Open AccessArticle

Efficiency of Ecofonts in Legibility and Toner Consumption

Ante Gudelj

Marina Vukoje

Katarina Itrić Ivanda

Rahela Kulčar

and

Tomislav Cigula

Faculty of Graphic Arts, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Sci 2025, 7(1), 29; https://doi.org/10.3390/sci7010029

Submission received: 17 December 2024 / Revised: 18 February 2025 / Accepted: 21 February 2025 / Published: 5 March 2025

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers—Multidisciplinary Sciences 2024)

Download

Browse Figures

Figure 1
Comparison of the conventional font Bitstream Vera Sans (left) with two ecofonts: Ecofont Vera Sans with dots (center) and Ryman Eco with lines (right). "> Figure 2
Comparison of the conventional Source Sans Pro font (top) and the modified eco-friendly Source Sans Pro Eco variant (bottom). "> Figure 3
Comparison of the conventional UniZgDisplay font (first row) and the two modified eco-friendly UniZgDisplay variants: UniZgDisplay Eco 1 with dots (second row) and UniZgDisplay Eco 2 with lines (third row). "> Figure 4
A side-by-side comparison of the text samples with the conventional font displayed on the (left) (Source Sans Pro) and the ecofont (Source Sans Pro Eco) on the (right) in the size of 10 pt. "> Figure 5
Measuring of the paper weight on the Acculab ALC-210.4 analytical balance. "> Figure 6
Conventional fonts (left) and ecofonts (right). "> Figure 7
The visual test setup and procedure. "> Figure 8
Comparison of average toner weight for the Source Sans Pro set. "> Figure 9
Comparison of toner weight for the UnizgDisplay set. "> Figure 10
An example of an unexpected character that was printed as a regular font even in the text with the ecofont. "> Figure 11
The letter “m” from each ecofont in 10 pt size: Arial Eco (top left), Times New Roman Eco (top right), Ecofont Vera Sans (center left), Source Sans Pro Eco (center right), UnizgDisplay Eco 1 (bottom left), and UnizgDisplay Eco 2 (bottom right). "> Figure 12
The same pattern printed in different time periods, i.e., after 50 prints (top left), 1st print after 10 min that printer was not in use (top right), 2nd print after 10 min that printer was not in use (bottom left), and 1st print after 20 min that printer was not in use (bottom right). ">

Versions Notes

Abstract

The development of modern society puts a serious strain on the environment. To protect the future of our planet, it is necessary to develop smarter and more sustainable ways in all industrial sectors for humanity to grow while reducing its impact on nature. Graphic designers can also contribute to a smarter future by designing an environmentally friendly typography. The use of ecofonts is an innovative approach that could potentially have great economic and environmental benefits. However, it also leads to a reduction in the print quality of text compared to standard fonts. This research aims to investigate the efficiency of ecofonts by determining the level of toner savings in laser-printed documents, as well as evaluating the extent to which individuals perceive differences between text printed with ecofonts and their regular font counterparts. This research found that the application of ecofonts can lead to significant toner savings, while visual tests further revealed that the overall visual quality of text printed with ecofonts remains adequate.

Keywords:

ecofont; sustainability; typography

1. Introduction

To ensure that life on Earth never resembles scenes from post-apocalyptic movies, sustainable design is essential. The sustainability of graphic design includes the creation of visual solutions that reduce the negative impact on the environment through the use of environmentally friendly materials and printing techniques, and the digitization and optimization of resources [1,2]. The goal is to combine aesthetics and functionality with a responsible approach to nature and society. When discussing sustainable design, it is not enough for the end product to be relatively eco-friendly; the entire process must be considered, examining how each part impacts the environment. The decisions of typographers and designers also contribute to the environmental footprint of a product. Sustainable design plays a key role in conveying sustainability by combining structural, graphical, and verbal elements. The materials used in the production of various graphic products have the greatest direct impact on the environment, while graphics, colors such as green, and labels explicitly or implicitly communicate the message of sustainability [3]. Sustainability is especially crucial in the production of graphic products with a short lifespan, as these items often contribute to waste accumulation. To address this, it is essential to focus on reducing their environmental footprint through the use of eco-friendly materials, efficient production processes, and designs that encourage waste minimization and energy reduction. By prioritizing sustainable practices, even short-lived products can align with environmental goals and contribute to a more responsible use of resources. In addition to material selection, designers can choose an eco-friendly typography for this type of product, which can ultimately reduce toner [4,5] and energy consumption, while positively impacting the recycling process of waste paper products [6]. The printed paper products with a short lifespan include promotional materials (flyers, posters, brochures), newspapers, disposable packaging, tickets, administrative documents (receipts, parking tickets), and office prints such as memos, reports, and order forms. These materials are intended for temporary use and quickly lose their relevance. Therefore, it is important to consider an eco-friendly typography to reduce toner consumption, minimizing the environmental impact of printed materials with a short lifespan.

