ammended by the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Section 201 (f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos-
metic Act defines "food” as ”(1) articles used for food or
drink for man or other animals, (2) chewing gum, and (3) ar-
ticles used for components of any such article." Such items
account for a very large percentage of the products found on
supermarket shelves-~those commodities purchased for house-
hold consumption or expenditure.

There are a few product categories which the reader
might normally consider to be a "food” product but which are
exempt from the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. These in-
clude meat and meat products, and poultry and poultry pro-
ducts. These items are subject to regulations under other

laws, and the exemptions are in accord with those of the Fed-

eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

lfl

(Net

15

*‘.. ‘ "‘. 1 v. ' , . ‘ . J ”u
full" HdCJ’Zufflf‘u‘: c.1215}. Ic'bn1.infll “‘Ct

.4'

weight Statement Labeling Requirements)

 

Th

e

’31

air Packaging and Labeling Act requires that

the net quantity of contents be expressed:

1.

In a uniform location upon the principal dis-
play panel of the label.

In ounces (with identification as to avoirdupois)
and, if applicable, in pounds, with any remainder
in terms of ounces or common or decimal fractions
of the pound, if the product weighs less than
four pounds.

In ounces (with identification as to fluid) and,
if applicable, in the largest whole unit (quarts,
quarts and pints, or pints, as appropriate) with
any remainder in terms of fluid ounces or common
or decimal fractions of the pint or quart, if

the product is less than one gallon.

In inches and the largest whole unit (yards,
yards and feet, or feet, as appropriate) with

any remainder in terms of inches or common or
decimal fractions of the foot or yard for a pack-
age labeled in terms of linear measure.

In square inches and the largest whole square
unit (square yards, square yards and square feet,

or square feet, as appropriate) with any remain-

16

der in terms of square inches or common or deci-
mal fractions of the square foot or square yard
for packages labeled in terms of measure of area.

5. In conspicuous and easily legible type in dis-
tinct contrast (by typography, layout, color,
embossing, or molding) with other matter on the
package.

6. In letters or numerals in a type size which shall
be (a) established in relationship to the area
of the principal display panel of the package,
and (b) uniform for all packages of substantially
the same size.

7. In lines parallel to the base on which the pack-

age rests as it is designed to be displayed.

Federal Food, Drungand Cosmetic Act

(Net Weight Statement Labeling Requirements)

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act - 21 CFR
[Part 1 (as proposed ammended by the Commissioner of Food and
Drugs) lists the following labeling requirements for the net
weight statements:
1. The declaration shall be located on the principal
display panel of the label, and with respect to
packages bearing alternate principal panels, it

shall be duplicated on each principal display

17

panel.

The declaration shall appear as a distinct item

son the principal display panel, separated (by a

space at least equal to the-height of the letter-

ing used in the declaration) from other print d

(b

matter appearing above the declaration, and shall
be void of any qualifying words or phrases. ‘It

shall be placed on the principal display -anel

'(5

within the bottom twenty percent of the area of
the panel in lines generally parallel to the base
on which the package rests as it is designed to
be displayed. No label information shall appear
below or to either side of the declaration on

the principal display panel.

The declaration shall accurately reveal the quan-
tity of food that may be delivered from the pack-
age exclusive of wrappers, propellants, and other
material packed therewith.

The declaration shall appear in conspicuous and
easily legible boldface type in distinct contrast
(by typography, layout, color, embossing, or
molding) to other matter on the package. Require-
ments of conspicuousness and legibility shall in-
clude the following specifications:

A. No decorative or ornamental letters shall be

used. (T is is in accord with the first el

smpli City of typeface.)

FJ.

ment of good form--
B. The ratio of height to width 0: the letter
shall not ex ceed a differential of 3 units
1 unit. (This w; ll prohibit the use of ex-
tremely condensed letters, which were repor
to be less legible than regular vidth lette
v. Letter heights pertain to upper case (cap-

ital) letters. When pper and lo."er case

te

or all lower case letters are used, it is the

lower case "x” or its equivalent that shoul
meet the minimum standards.

D. Vhen fractions are used, each c mponent nu-
meral shall meet the mini: um heigh stand-
ards. (This will increase the legibility,
other factors remaining constant.)

5. The declaration shall be in letters and numeral
in a type size established in relationship to

the area of the principal displa ay panel of the

(1‘
J

O

U)

. l . .
pacnage7 and shall be uniform for all pecn

d

S

 

17The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic ict proposed

modifications define "area of the prinCi pal display panel"

as the area of the side or surface tha bears the principal
display panel, which area shall be:

(1) In the case of a rectangular package wh

entire side properly can be considered to be the pri

L

on
a

Cipé;

m
(D

’3

display panel side, the product of the height tines the width

of substantially the same size complying with
the following type specifications:

\ \' ’ f ‘ ‘ q
A. not less than l/lo inch in “eight on pacn-

ages the principal display panel of which
has an area of 5 square inches or less.

B. Not less than 1/8 inch in height on pack-
ages the principal display panel of which
has an area of more than 5 but not more than
15 square inches.

C. Not less than 3/16 inch in height on pack-
ages the principal display panel of which
has an area of more than 15 but not more

than 75 square inches.

D. Not less than 1/4 inch in height on packages
the principal display panel of which has an

area of more than 75 square inches, except
not less than l/2 inch in height if the area
is more than 400 square inches.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 21 CFR Part

5

l (as proposed modified), contains additional labeling regu-

 

of that side.

(2) In the case of a cylindrical or nearly cylin-
drical container, 40 percent of the product of the height of
the container times the circumference.

(3) In the case of any other shaped container, the
total actual area of the surface of the principal display
panel.

lations for net weight statements; but

merely a repetition of the Fair Packaging and act

regulations concerning methods of

including the units of measure to be allowed and

abbreviations for different quantities. Therefore, further

explanation of them is not here in order.

.0

Summary and Comparison Ol the Acts

Below in brief outline form is shown what the above-

discussed legislation requires for net weight statements on
consumer food packages. Also exhibited is the relationship

of the Federal Food, Drug, and cosmetic Act statement of con-
tents.labeling requirements (as proposed ammended) to those

of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.

Fair Packaging and
Labeling Act

Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act

1. Statement must appear in 1. Statement must appear
a uniform location on in the lower 20% of the
the display panel. display panel area.