The change in typography in digital society has significantly affected the way information is transmitted and perceived, such as the development of digital platforms, which require the wider use of dynamic fonts adapted to different devices and resolutions [7,8]. Also, the increased availability of typographic tools allowed designers greater creativity and adaptability in communication. The proper use of typographic features enhances a design’s appeal and communicative effectiveness [9,10]. Typographic features such as line thickness, serif shapes, character height and width (compared to other fonts of the same size), and kerning all affect ink and paper usage. For instance, fonts with thinner lines require less ink than those with thicker lines. Printing processes may also be faster, resulting in lower energy consumption. Additionally, the paper will be easier to recycle, saving energy and reducing the need for chemicals. Using smaller, narrower, or more condensed fonts with relatively tight line spacing allows more text to fit on a single page, reducing paper consumption. However, specific client requirements, aesthetic considerations, or potential functionality issues may limit the extent to which these parameters can be adjusted. For example, it may be desirable to use fonts with thicker lines for headings or to highlight important information. There are also limits to how much a font can be reduced, as the primary purpose of text is to communicate with the reader, and readability must not be compromised. Factors influencing text readability, in addition to typography, include fundamental visual characteristics such as font size, line spacing, color, font weight, and font style [11]. Sustainable typographic design, therefore, requires balancing environmental considerations with functionality and aesthetic goals.

In recent years, the concept of economical typography has emerged. These are specialized fonts designed to be more cost-effective and environmentally friendly than conventional fonts—commonly referred to as “ecofonts”. In theory, such fonts are intended to use less ink without compromising functionality or aesthetics. The term “ecofont” (Figure 1) refers to a typography where characters incorporate empty spaces (small holes or lines) to reduce ink consumption during printing. On printed material, these empty spaces should not be noticeable in smaller text sizes due to ink spreading during the printing process. Ecofonts can either be specifically conceived and designed with this purpose in mind or created by converting conventional fonts into ecofonts. However, for such fonts to be truly practical, their effectiveness must be demonstrated in two key aspects: first, in terms of savings, and second, in terms of readability. The main problem is that using ecofonts can result in a decreased quality of printed text in comparison to text printed with regular fonts [5]. Štampfl and Gregor-Svetec (2018) showed that the use of Ecofont software enables printing text documents with up to 50% less printing ink on permanent paper using two different fonts (Times New Roman and Arial) in four sizes (from 8 pt to 14 pt) [4]. Aydemir (2019) showed that by the proper choice of commonly used fonts, savings in printing areas can be achieved as well [12]. In the research by Možina et al. (2016), the legibility of two ecofonts (i.e., Ecofont Vera Sans and Ryman Eco) in comparison with a conventional one (i.e., Times New Roman) was evaluated, where six different texts were selected, in the font sizes of 10 and 8 points. The results of the study showed that the ecofonts were read faster than the conventional, non-ecofont, while the typographic tonal density was the lowest for the non-ecofont [13].

The aim of this paper was to modify two existing fonts (Source Sans Pro and Unizg Display) into three ecofonts, including two with dot patterns (Source Sans Pro Eco and UnizgDisplay Eco 1) and one with line patterns (UniZgDisplay Eco 2), to evaluate toner consumption, and to investigate the ability of observers to detect visual differences between samples with conventional fonts and ecofonts. Previous research conducted by other researchers have confirmed that when a ready-made ecofont is used, toner savings can be achieved. This study aimed to confirm these findings to ensure that the savings indeed result from the font design itself rather than any potential digital optimizations embedded in pre-existing ecofonts. For this study, wood-free paper was chosen as a printing substrate because it closely resembles the standard office paper used in everyday printing environments, ensuring that the study’s findings remain applicable to real-world office printing conditions. Additionally, office operations generate a large volume of printed materials with a short lifespan, making it essential to study environmentally friendly typography in this context.

2. Materials and Methods

To evaluate the efficiency of ecofonts in reducing toner consumption and to examine how the shape and size of empty spaces affect visual perception, this research was divided into two parts; the first part consisted in the development of ecofonts and the estimation of toner consumption, while the second part consisted in the evaluation of ecofont legibility. In Section 2.1.1, two standard fonts and three ecofonts are analyzed for toner savings, ensuring a controlled comparison of toner consumption. In Section 2.2.1, additional fonts are included to assess subjective factors like legibility and aesthetic appeal. These extra fonts were not part of the toner consumption estimation, as that concerned the user experience rather than objective savings.

2.1. Toner Consumption Estimation

In the first part of this study, the efficiency of reducing toner consumption was tested for three custom-designed ecofonts and compared to two standard fonts. Toner consumption was assessed using two methods: by measuring the weight of unprinted and printed paper samples, and by calculating the number of black pixels in the digital originals using image analysis.