2. Measurement units to 2. Same (somewhat more
be used. explicit).

3. Statement must appear 3. Same (four requirements
in "conspicuous and of conspicuousness and
easily legible type..." legibility).

h. Type size established in Q. Bxplicitly lists five

relation to panel area.

groupings of panel areas

and related minimum re-

quired type size.

5. "In lines parallel to 5. Same.

the base...."

The requirements of items (2) and (5) of the above
list do not materially affect the legibility of the net
weight statement; and shall therefore not be further dis-
cussed. Items (l). (3), and (4) do, however, relate very
closely to the legibility of the net weight statement. The
requirements of item (3) were discussed at some length ear-
lier in this paper. Therefore, the net weight statement
labeling requirements of items (1) and (4) constitute the

basis for the remainder of this work.

III. PRINCIPAL DISPLAY PANEL VISUAL ANALYSIS

 

The first area of concern was the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration proposed minimum type size requirements for the

ackage

’6

net weight statement in relation to the area of the

F"

principal display panel. It appeared unreasonable, or ex-
ample, to require a package having a principal display panel
area of 15.01 square inches to have the net weight statement
minimum type size equal to the net weight statement minimum
type size on a package the principal display panel of which
had an area of 75.00 square inches. This reasoning involved
the apparent disproportionate type size relationship between

I the net weight statement and other typographic matter on the
15.01 square inch panel and the net weight statement and other
typographic matter on the 75.00 square inch panel.

The second area in question was the Food-and Drug Ad-
ministration proposed regulations requiring the net weight
statement to appear in the lower 20% of the principal dis-
play panel area. Was this requirement based on an already
established pattern? And could the consumer locate the state-
ment quicker if positioned in the lower 20% of the panel area

than if positioned elsewhere on the panel? It was felt these

22

23

two questions needed answering.

In—Store Study

 

Before any visual testing was performed, an in-store

'investigation was made to determine:

1.

What was the general height to width ratio for
existing package primary display panels; and
which dimension was parallel to the base on which
the package normally rested when displayed for
sale?

Based on the location of the net weight statements,
what percentage of the food packages investigated
would conform to the F&DA proposed regulations
regarding placement of the statement in the lower
20% of the principal display panel area?

Based on the type size of the net weight state-
ments, what percentage of the food packages
studied would conform to the F&DA proposed regu-
lations regarding the required minimum type size
in relation to the area of the primary display
panel?

Which of the five ranges of display panel area
(and accompanying minimum required statements of
contents type size) merited investigation? The

ranges, with respectively required minimum type

The

24

size for the net weight statements (as found on
page (19) of this paper) are:
a) Five or less square inches . . . .1/16" type.
b) Over five to fifteen sq. in. . . . 1/8" type.
0) Over fifteen to seventy-five
square inches. . . . . . . . . . .3/16" type. 5
d) Over seventy-five to four hundred
square inches. . . . . . . . . . . 1/4" type. :i

e) Over four hundred square inches. . 1/2" type.

 

results of this study were: I
The average height to width ratio for the pack-
ages analyzed was 1.55:l. There was about a 2:1
ratio of packages having the short display panel
dimension parallel to the base of the package to
those having the longer dimension parallel to the
base of the package.

On 65.5% of the packages inspected, the net weight
statement was found in the lgwep portion of the
primary display panel. (This wasn't necessarily
within the lower 29% of the panel area, for the
distance each statement was from the bottom of

the panel was not measured; but it would have

been very close to the lower 20% of the panel area
if not within it.)

Only 51.2% of the packages inspected would con-

25

form to the F&DA proposed regulations regarding
the required minimum type size in relation to
the area of the principal display panel.

The results of (2) and (5) for each range are illus-

trated in TABLE 1.

 

 

 

 

 

It
TABLE 1
NET WEIGHT STATEMENT COMPLIANCE NIT: THE f
FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSEBTIC ACT i
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ‘
MINIMUM TYPE SIZE AND PLACEKENT a
Group No. of Packages Per Cent Compliance
Inspected
Min. Type Size Placement
a) 2 100.0 50.0
' b) 21 19.0 1.4
c) 3# 20.5 6A.6
d) 6 100.0 ‘ 50.0
e) 1 100.0a 100.0

 

 

 

 

aThe digit type size was well in excess of the mini-
mum standards, but the words "Net Wt." were less than the
proposed minimum allowed type size.

Because of the 100% compliance with the regulations
for minimum type size within groups (a) and (d), and because
only one package could be found in the store having an area
greater than 400 in.2--Group (e)--it was decided to inves-
tigate further only packages of which the size of the display

panel would fall within Groups (b) and (c). Further support

26

for this decision was the fact that packages having a primary
display panel area of between five and seventy-five souare
inches account for by far the great majority of all consumer
food packages normally displayed on supermarket shelves. and,
as indicated in TABLE 1, there was only about 20% compliance
with the F&DA proposed modified net weight minimum required I“
type'sizes for packages within these groups.

Size of Net Weight Statement Type in Re-

lation to the Area of the Package
Principal Display Panel El

 

Testing Procedure

The first step in the visual testing was to evaluate
several package display panels the areas of which were within
the limits of Groups (b) and (c). The purpose was to test in
one way the "fairness" of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act proposed modifications concerning the required minimum
type size for the statement of contents in relation to the
area of the package principal displapranel.

The test specimens consisted of six package display
panels, the areas of which corresponded to the lower and upper
limits of each of the two groups investigated, with one panel
in each size group having an area equal to the mean panel
area of the packages analyzed in the supermarket falling with-
in each of the respective groups.

The ratio of the height to width of each panel tested

 

27

was 1.55:1. This ratio was based on the packages evaluated
in the supermarket (See page 24). The size of the panels
tested with the corresponding net weight type size can be

seen in TABLE 2.

TABLE 2

SPECIFICATIONS OF DISPLAY PANELS ANALYZED
PANEL SIZE AND "NET WT." TYPE SIZE

 

 

I.“ r“ 1.

 

 

 

Statement of Contents
Group Panel Area Type Size
Inches Points
. 2
b) 5.01 in. 1/8 9
b) 9.20 in.2 " "
. 2
b) 15.00 in. " "
. 2
c) 15.01 in. 5/16 14
c) h0.80 in.2 " "
c) 75.00 in.2 n "

 

 

 

 

The panels were made of white clay-coated bending

board stock; and the printing was accomplished by use of

transfer lettering.

Inc. of Crystal Lake, Ill. was employed.)

(TRANS-ARTYPE manufactured by Artype,

The typographic

materia1-—design, layout, and type face-~of each panel was

identical and in direct size proportion to the height of each

panel.

The type size of the net weight statements, however,

F.‘

was the same for the three panels within each group. An ex-

act replica--with specifications-~0f each packare display

panel visually analyzed is found on the following pages.

 

FIGURE 1

PANEL A

 

 

     
    

 

”13 'jD T? f‘ F“
[M 5 Lu

: Hthfiotmn

i NUTRFHOUS .

"BREAKFAST CEREAL ; . :6.»

NE! WI. 8.6 02;

t
l
|
D
f
I
L

 

SPECIFICATIONS
1. PANEL SIZE: 5.01 in.2
2. TYPE SPECIFICATIONS: Points18 Style
HI-PRO 56 Franklin Gothic
Extra Condensed
G 10 News Gothic Condensed
NEW! _ " n

High Protein " H

NUTRITIOUS .. n
'BREAKFAST CEREAL 14 n
NET WEIGHT 8.6 oz. 1# Futura Bold

 

Because of a problem in securing the same type face
for the elements on each of the six different panels, it was
not always possible to obtain a type size which was exactlv
in direct proportion to the height of the corresponding panel
height. Any discrepancies, however, were very slight, and
would not affect the results of the study. A "point" is 1/72
of an inch.

1.

50

FIGURE 2

PANEL B

‘33 NEW:

HP?

High Protein

   
   

   

NUTRHWOUS

EBREAKFAST CEREAL.

3‘ NE'I' WI. 8.6 oz.

SPECIFICATIONS

PANEL SIZE: 9.20 in.2
TYPE SPECIFICATIONS: Points Style
HI-PRO 48 Franklin Gothic

Extra Condensed
G 12 News Gothic Condensed
NEW! ‘ " "
High Protein- " "
NUTRITIOUS " "
BREAKFAST CEREAL 18 "

NET WT. 8.6 oz. 14 Futura Bold

, ‘3 N ,,‘ a
I?!

2.

PANEL SIZE: 15.00 in.

TYPE SPECIFICATIONS:

HI-PRO

G

NEW!

High Protein
NUTRITIOUS
BREAKFAST CEREAL

NET WT. 8.6 OZ.

31

FIGURE 3

1k

2#
la

 

Eh
PANEL C 5
SPECIFICATIONS
2
Points tyle
60 Franklin Gothic

Extra Condensed
News Gothic Condensed

Futura Bold

   

}
i

52

FIGURE 5

PANEL C

NUTRITIOUS

BREAKFAST CEREAL

NET WT. 8.6 OZ.

FIGURE 5

PANEL C

    
  

High Protein
NUTRITIOUS

:BREAKFAST CEREAL

NET WT. 8.6 OZ.

 

l.

2.

33

SPECIFICfiTIONS

PANEL SIZE: 15.01 in.2

TYPE SPECIFICATIONS: Points Style
HI-PRO 60 Franklin Gothic
Extra Condensed
G 1# News Gothic Condensed
NEW! N n

High Protein " u
NUTRITIOUS " n
BREAKFAST CEREAL 24 "

NET WT. 8.6 oz. . 24 Futura Bold

 

 

3h

FIGURE #

PANEL D

    
  

High Protein

NUTRITIOUS

EBREAKFAST CEREAL

: NE? WV. 6.6 ©Z.

i
L_....__._____.‘-HM..,,fi~, 6 “v-4“--6, ,, ,..‘-_ _, ,

4;?

 

l.

PANEL SIZE: 40.80 In.

35

 

FIGURE 5 ,6
PANEL E
L
Ev
SPECIFICATIONS

2

TYPE SPECIFICATIONS: Points

HI-PRO

G

NEW!

High Protein
NUTRITIOUS
BREAKFAST CEREAL

NET WT. 8.6 oz.

96
2k

48
2h

Style »
Franklin Gothic

Extra Condensed
News Gothic Condensed

Futura Bold

 

 

 

 

 

     

High Protein

NUTRITIOUS

BREAKFASE CEB

6E
NE? ‘W'E'. 8.: Z.

I.
o

 

 

PANEL SIZE: 75.00

TYPE SPECIFICATIONS

HI-PRO

G

NEW!

High Protein
NUTRITIOUS
BREAKFAST CEREAL

NET WT. 8.6 oz.

PANEL F
SPECIFICATIONS
. 2
in.
: Points Style 1
120 Franklin Gothic
Extra Condensed
36 News Gothic Condensed
H H
H H
H H
60 ..
24 Futura Bold

39

Each panel was positioned in a vertical plane BC
inches from the observers' eyes, with the flat-grey area sur-
rounding the display panel void of any distracting elements.
Three General Electric 40-watt Cool White fluorescent bulbs

provided an illumination level of 200 foot-candles for the

area surrounding the panel (measured on a horizontal plane r.

directly in front of the panel). Although most supermarkets'

illumination levels are below 200 foot-candles, this is the

level recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society for .
9 i»

self-service stores-~such as today's supermarket.l

The subjects were college students with normal vision
or corrected-to-normal vision with glasses. Fifteen different
students viewed each display panel. Each student viewed only
225 panel. The subjects were told the study consisted of an
evaluation of legibility factors for net weight statements on
package primary display panels. They were informed they would
be looking at a display panel of a package. They were fur-
ther informed that the panel they would be viewing had no
color nor illustration, but did have some design and the words
one would normally expect to find on a package primary dis-
play panel.

The observers were positioned behind a shield with a

slide opening, measuring 5" x 2", through which they were in-

 

19"Recommended Practice for Lighting Nerchandising
Areas," Reprinted from Illuminating Engineering, June, 1963,
p. In.