2.1.1. Ecofont Development

For the purposes of this research, two conventional fonts (Source Sans Pro and UnizgDisplay) in regular style were modified into ecofonts using the Glyphs 3 software across five font sizes (8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 pt). The diameter of the holes has been determined to approximately match those in the characters of the Ecofont Vera Sans font, and the font surfaces are covered with numerous such holes. Source Sans Pro font is modified in one way, i.e., only with dots, and is designated as Source Sans Pro Eco (Figure 2). The UnizgDisplay font was modified in two ways—one version with dots (designated as UnizgDisplay Eco 1) and another with lines (designated as UnizgDisplay Eco 2) (Figure 3). Source Sans Pro is Adobe’s first open-source typeface family, designed by Paul D. Hunt, available on the Google Fonts website. The UnizgDisplay font is a serif font of the University of Zagreb.

2.1.2. Text Sample

After the font modification, a document was created in Microsoft Office Word using an English text sample from A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. For each font and font size, the document was formatted so that text from the introductory chapters of the book filled an entire page. To maximize the amount of text on a single page, all paragraphs were merged into a single continuous paragraph. The research included font sizes of 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 pt.

An identical text page was created for each font and font size, using both the conventional and the eco version of the font. The only distinction between the samples was that the ecofonts incorporated empty spaces within the characters (Figure 4). Once formatted, the document for each font and font size was saved as a PDF. The document settings for each font and size are presented in Table 1.

2.1.3. Printing Substrate

For this research, Navigator (The Navigator Company, Setúbal, Portugal) wood-free uncoated 80 g/m² A4 office paper (210 × 297 mm) was used as the printing substrate (Table 2). The paper was conditioned to room conditions (23 ± 1 °C and 50 ± 2%) for at least 24 h before printing. Ten A4 paper samples were prepared for the printing of each font and font size.

2.1.4. Printing Process

The PDF samples created with the text sample (Figure 4) were opened in Adobe Acrobat Reader (version 2023.003.20201) and printed using a Canon L11121E (Canon, Tokyo, Japan) laser printer. A single Topjet H-Q2612A/FX10/703 (Topjet, Zhuhai, China) black toner cartridge was used throughout the entire test to ensure consistency. The print settings were kept at their default values, and care was taken to print at the actual size (Page Scaling: None) to avoid any distortion of the original documents. After printing, the samples were left to reacclimatize for at least 24 h. During testing, the relative humidity in the room was measured at 59% ± 10%, and the temperature was measured at 23 °C ± 1 °C.

2.1.5. Weight Measurement of Printed Samples

The weight of each paper sample was measured before and after printing using an Acculab ALC-210.4 (Sartorius, Oakvilleu, ON, Canada) analytical balance (Figure 5). The difference between the weight of the samples before and after printing represented the weight of the toner used. Average values of ten measurements are presented as mean ± SD. Toner savings (%) were then calculated by comparing the toner weight used for the regular font printing with that used for the ecofont printing.

2.1.6. Image Analysis

Additionally, toner consumption was estimated by calculating the percentage of black pixels using the ApFill Ink & Toner Coverage Calculator (version 6.1.7355), and software settings presented in Table 3. The PDF digital originals were imported into the software, and the percentage of black pixels in the samples was calculated.

2.2. Legibility of Ecofonts

In the second part of this research, the aim was to investigate the ability of observers to detect visual differences between samples with conventional fonts and ecofonts. A visual test was conducted, consisting of a side-by-side comparison of prints using both regular and ecofonts. The study included six ecofonts, which were compared to five regular fonts. The only difference between the fonts in the comparison was that the eco-friendly variants contained empty spaces within the characters.

2.2.1. Fonts Used in Legibility Test

The study included five regular fonts (Arial, Times New Roman, Bitstream Vera Sans, Source Sans Pro, and UnizgDisplay) and six ecofonts (Arial Eco, Times New Roman Eco, Ecofont Vera Sans, Source Sans Pro Eco, UnizgDisplay Eco 1, and UnizgDisplay Eco 2) in five typographic sizes (8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 pt). The first three ecofonts (Arial Eco, Times New Roman Eco, and Ecofont Vera Sans) were downloaded from the internet and have already been tested for efficiency in reducing toner consumption in a preliminary study for this research, while the eco versions of Source Sans Pro and UnizgDisplay were custom-made fonts, as described in Section 2.1.1. Figure 6 shows a side-by-side comparison of the conventional fonts and their eco variants.

2.2.2. Document Sample

For each font and size, a document was created in Microsoft Office Word using the same text sample about the history of the Faculty of Graphic Arts in Croatian. The samples were saved in PDF format, opened in Adobe Acrobat 8 Professional (version 8.1.0), and printed using a Canon L11121E laser printer. The print settings were left at default, and to avoid any distortion of the original document, care was taken to print at actual size (Page Scaling: None). The printer settings were also kept at default. The Microsoft Office Word document settings for each font and size are shown in Table 4.