#0

structed to view the panel. The slide opening was operated
manually by the experimenter. With the subject positioned in
front of the shield with his eyes directly in front of the
slide opening, the slide was opened; and the subject was shown
a blank panel the exact size of the display panel and posi-
tioned exactly where the display panel under study would be
positioned when he viewed it. The subject was instructed to
adjust his line of vision to enable him to look directly at
the panel when the slide was next opened. This pre-exposure
was intended to reduce the subject's uncertainty of: (l) the
size of the panel he would be viewing, and (2) the location
of the panel behind the shield.

The subjects were instructed to locate and to immedi-
ately read aloud the net contents statement exactly as it ap-
peared on the panel. For example, on the packages studied
this statement appeared as ”NET WT. 8.6 OZ.” The subjects
were instructed to read this as "Net weight eight point six
ounces," or "Net weight eight and six-tenths ounces." If the
subject omitted the words "Net weight," the time was not re-
corded.

The subjects were asked to locate and read the state-
ment as rapidly as possible when the slide was drawn away
from the opening in the shield. When the experimenter drew
back the slide with one hand, he started the timer with the

other; and immediately upon the verbal completion of the net

Al

contents statement by the subject, the experimenter stopped
. 2O . . . . .
the timer. This time (in minutes) for each subject for

the respective panels is shown on the following pages.

 

20A GraLab micro-timer, manufactured by the Eeylan

Stopwatch Co. of New York City, was employed. The timer was
accurate to the nearest one-thousandth of a minute. The
timer switch was a two-way switch, which the experimenter
held in his hand when operating the instrument.

42

ThBLE 3

TIMES REQUIRED FOR SUBJECTS TO LOCATE AND READ THE KET
WEIGHT STATEME'TS ON THE VARIOUS DISPLAY PANELS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Panel A Panel B ‘ Panel c
Subject Time Subject Time Subject Time

1 B .041 (min) 16 .0“? (min) 31 .048 (min)
2 .056 k 17 .075 52 .054

3 .042 18 .046 55 .061

4 .054 19 .064 34 .039

5 .054 20 .046 55 .062

6 .055 21 .050 56 .056

7 .060 22 .052 57 .059

8 .058 25 .045 58 .045~
9 .054 24 .045 39 .047
10 .042 25 .058 40 ' .065 '
11 .041 26 .046 41 .058
12 .061 27 .044 42 .060
15 .059 28 .044 45 .060
14 .060 29 .047 ' 44 .073 I
15 .056 50 .056 45 .064

 

 

 

43

TABLE 3—-Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Panel D Panel E ‘ Panel F
Subject Time Subject Time Subject Time
46 .064 (min) 61 .058 (min) 76 .042 (min)
47 .056 y 62 .055 ' 77‘ .041
48 .044 65 .048 78 .059
49 .055 64 .055 79 .058
50 .048 65 .046 80 .050
51 .050 66 .055 81 .047
52 .055 67 .039 82 '.060
53 '.047 68 .053 83 .043
54 .037 69 .045 84 .051
55 .055 70 .047 '85 .055
56 .049 71 .047 86 .047
57 .048 72 .047 87 .048
58 .044 73 .049 88 .051
59 .046 74 .047 B9 .058
60 .046 75 .041 90 .041

 

 

 

A summarization of these data is shown in TABLE 4.
The times are the means of the fifteen subjects' times for

each panel.

44

MEAN TIMES REQUIRED FOR SUBJECTS TO LOCATE AND READ THE
NET WEIGHT STATEMENTS ON THE VARIOUS DISPLAY PANELS

 

 

 

Panel Panel grea Time Type Sizea

(In. ) (Min.) (In.)
A 5.01 .047 1/8
B 9.20 .051 l/8
C 15.00 .057 1/8
D 15.01 .050. 3/16
E 40.80 .047 5/16
F 75.00 .049 , 3/16

 

 

 

 

aNet Weight Statement.

Discussion of Results

The reader will note that for the three display panels

having 1/8" net weight statement type the time required to

locate and read aloud the net weight statement increased

from Panel A to Panel C.

This was as expected because as all

the other typographic matter became larger, it appeared rea-

sonable that more effort would be required to find the rela-

tively "smaller" net contents statement.

It is interesting to note, however, when examining'

the times required to locate and read the net contents state-

ment on each of the three panel sizes having 3/16" net weight

statement type, that this pattern does not exist.

45

Rather the shortest mean required time was for Panel B (40.80
. 2 g . p 1, i a , . 2.
in. ). The second shortest time was .or Panel 2 (75.00 in. 1;
and the longest time was for Panel D (15.01 in.

The reason for this partial reversal of expected re-

sults can probably be attributed to the difference in type

 

size contrast between the net contents statement and the ad- Eh
jacent words "BREAKFAST CEREAL." Because of the greater type :
size contrast the net weight statement probably appeared more

conspicuously, and thus was recognized sooner on the two

larger panels. £5

The greatest time difference recorded within one group
was between Panel A and Panel C. Between these two panel
sizes there was a mean time difference of 0.01 minutes or
0.60 seconds. The remainder of the panel sizes, when con-
trasted against other panels within their respective groups
(i.e. 1/8" 93 3/16" type) or even against panels of the other
group (where there existed a statement of contents type size
difference), all yielded results within 0.004 minutes (0.24
sec.) of each other.

Employing the statistical t-test21 to determine if

these time differences were statistically significant at the

0.05 level of significance, the results shown in TABLE 5 were

 

21John E. Freund and Frank J. Williams, Nodern Busi-
ness Statistics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc.,
1958), pp. 240-241.

 

 

46

 

 

 

obtained.
TABLE 5
T-TEST RESULTS BETWEEN MEAN TIME
FOR EACH PANEL STUDIED
Panels
A B C D E
Panels
B Not sig.a
t=105l
C Sig. Sig.
t=3.33 t=2050
D Sig.
t=3018
E Sig.
t=2 030
F Not sig. Not sig.

t=0.06 t=1.08

 

a"Significant."

Four of the seven relationships did yield a statisti-
cally significant time difference. The question which re-
mained, however, was how significant were these absolute
time differences in the practical sense. Based on the fore-

going results, even when considering the statistically sig-

 

nificant time differences between four of the panels, there
was very little absolute difference in the time required for
persons to locate and orally read the net weight statement
on typographically identical display panels of varying scale,

each having the same size type for the statement of contents.

o

47

For it is most unlikely that a shopper would be consciously
aware of a time difference no greater than 0.60 seconds
when searching for a packaged food product‘s net weight.-
Therefore, it was concluded that the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act regulations (as proposed modified)
regarding required statement of contents type size in re-
lation to the area of the package principal display panel
are fair and just to not only the consumer but also to the
manufacturer of a product. It was clearly shown, in this
instance, that the required type size—panel area relation-
ships did not create significant differences in the ease
with which a consumer could "obtain accurate information as
to the quantity of contents" to enable him to easily and
quickly determine the best price-value relationship for his
money. Because no such difference existed, it was con-

cluded that the regulations were indeed fair and just.

48

Placement of Contents Statement in Lower Twenty
Per Cent of Display Panel Area
General Discussion

The second area of concern regarding the Fair Pack-
aging and Labeling Act regulations and the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act proposed modifications affecting net weight
statements on consumer food packages was the required place-
ment of the statement of contents in the lower 20% 0f the
principal display panel area. Two questions were in need of
_an answer: (1) was this requirement based on an already es-
tablished pattern, and (2) could a person locate the statement
quicker if it were positioned in the lower 20% of the panel
area than if positioned elsewhere on the panel?

The results of the in-store investigation (see pp.
24-25) indicated that there was a 1.9:1 ratio of packages
having the statement in the lower portion of the panel (al-
though not necessarily within the lower 29% of the panel area--
see p. 24) to those having it elsewhere on the panel. This
indicated that the F&DA regulation was based, at least to
some extent, on an already established consumer food package

labeling pattern.

Testing Procedure
To more firmly substantiate this position, however,

it was decided to perform additional visual testing. The pro-

49

cedure was identical to that employed in the analysis of
Panels A-F. Fifteen students were used, none of whom had
had previous exposure to the study or to the other display
panels. Panel G was identical in copy elements and size to
Panel E. The differences were the use of "4.3 OZ." instead

of "8.6 OZ." in the net weight statement, and the placement

 

of the elements. The "4.3" difference was due only to a
problem of type supply.
An exact replica--with specifications-~of the panel is

found in FIGURE 7. The principal difference between Panel C
and Panel E was that the typographic elements of Panel E were
lowered a respective distance to enable placement of the net
contents statement in the 22233 20% of the "new" panel. The
words "BREAKFAST CEREAL" were moved to the upper portion of
this panel to provide the same type size contrast with the
net weight statement as existed on Panel E. The only other
significant typographic difference was that on Panel G the
trademark remained in the 20% of the panel area with the net
weight statement. The trademark was not moved in order to
more realistically represent a package display panel than if
it had been repositioned in the lower area of the panel. It
was felt that the proximity of the trademark alone would not
affect the legibility of the net contents statement.

6 The time required for each subject to locate and read

aloud the statement of contents can be seen in TABLE 6.

50

FIGURE 7

PANEL G

SPECIFICATIONS

Panel Size: 40.80 in.2

Type Specifications: Points Style,

HI-PRO 96 Franklin Gothic
Extra Condensed

G 24 News Gothic Condensed

NEW! vv n

High Protein " "
NUTRITIOUS " "
BREAKFAST CEREAL 48 "

NET WT. 4.3 OZ. 24 Futura Bold

|
c
I
u
I

NET WI. 6.3 oz.

BREAKFAST Chen

W "39/“
IE 3:1 J U

High Protein

 

 

 

 

 

 

L/

       
  
  

NUTRITIOUS
NEW!

52

('11-. hr 1'" 6
.LADLJZ'J

TIMES REQUIRED FOR SUBJECTS TO LOCATE AND
READ THE NET WEIGHT STATEMENT 0N PANEL G

 

 

 

Subject . Time
1 .047 (min.)
2 .059
3 .058
4 » .047
5 ' -.045
6 .047
7 .044
8 .061
9 .060

10 .054
11 .041
12 .058
13 .044
14 .040
15 .049

 

Discussion of Results
The mean time for the fifteen subjects was 0.050 min-
utes. Employing the t-test earlier mentioned there was indi-
cated a statistically significant time difference (t=2.5) be-

tween Panel G and Panel E. However, the absolute required

53

time was 0.00} minutes (0.18 sec.) longer than the time re-
quired for subjects to locate and read the statement on Panel
E. This appeared to substantiate the position that there

was a slight tendency on the part of the viewer to look near
the bottOm of the display panel area when searching for the
statement of contents.

Again the question arose as to whether this absolute
time difference was significant when considering the consumer
in the market place. It is most unlikely that a shopper would
be consciously aware of a time difference no greater than
0.18 seconds when searching for a packaged food product. How-
ever, when considering the intent of the legislation--to en-
able a shopper to easily and quickly determine the best price-
value for her money--and the existing consumer food pac.age
labeling pattern of placing the statement in the lower por-
tion of the panel (see p. 24), it was concluded that this re-
quirement of the legislation was also fair and just to not
only the consumer but also to the manufacturer.

These conclusions do not tend to support the senti-
ments of Mr. Harry Schroeter, National Biscuit Company's
vice president for packaging.. Mr. Schroeter was quoted as

Hm'

having said--regarding some of the type regulations-- The

public may think we have a new brand called 'Net Weight'."22

 

22"Packagers Wait for the New Rules," Business Neck.
May 13, 1967, p. 180.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It was not the intent of this author to consider the
appropriateness or the need for the packaging legislation here-
in discussed. Rather than assume a position on one side of
this issue and attempt to gather all possible information to
shore-up that position, the author attempted to determine the
"fairness" of the legislation to not only the consumer but
also to the manufacturer of a product.

As discussed earlier, the two areas investigated were:
(1) the minimum required type size for the statement of con-
tents in relation to the area of the package principal dis-
play panel, and (2) the required placement of the statement
in the lower 20% of the display panel area. Through a proc-
ess of visually analyzing seven package display panels, it was
concluded that:

I. Although there existed a statistically significant
time difference for persons to locate and read the net weight
statement on packages of different surface area (i.e. 15.01 sq.
in. panel area vs. 75.00 sq. in. panel area), this time dif-
ference was not significant when considering a shopp r in a
supermarket looking for the net weight of a packaged product.
[This indicated that, all other factors remaining constant

(elements, layout, color, and size of type in relation to pan-

‘

Sh

55

e1 area), a consumer should find it no more difficult to lo-
“ _ g. , ,.