2.2.3. Participants

A total of 110 participants (38 men and 72 women) with normal or corrected vision took part in the visual test. All participants were students or staff members of the Faculty of Graphic Arts of the University of Zagreb. The majority of participants (77.3%) were aged between 18 and 24 years. Of the participants, 68 (61.1%) were either studying or had completed the Graphic Product Design course, while 35 (31.8%) were either studying or had completed the Graphic Engineering course. It is an assumption that all respondents have a basic knowledge of typography and graphic design.

2.2.4. Test Procedure

The samples were divided into five sets. The first four sets (Arial, Times New Roman, Bitstream Vera Sans, and Source Sans Pro) each consisted of two samples for each font size, which the participants viewed side by side—Sample A and Sample B. One of these samples contained text with a conventional font, and the other contained text with an ecofont. The samples were arranged randomly to prevent participants from predicting which one used the ecofont. Participants viewed two samples at a time, progressing from the smallest to the largest font size. The fifth set (UnizgDisplay) consisted of three samples—A, B, and C—representing the regular font, the ecofont with dots, and the ecofont with lines. Participants viewed three samples at a time, from the smallest to the largest font size. These samples were also arranged randomly. For each font and size, participants compared prints with regular and ecofonts and answered multiple-choice questions via a Google Forms survey on a PC.

Questions for the first four sets:

Do you notice any visual difference between the samples? Yes/No
Which sample is more appealing/higher quality? A/B/No difference
If using the lower-quality sample could save up to 30% on ink consumption, do you think the difference in quality is small enough to justify the compromise? Yes/No

Questions for the fifth set:

Do you notice any visual difference between the samples? Yes/No
Which sample is of the highest quality? A/B/C/No difference
Which sample is of the lowest quality? A/B/C/No difference
If using the lower-quality sample could save up to 30% on toner consumption, do you think the difference in quality is small enough to justify the compromise? Yes/No/Yes, but only for A/Yes, but only for B/Yes, but only for C

Participants were instructed to observe the samples in front of them and look for specific visual differences in print quality, if any existed. They were informed that the text in each sample was the same and were told to ignore any slant in the print. They were not told about the ecofonts and were unaware of the potential visual differences. Participants were allowed to adjust the distance between themselves and the samples, or to move the samples, but the samples were generally expected to remain on the table to ensure that all participants observed them under the same lighting conditions. The visual test setup and participants observing the test samples are shown in Figure 7.

2.2.5. Lighting During Visual Test by Respondents’

Diffuse fluorescent lighting was used for the test. The light level in the testing area, measured with a Kimo LX 100 lux meter, was 165 foot-candles (1776.05 lux).

2.3. Visual Assessment by Microscope

To closely examine the samples and any phenomena that occurred during the research, as well as to gain a deeper understanding of the results, a visual assessment using a microscope was conducted using the Olympus BX51 microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) and the Olympus DP72 camera (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan).

3. Results

3.1. Toner Consumption Estimation

3.1.1. Sample Weight Measurements

The results of individual sample weight measurements showed that using ecofonts can achieve savings ranging from 5.1% to 53.3%, depending on the type and size of the font, as well as the design of the ecofont.

The fonts are divided into two groups. The first group (Source Sans Pro) consists of the regular Source Sans Pro font and its eco variant. The second group (UnizgDisplay) includes the regular UnizgDisplay font and two eco variants—one with dots (UnizgDisplay Eco 1) and the other with lines (UnizgDisplay Eco 2). Since the amount of text on the page varied depending on the type and size of the font, only the regular font and its corresponding ecofont in the same group and size can be directly compared (e.g., Source Sans Pro 8 pt and Source Sans Pro Eco 8 pt).

For the Source Sans Pro group (Table 5, Figure 8), the savings were relatively modest. The greatest savings were observed with the ecofont at a size of 10 pt (19.4%), followed by 11 and 12 pt (around 17%). The smallest savings were recorded at 8 pt (7.2%). The design of the ecofont was based on Ecofont Vera Sans, which, in a study by Imjai et al. (2021), achieved savings up to 28% [14]. Therefore, the results for sizes 10 to 12 pt were as expected. However, the savings for 8 and 9 pt were noticeably lower. Interestingly, the greatest savings were observed at 10 pt, which is somewhat unusual, as savings would typically be expected to increase with font size. It is worth noting that variations in the number and size of the holes were observed in some samples, likely influencing the results.

In the UnizgDisplay group (Table 6, Figure 9), the highest savings were achieved with the dotted ecofont (UnizgDisplay Eco 1) at 12 pt (50%). The smallest savings were seen with the line ecofont (UnizgDisplay Eco 2) at 8 pt (5.1%). Overall, the dotted ecofont exhibited better savings across all sizes compared to the ecofont with lines. Despite the hole size for UnizgDisplay Eco 1 being based on Ecofont Vera Sans, significantly higher savings were observed in the UnizgDisplay group compared to both the Source Sans Pro and Vera Sans groups, which is unusual. In the UnizgDisplay group, savings generally increased with font size for both the dotted and line-based ecofonts.