 

cate the net weight statement on the larger panel than on the

smaller one within a respective group. Which conclusion tends
to dilute the import of Mr. Schroeter's statement that "The
public may think we have a new brand called 'Net Weight'."'
For on none of the panels studied did the statement of con-
tents attract initial attention due to exaggerated type size
in relation to other elements on the panel.

II. Placement of the contents statement in the lower
20% of the panel area proved to yield faster recognition by
'the subjects than when the statement was placed in the upper
20% of the panel area. Again the time difference was slight;
but nonetheless the results did tend to support the In-Store
Investigation finding that there was a greater percentage of

M.-

packages on the supermarket shelves today with the statement
\W 4 ___

'_of contents positioned in the lower portion of the principal
iE\h_flx_a~__~v£__wfl___x_afl~__:::::f,,,i_____~___ J
display panel than in thefiuppgrtportioniiapprox. 2:1). There~
\M“‘ ..__i###- e-

fore, it does not appear unreasonable to establish this re-

 

 

 

 

quirement to assist the shopper to "easily and quickly deter-
mine the best price-value relationship for his money."

The discussion of legibility factors for printed
material was presented to give the label designer some guid-
'ance in developing or utilizing type which by all evidence to
date wOuld be considered."legible." There still exists, how-

ever, the need to more precisely define the
' . WW- ___ f _ _

ambiguous area of

\ _
. _.._.

56

typographic legibility. One of the specific needs in this

 

area is to determine what brightnggsmgradient_diffgrg.tials

__._

between the symbol andubackgroundflepnstitutefihgigtanct con-

trast." Perhaps a minimum brightness gradient differential
yielding "legible type" in "distinct contrast" could be estab-
lished.

More ideally, would be the establishing of a means
to analyze agy package primary display panel graphic layout
to determine if--in this case the net weight statement--was
"legible," regardless of the colors employed, the size of the
type utilized, or the location of the statement on the panel.
One such means to accomplish this would be to assemble a
great variety of packages that meet the present (and proposed)
labeling requirements, and determine the ease with which a
consumer could "obtain accurate information as to the quan-
tity of the contents" (possibly based on a time factor similar
to that utilized in this study). Such analysis would yield
a range of times (effort) required to locate and read the
statement. Using the minimum time value as a standard, a
manufacturer could subject any display panel layout, regard-
less of color, type size, or placement of the elements to
analysis; and if it met the established minimum standard, the
packqm would be acceptable.

This is only one possible approach to the problem, and

it obviously has some drawbacks, the major one being the means

57

whereby the government could effectively assure adherence to
the minimum standard. The point to be made, however, is that
there is more than one approach to regulating "deceptive pack-
aging practices;" and investigation of alternative approaches

should not be overlooked.

VLIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Public Documents

 

U.S. Congress, Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. Public Law

89-755. 89th. Cong. s. 985, i966.

 

U.S. Congress, Federal Foodi Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 CF:
Part li Labels of Foods, Drugs, Devices, and Cos-
metics (as proposed ammended by the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs), "Proposed Rule Making," Federal
Register, March 17, 1967.

 

Books

Freund, John E., and Williams, Frank J. Modern Business Sta-
tistics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall,
Inc., 1958.

 

Lewis, John. Typography: Basic Principals - Influences and
Trends Since the 19th. Centugy. New York: Reinhold
Publishing Corporation, l96h.

 

 

Articles and Periodicals

 

Berger, Curt. "Some EXperiments on the Width of Symbols as
Determinant of Legibility," Acta Ophthalmologia,
XXVI, l9h8.

Burtt, Harold E., and Basch, Coryne. "The Legibility of Eo-
doni, Baskerville Roman, and Cheltenham Type Faces,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, VII, 1923.

"Consumer: King or Vassal of the Economy?" Senior Scholastic,
February 10, 1967.

 

English, Earl. "Study of Readability of Four Newspaper Head-
. line Types," Journalism Quarterly, XXI, 1944.

"Packagers Wait for the New Rules,” Business week, may 13,

1967.

 

Preston, Katherine, and Schwankl, Howard P., and Tinker, Miles

59

60

A. "The Effect of Variations in Color of Print and
Background on Legibility," Journal of General Psy—

choIOEz, VI, 1932.

"Recommended Practice for Lighting Merchandising Areas," Re-
printed from Illuminating Engineering, June, 1963.

Sanford, E.C. "The Relative Legibility of the Small Letters,"
American Journal of Psychology, I, 1888.

Tinker, Kiles A. "The Relative Legibility of the Letters,
the Digits, and of Certain Mathematical Signs,“ Jour-
nal of General Psychology, I, 1928.

 

Reports

Baker, Charles A., and Grether, Walter, F. "Visual Presenta-
tion of Information," WADC Technical Report 54-160.
United States Air Force, Wright Air Development Cen-
ter, August, 1954.

Crook, M.N., Hanson, J.A., and Weisz, A. "The Legibility of
Type as a Function of Stroke Width, Letter Width, and
Letter Spacing Under Low Illumination,” WADC Technical
Report 53-440. United States Air Force, Wright Air
Development Center (Submitted to Aero Medical Labo-

ratory, March, 1954).

 

 

Crook, Mason N., Hanson, J.A., and Weisz, A.. ”The Legibility
of Type as Determined by the Combined Effects of
Typographical Variables and Reflectance of Background,"
WADC Technical Repprt 53-hhl. United States Air
Force, wright Air Development Center, March, 1954.

Dunlap, K. Report of the Highway Research Board. National
Research Council, Division Office, 1932.
Other Sources

"Typography," Webster's New International Dictionary:
Springfield, Mass.: G&C Merriam Co., 1957.

APPENDIXES

‘APPENDIX I

DEFINITION OF TERMS

For purposes of clarification of some of the terms

in this paper the following list of definitions is provided:

1.»

5.
6.

7.

BOLDFACE TYPE: type having a heavy face.
CAPS (UPPER CASE): capital letters (A,B,C, etc.)..