It is important to note that not all font characters were adapted to ecofonts. All letters (upper and lowercase), numbers, and some punctuation marks were modified, but it was later discovered that certain letter combinations, such as “f + i” in the UnizgDisplay font, result in a ligature that was not adapted, meaning it lacks an ecofont substitute (Figure 10). This likely had a minor impact on the results, as such characters are rare in the text used.

3.1.2. Image Analysis

The results of the image analysis are presented in Table 7 and Table 8. For the Source Sans Pro group (Table 7), the analysis showed savings with ecofonts ranging from 18.9% to 20.97%, depending on the font size. Unlike the sample weight measurements, the image analysis indicates that ecofont efficiency increases with larger font sizes.

For the UnizgDisplay group (Table 8), the estimated savings range from 12.08% to 21.12%, which is significantly lower than the savings suggested by the sample weight measurements. However, the estimated savings for the Source Sans Pro and UnizgDisplay 1 ecofonts are similar, reflecting the comparable design of the empty spaces in these fonts. Interestingly, within the UnizgDisplay group, the highest savings were recorded at a font size of 10 pt.

The image analysis supports the findings from the sample weight measurements in showing that the dotted ecofont achieves greater savings compared to the line ecofont.

Measuring the number of black pixels on a sample ignores the phenomena that occur during printing, but this method has its limitations. Previous studies have shown that the percentage of black pixel coverage varies depending on the software used [5]. This raises the question of how different conversions within the software may affect the results. Moreover, a resolution of 600 dpi may not be sufficient for a relatively large document page containing many characters with small holes.

3.2. Visual Test by Respondents

The results are presented in Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, Table 12 and Table 13. The fonts were divided into five groups: Arial, Times New Roman, Vera Sans, Source Sans Pro, and UnizgDisplay. Most respondents were able to notice differences between the samples even at font sizes as small as 8 pt, but the differences generally became more pronounced at sizes above 10 pt. The results indicate that the effectiveness of ecofonts in visual testing depends on the shape and size of the white space within the characters.

The results of the visual difference testing indicated that the visual differences between the regular and ecofont samples in these groups were the most noticeable, aligning with the toner consumption measurements. The larger the holes within the font characters, the greater the savings in toner consumption, but the lower the quality of the prints (the holes become more noticeable, and the contrast between the text and background decreases). Based on the results, it can be concluded that most respondents found the visual quality of these groups acceptable up to a size of 10 pt. At sizes larger than 10 pt, the respondents’ opinions were more divided. However, it is worth noting that even at 11 pt, 9.1% of respondents in the Arial group and 7.3% in the Times New Roman group rated the ecofont sample higher than the regular font sample.

For the Vera Sans group (Table 11), compared to the Arial (Table 9) and Times New Roman (Table 10) groups, significantly fewer respondents were able to notice the difference between the regular font and the ecofont up to a size of 12 pt. Additionally, based on the results, it can be concluded that the Vera Sans ecofont is acceptable to most respondents at all sizes.

For the Source Sans Pro group (Table 12), savings ranged from 7.2% to 19.4%, the lowest savings, yet this group performed the best in visual testing. In all examined sizes, over 90% of respondents confirmed that the difference in quality between the samples was small enough to justify using the ecofont. At smaller sizes (up to 10 pt), only about 50% of respondents noticed a difference between the regular and ecofont samples.

The UnizgDisplay group (Table 13) includes a regular font and two ecofonts—one with dots and the other with lines. It is important to note that respondents in this group compared three samples, rather than two, as in the other groups, which likely influenced the results. It is possible that each of the two ecofonts would have been rated better if compared to the regular font with just one of the ecofonts. The recorded savings for the dotted ecofont (UnizgDisplay Eco 1) ranged from 13% to 50%, while for the line ecofont (UnizgDisplay Eco 2), savings ranged from 5.1% to 36%. According to the visual testing results, most respondents found the print quality of both ecofonts acceptable up to a size of 11 pt. The line ecofont was generally rated better than the dotted version, with 73.7% of respondents considering the quality of prints with this font as sufficiently good, even at a size of 12 pt.

The results confirmed that respondents can notice differences between regular and ecofonts even at smaller text sizes. As expected, the larger the size of the white space and the larger the font size, the easier it is for respondents to notice the differences. Nonetheless, for all groups, most respondents found the visual differences between regular and ecofonts negligible up to a size of 10 pt. In some groups, the differences were considered negligible even at a size of 12 pt. Therefore, it can be concluded that the quality of prints with ecofonts is satisfactory, and if significant savings in toner consumption can be achieved, the use of ecofonts is justified.