CONSUMER PRODUCTS (COMMODITY): any food, drug, device,
or cosmetic (as those terms are defined by the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act), and any other
article, product, or commodity of any kind or class
which is customarily produced or distributed for sale
through retail sales agencies or instrumentalities
for consumption by individuals or use by individuals
for purposes of personal care or in the performance
of services ordinarily rendered within the household,
and which usually is consumed or expended in the course
of such consumption or use. (Fair Packaging and La-
beling Act p. 5).

FOOT-CANDLE: unit of illumination.
LOWER CASE: non-capital letters (a,b,c, etc.).

PRINCIPAL DISPLAY PANEL: that part of a label that is
most likely to be displayed, presented, shown or
examined under normal and customary conditions of
display for retail sale. (Fair Packaging and Label-
ing Act p. 6).

TACHISTOSCOPE: an instrument which presents an image in
brief flashes of equal or increasing duration. After
each flash the respondent describes what was seen.

TYPEFACE: the complete dimensional and configurational
characteristics of a set of letters.or digits as
specified by the original designer. Some of the de-
tails might vary among different point sizes.

62

APPENDIX II

VISUAL TESTING BIBLIOGRAPHY

7“

Books

Handbook of Human Engineering Data for Design Engineers.
Tufts College, l9h9.

McCormick, E.J. Human Engineering. New York: McGraw Hill,

1957.

 

Patterson, D.G., and Tinker, M.A. How to Make Type Readable.
New York: Harper & Bros., 19HO.

 

Stevens, S.S. (Ed.) Handbook of Experimental Psychology.
New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1951.

 

Woodson, W.E. Human Engineering Guide for Equipment Designers.

 

Berkley: University of California Press, 195k.

Articles and Periodicals

 

Baird, J.W. "The Legibility of a Telephone Directory," Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, I (1917) pp. 30-37.

Berger, Curt. "Experiments on the Legibility of Symbols of
Different Width and Height," Acta Ophthalmoloaia,
XXVIII (1950) pp. 423-434.

 

Berger, Curt. "Grouping, Number, and Spacing of Letters as
Determinants of Word Recognition," Journal of General
Psychology. Lv (1956) pp. 215-228.

 

 

Berger, Curt. "Some Experiments on the Width of Symbols as
Determinant of Legibility," Acta Ophthalmologia, XXVI
(19“8) PP- 517-550-

 

Berger, Curt. ”Stroke Width, Form & Horizontal Spacing of
Numerals as Determinants of the Threshold of Recog-
nition," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXVIII, (1944)
pp. 536-546. -

 

Berger, Curt. "The Influence of Stroke Width Upon Legibil-
ity," Acta Ophthalmologia, XXX (1952) pp. 409-A20.

 

63

64

Breland, Keller, and Breland, Marion. "Legibility of News-
paper Headlines Printed in Capitals and in Lower
Case," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXVIII (194%)
pp. 117-120.

 

Burt, Cyril, Cooper, W.F., and Martin, J.L. ”A Psychological
rStudy of Typography," British Journal of Statistical
Psychology, VIII (1955) Pp. 29-57.

 

Burtt, Harold E., and Basch, Coryne. "The Legibility of
Bodoni, Baskerville Roman, and Cheltenham Type Faces,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, XXVIII (1944) pp. 117-
120.

Dockeray, Floyd Carlton. "The Span of Vision in Reading and
the Legibility of Letters," Journal of Educational
Psychology, I (1910) pp. 123-131.

 

English, Earl. "Study of Readability of Four Newspaper Head-
line Types," Journalism Quarterly, XXI (1944) pp. 217—
229.

Ferree, C.E., and Rand, Gertrude. "Intensity of Light and
Speed of Vision: II. Comparative Effects for Dark
Objects on Light Backgrounds and Light Objects on
Dark Backgrounds," Journal of Experimental Psychol-

351, XIII (1950) pp. 388-u22.

 

Gilliland, A.R. "The Effect on Reading of Changes in the
Size of Type," Elementary School Journal, XXIV (1923)
pp. l38-1h6.

 

Hartridge, H., and Owen, H.B. "Test Types," British Journal
of Ophthalmology, (1922) pp. 543—5fl9.

 

Hecht, 8., Ross, 5., and Mueller, C.G. "The Visibility of
Lines and Squares at High Brightnesses," Journal of
the Optical Society of America, XXXVII (1557) pp. 500-
507.

 

Hodge, David C. "Legibility of a Uniform Stroke Width Alpha-
bet: I. Relative Legibility of Upper and Lower Case
Letters," Journal of Engineering Psychology, I (1962)
pp. 3s-46.

Holmes, Grace. "The Relative Legibility of Black and Shite
- Print," Journal of Applied Psychology, XV (1931)
pp. 248-251.

65

"How Much Research," Modern Packaging, September, 1958, pp.
99-102 0

 

Hvistendahl, J.K. "Headline Readability Measured in Context,"
Journalism Quarterly, XXXVIII (1961) pp. 226-228.

 

Koopman, Harry Lyman. "Scientific Tests of Type," The Printing
Art, XIII (1909) pp. 81-83.

 

f'l

Koopman, Harry Lyman. "Types & Eyes," 1he Printing Art, XII

(1908-1909) pp. 359-361.

 

Kuntz, James E., and Sleight, Robert B. "Legibility of Numer-
als: The Optimal Ratio of Height to Width of Stroke,"
American Journal of Psychology, LXIII (1950) pp. 567-
575.

 

Lansdell, M. "Effects of Form on the Legibility of Numbers,"
Canadian Journal of Psychology, VIII (1954) pp. 77-79.

Luckeish, M., and Moss, F. "Criteria of Readability," Journal
of Experimental Psychology, XXVII (19AO) pp. 256-270.

Luckeish, M., and Moss, F. "The Quantitative Relationship
Between Visibility and Type Size," Journal of the
Franklin Institute, CCXXVII (1939) pp. 87-97.

 

Luckeish, M., and Moss, F. "The Visibility and Readability
of Printed Matter," Journal of Applied Psychology,

XXIII (1939) pp. 655-659.

Luckeish, M., and Moss{ F. "The Visibility of Print on Var-
ious Qualities of Paper," Journal of Applied Psychol-
‘ ogy, XXV (1941) pp. 152-158.

 

Luckeish, M., and Moss, F. "The Visibility of Various Type
Faces," Journal of the Franklin Institute, CCXXII

(1937) PP- 77-82.