Since all the participants in the study were staff or students of the Faculty of Graphic Arts, it can be assumed that they are more sensitive to visual differences than the general population. However, this actually works in favor of the ecofonts. If they are deemed acceptable by this group, it is likely they would also be satisfactory for most of the population, although further research is needed. It has been observed that some participants rated the ecofont sample better than the regular font due to their preference for the lower contrast levels, i.e., the reduced blackening in the ecofont samples. Further research should investigate how lower text contrast influences participants’ perceptions. Additionally, relatively high-intensity lighting was used during the test, which likely allowed participants to better perceive details in the printed samples but may have made the contrast differences between prints less noticeable. It was observed that participants either noticed the holes or the difference in contrast. To further explore this aspect, the tests should be repeated under lower lighting conditions. Furthermore, the effect of inkjet printers on the results remains an open question. Ink spreading on the paper might allow ecofonts to achieve even better results in visual tests; so, further research should compare samples printed with both inkjet and laser printers.

3.3. Visual Assessment by Microscope

To better understand the relationship between the characteristics of empty space and the results, a microscopic visual assessment was conducted. Figure 11 shows the examined ecofonts in 10 pt size. The visual analysis of microscopic images clearly demonstrates differences in the print structure among various ecofonts. The variations in the distribution of hollow dots within the letter indicate differences in toner consumption. Visually, it can be observed that Arial Eco and Times New Roman Eco show the highest distribution of empty space (dots), while Source Sans Pro Eco and UnizgDisplay Eco 2 show a higher filling of the black colored surface and significantly less empty space. Although a quantitative measurement is not provided, the observed differences are clearly visible and align with expectations regarding toner consumption.

In general, ecofonts with more empty space tend to show better results in terms of toner consumption but weaker results in visual assessments. The size of the empty space in the printed samples is smaller than in the digital original due to phenomena occurring during printing, particularly the interaction between the toner and the printing substrate. Printer performance inconsistencies observed during toner mass measurements resulted in more pronounced holes in certain font samples compared to others. Samples with larger holes yielded greater savings because less toner was used on the paper. Printer operation likely influenced the weaker results of the Source Sans Pro group when compared to the UnizgDisplay group, as the image analysis of the digital originals suggested that savings should be similar. The actual savings were significantly different (Figure 12). The use of a compatible replacement toner cartridge may have also contributed to this discrepancy. Therefore, the final effectiveness of ecofonts in reducing toner consumption and their visual quality largely depends on the type of laser and the printer performance level.

In addition to printer performance variations, differences were observed in the prints depending on the version of Adobe Acrobat Reader used. Further testing is necessary to better explore the impact of PDF reader software on the effectiveness of ecofonts in reducing toner consumption.

Another important factor to consider is the moisture content in the paper when measuring the sample weight before and after printing. Although an attempt was made to conduct the research under controlled conditions, the success of this approach is questionable. During printing, it is not possible to achieve identical conditions because with each new print, the amount of toner decreases, heating occurs, etc. Problems in the electrophotographic printing process can arise from improper toner transfer onto the paper, damage to the photoreceptor, overheating of the fusing mechanism, or misalignment between the toner and paper surface. In addition, the heterogeneous surface of the paper also contributes, and printers that are in everyday office use (and the printer used in the study is an office printer) are very often not of very high quality and with limited printing performance. In terms of the visual aspect of the testing, it should be noted that the visual samples with lower quality (those with the largest hole sizes and smallest contrast) were used for the examination.

4. Conclusions

The results of the toner consumption tests demonstrated that significant savings can be achieved by using ecofonts, although the research did not provide entirely reliable quantitative results. The estimated savings varied depending on the measurement method. Every measurement method used in this research has its weaknesses. Therefore, none of them provides a fully reliable assessment of ecofonts’ effectiveness in reducing toner consumption. The results showed that for most participants, the differences between prints with regular fonts and ecofonts were not significant up to a size of 11 pt. Therefore, it can be concluded that the quality of prints with ecofonts is satisfactory, and if significant savings in toner consumption can be achieved, the use of ecofonts is justified. The design of the ecofont Vera Sans struck a good balance between savings and visual quality, making it a solid foundation for further ecofont development. However, this study is just a small step toward a better understanding of the efficiency of ecofonts. Future research should further explore the ideal balance between toner consumption savings and visual quality to develop better-performing ecofonts. Future research could focus on a more detailed analysis of the impact of different printing technologies, including differences in toner consumption between electrophotographic printers, and the impact of printing settings. In addition, the use of different text file formats is recognized as one factor influencing results as well as phases of the printing process. It would also be useful to investigate the role of the paper type, as its texture, absorbency, and optical properties can affect the visibility and readability of ecofonts, which may indirectly affect their acceptance. In order to gain a more complete picture of the visual experience of ecofonts, future research should include a broader target group of respondents. In addition to the academic community, it would be useful to analyze the perception of ecofonts among professionals who frequently work with printed materials, as well as among the general user population. In this way, a more representative picture of the readability, aesthetic acceptability, and practicality of ecofonts in different contexts of use could be obtained.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.G. and M.V.; methodology, A.G. and M.V.; software, A.G.; validation, A.G., M.V., R.K., K.I.I. and T.C. formal analysis, A.G.; investigation, A.G.; resources, M.V. and R.K.; data curation, A.G. and M.V.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G. and M.V.; writing—review and editing, R.K., K.I.I. and T.C.; visualization, A.G. and M.V.; supervision, R.K.; project administration, M.V.; funding acquisition, R.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

Aydemir, C.; Yenidoğan, S.; Tutak, D. Sustainability in the Print and Packaging Industry. Cellul. Chem. Technol. 2023, 57, 565–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bigelow, C.; Dowd-Hinkle, D.J.; Horowitz, D.; Voorhees, G. Sustainable by Design: An Investigation into Ecologically Friendly Typograhpy; RIT, Printing Industry Center: Rochester, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
Steenis, N.D.; van Herpen, E.; van der Lans, I.A.; Ligthart, T.N.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Consumer response to packaging design: The role of packaging materials and graphics in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 286–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Stampfl, V.; Gregor-Svetec, D. Use of Ecofont software in digital printing on permanent papers. J. Print Media Technol. Res. 2018, 7, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Milošević, R.; Nedeljković, U.; Banjanin, B.; Novaković, D.; Kašiković, N. The analysis of ink jet printed eco-font efficiency. J. Graph. Eng. Des. 2016, 7, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bolanča Mirković, I.; Bolanča, Z. Storage of Documents as a Function of Sustainability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sawyer, B.D.; Dobres, J.; Chahine, N.; Reimer, B. The great typography bake-off: Comparing legibility at-a-glance. Ergonomics 2020, 63, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dolić, J.; Pibernik, J.; Muftić, I.; Mandić, L. Temporal typography: The impact of animation speed and interpolation on information transmission efficiency. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Symposium GRID 2024, Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića, 3–5 November 2016; Department of Graphic Engineering and Design, University of Novi Sad Faculty of Technical Sciences: Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića, 2024; Volume 6, pp. 827–833. [Google Scholar]
Günay, M. The Impact of Typography in Graphic Design. Int. J. Eurasia Soc. Sci. 2024, 15, 1446–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Yadav, P.; Chakrabarti, D.; Bisoyi, D. Typography as a statement of Design. In Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Conference HWWE 2014, Guwahati, India, 3–5 December 2014; p. 6. [Google Scholar]
Ren, H.; Liu, Y.; Naren, G.; Lu, J. The impact of multidirectional text typography on text readability in word clouds. Displays 2024, 83, 102724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aydemir, E. Comparison of the Printing Areas for Commonly Used Font Types: Example of Green Information. Eur. J. Tech. 2019, 9, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Možina, K.; Likar, K.; Muck, D.; Pavlović, Ž. (Eds.) Legibility of eco fonts. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Graphic Engineering and Design GRID 2016, Grafički centar GRID, Novi Sad, Serbia, 3–5 November 2016; pp. 387–393. [Google Scholar]
Imjai, T.; Wattanapanich, C.; Madardam, U.; Garcia, R. Analysis of Ink/Toner Savings of English and Thai Ecofonts for Sustainable Printing. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Figure 1. Comparison of the conventional font Bitstream Vera Sans (left) with two ecofonts: Ecofont Vera Sans with dots (center) and Ryman Eco with lines (right).

Figure 2. Comparison of the conventional Source Sans Pro font (top) and the modified eco-friendly Source Sans Pro Eco variant (bottom).

Figure 3. Comparison of the conventional UniZgDisplay font (first row) and the two modified eco-friendly UniZgDisplay variants: UniZgDisplay Eco 1 with dots (second row) and UniZgDisplay Eco 2 with lines (third row).

Figure 4. A side-by-side comparison of the text samples with the conventional font displayed on the (left) (Source Sans Pro) and the ecofont (Source Sans Pro Eco) on the (right) in the size of 10 pt.

Figure 5. Measuring of the paper weight on the Acculab ALC-210.4 analytical balance.

Figure 6. Conventional fonts (left) and ecofonts (right).

Figure 7. The visual test setup and procedure.

Figure 8. Comparison of average toner weight for the Source Sans Pro set.

Figure 9. Comparison of toner weight for the UnizgDisplay set.

Figure 10. An example of an unexpected character that was printed as a regular font even in the text with the ecofont.

Figure 11. The letter “m” from each ecofont in 10 pt size: Arial Eco (top left), Times New Roman Eco (top right), Ecofont Vera Sans (center left), Source Sans Pro Eco (center right), UnizgDisplay Eco 1 (bottom left), and UnizgDisplay Eco 2 (bottom right).