 

Luckeish, M., and Moss, F. "Visibility: Its Measurement and
Significance in Seeing," Journal of the Franklin Insti-
tute, CCXX (1935) pp. 431-466.

Patterson, D.G., and Tinker, M.A. "Studies of Typographical
Factors Influencing Speed of Reading: II. Size of
Type, III. Length of Line, X. Style of Type Face,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, XIII (1929) pp. 120-
130, 205-219; and XVI (1932) pp. 605-613.

Pratt, C.C. "A Note on the Legibility of Items in a Bibliog-
raphy," Journal of Applied Psychology, VII (1924)
pp. 362-3614’0

 

Preston, Katherine, Schwankl, Howard P., and Tinker, M.A.
"The Effect of Variations in Color of Print and Back-
ground on Legibility," Journal of General Psychology,
VI (1932) pp. 459-461.

 

Roethlein, Barbara E. "The Relative Legibility of Different
Faces of Printing Types," American Journal of Pay-
chology, XXIII (1912) pp. 1-36.

 

Sanford, E.C. "The Relative Legibility of the Small Letters,"
American Journal of Psychology, I (1888) pp. 402-435.

 

Sicher, Frederic. "Design Decisions by Machines?" Modern

Packaging, April, 1964, pp. 162—165+.

Sleight, R.S. "The Relative Discriminability of Several Geo-
metric Forms," Journal of Experimental Psychology,
XLIII (1952) pp. 43, 328-E24.

Taylor, Cornelia D. "The Relative Legibility of Black and
White Print," Journal of Educational Psychology, XXV
(1954) pp. 561-578.

"The Eyes Have It," Modern Packaging, October, 1960, pp. 124-
125+ o

 

Tinker, M.A. "The Influence of Form of Type on the Perception
of Words," Journal of Applied Psychology, XVI (1932)
PP o 16‘7"].71'4h o

 

Tinker, M.A. "The Relative Legibility of Modern and Old Style
Numerals," Journal of Experimental Psychology, XIII

(1930) pp. K55-461.A

 

Tinker, N.A. "The Relative Legibility of the Letters, the
Digits, and of Certain Mathematical Signs," Journal
of General Psychology, I (1928) pp. 472-496.

 

Tinker, H.A., and Patterson, D.G. "Differences Among News-
paper Body Types in Readability," Journalism Quar-

terly, XX (1945) pp. 152-155.

Tinker, M.A., and Patterson, D.G. "Readability of Newspaper
- Headlines Printed in Capitals and in Lower Case,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, XXX (1946) pp. 161-168.

67

Tinker, M.A., and Patterson, D.G. "Studies of Typographical
Factors Influencing Speed of Reading: VII. Variations
in Color of Print and Background," Journal of Applied
Psychology, XV (1931) pp. 471-479.

 

Tinker, M.A., and Patterson, D.G. "Studies of Typographical
Factors Influencing Speed of Reading: XIII. Method-
ological Considerations,” Journal of Applied Psychol-
onv, XX (1936) pp. 132-145.

A

 

Webster, Helen A., and Tinker, M.A. "The Influence of Type
Face on the Legibility of Print," Journal of Applied
Psychology, XIX (1935) pp. 43-52.

 

Reports

Crook, M.N., and Baxter, F.S. "The Design of Digits,” WADC

Technical Report 54-262. United States Air Force,
Wright Air Development Center, June, 1954.

 

Crook, M.N., Hanson, J.A., and Weisz, A. "The Legibility of
Type as a Function of Stroke Width, Letter Width, and
Letter Spacing Under Low Illumination," WADC Technical
Report 53-440. United States Air Force, Wright Air
Development Center (Submitted to Aero Medical Labora-
tory, March, 1954).

 

 

g Crook, M.N., Hanson, J.A., and Weisz, A. "The Legibility of
Type as Determined by the Combined Effect of Typograph-
ical Variables and Reflectance of Background," WADC

Technical Report 53-441. United States Air Force, Wright
Air Development Center, March, 1954.

Crook, M.N., Hanson, J.A., and Wulfeck, J.W. "The Legibility
f Type as a Function of Reflectance of Background
Under Low Illumination," WADC Technical Report 52-85.
United States Air Force, Wright Air Development Center,
June , 1952 o

 

Dunlap, K. Report of the Highway_Research Board. National Re-
search Council, Division Office, 1932.

Eastman Kodak Co. "Influence of Color Contrast on Visual Acu-
ity," Report 4541. National Defense Research Committee,
U.S. Office Scientific Research and Development, 1944.

 

Green, B.F., McGill, W.J., and Jenkins, H.M. "The Time Re-
quired to Search for Numbers on Large Visual Displays,"
Lincoln Laboratory Technical Report Number 36, Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology, 1953.

 

68

Mackworth, N.H. "Legibility of Raid Block Letters and Eum-
bers," FPRC Report No. 423. Psychology Laboratory,
University of Cambridge, England, April, 1944.

 

I erent
vfi

Peskin, J.C., and Bjornstad, Jeanne. "The Effect of Dif e
Wavelengths of Light on Visual Sensitivity,” USX:
M n ‘

Air Material Command Memorandum Report No. nvfldID-
€94-93A. United States Air Force, 1940.

 

Schapiro, H.B. "Factors Affecting Legibility of Digits,"
WADC Technical Report 52—127. United States Air Force,
Wright Air Development Center, June, 1952.

Unpublished Material

 

McLaughlin, S.C., Jr. "Configuration and Stroke Width in Nu-
meral Legibility." Unpublished thesis, Tufts College
Library, Medford, Mass., 1948.

Soar, R.S. "Height-Width Preportion and Stroke-Width in Nu-

meral Visibility." Unpublished thesis, University of
Minnesota Library, Minneapolis, Minn., 1952.

Other Sources

 

Banister, H., Hartridge, H., and Lythgoe, R.J. ”The Influence
of Illumination on Visual Acuity," Proceedings of the
Ophthalmology Convention, (1926) pp. 551-561.

 

Laver, A.R. "Certain Structural Components of Letters for
Improving the Efficiency of the Stop Sign,” High-
way Research Board Proceedings, XVII (1947) P. 11.

HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

31293103395798