Figure 12. The same pattern printed in different time periods, i.e., after 50 prints (top left), 1st print after 10 min that printer was not in use (top right), 2nd print after 10 min that printer was not in use (bottom left), and 1st print after 20 min that printer was not in use (bottom right).

Table 1. Microsoft Office Word document settings for printing of text samples.

Property	Value
Size	A4 (210 × 297 mm)
Margins	Normal (top: 25 mm, bottom: 25 mm, left: 25 mm, right: 25 mm)
Line spacing	1
Alignment	Justified

Table 2. Navigator Universal paper specifications (given by the producer).

Property	Standard Used for Determination	Value
Whiteness CIE	ISO 11475	169
Opacity %	ISO 2471	95
Moisture %	ISO 287	4
Bendtsen Roughness mL/min	ISO 8791/2	120
Thickness μm	ISO 534	110
Bulk μm/g/m²	_	1.38

Table 3. ApFill Ink & Toner Coverage Calculator settings.

Setting	Value
Render PDF page using	Media box
Default Resolution	Most Accurate (600 dpi)
Default Paper Size	A4

Table 4. Microsoft Office Word document settings in printing of text for Legibility Test.

Setting	Value
Size	A4 (210 × 297 mm)
Margins	Normal (top: 25 mm, bottom: 25 mm, left: 25 mm, right: 25 mm)
Line spacing	1.5
Alignment	Justified

Table 5. Results of the toner savings for the Source Sans Pro font group (between results obtained between regular and ecofont version).

Font Type	Font Size (pt)	Savings (%)
Source Sans Pro	8	−7.2
	9	−9.6
	10	−19.4
	11	−17.2
	12	−17.4

Table 6. Results of the toner savings for the UnizgDisplay group (between results obtained between regular and ecofont version).

Font Type	Font Size (pt)	Savings (%)
Font Type	Font Size (pt)	Eco 1	Eco 2
UnizgDisplay	8	−13.0	−5.1
	9	−15.3	−9.3
	10	−29.6	−21.7
	11	−38.0	−33.1
	12	−50.3	−36.4

Table 7. Results of the image analysis for the Source Sans Pro group.

Font and Font Size	Surface Coverage by Black Pixels (%)	Savings (%)
Source Sans Pro 8 pt	8.57	-
Source Sans Pro Eco 8 pt	6.95	−18.9
Source Sans Pro 9 pt	9.13	-
Source Sans Pro Eco 9 pt	7.33	−19.72
Source Sans Pro 10 pt	8.83	-
Source Sans Pro Eco 10 pt	7.06	−20.05
Source Sans Pro 11 pt	8.45	-
Source Sans Pro Eco 11 pt	6.71	−20.59
Source Sans Pro 12 pt	8.44	-
Source Sans Pro Eco 12 pt	6.67	−20.97

Table 8. Results of the image analysis for the UnizgDisplay group.

Font and Font Size	Surface Coverage by Black Pixels (%)	Savings (%)
UnizgDisplay 8 pt	5.99	-
UnizgDisplay Eco 1 8 pt	4.82	−19.53
UnizgDisplay Eco 2 8 pt	5.23	−12.69
UnizgDisplay 9 pt	6.37	-
UnizgDisplay Eco 1 9 pt	5.14	−19.31
UnizgDisplay Eco 2 9 pt	5.6	−12.09
UnizgDisplay 10 pt	6.06	-
UnizgDisplay Eco 1 10 pt	4.78	−21.12
UnizgDisplay Eco 2 10 pt	5.3	−12.54
UnizgDisplay 11 pt	6.04	-
UnizgDisplay Eco 1 11 pt	4.81	−20.36
UnizgDisplay Eco 2 11 pt	5.2	−13.91
UnizgDisplay 12 pt	5.96	-
UnizgDisplay Eco 1 12 pt	4.76	−20.13
UnizgDisplay Eco 2 12 pt	5.24	−12.08

Table 9. Results of the visual testing for the Arial group.

Font and Font Size	Arial 8 pt	Arial 9 pt	Arial 10 pt	Arial 11 pt	Arial 12 pt
The percentage (%) of respondents who noticed a difference between the samples	81.8	77.3	90	96.4	96.4
The percentage (%) of respondents who rated the sample with the regular font as higher quality	58.2	65.5	80	87.3	93.6
The percentage (%) of respondents who rated the sample with the ecofont as higher quality	23.6	12.7	10	9.1	2.7
The percentage (%) of respondents who considered the difference between the samples negligible	90.9	83.6	69.1	48.2	42.7

Table 10. Results of the visual testing for the Times New Roman group.

Font and Font Size	Times 8 pt	Times 9 pt	Times 10 pt	Times 11 pt	Times 12 pt
The percentage (%) of respondents who noticed a difference between the samples	81.8	81.8	90	93.6	98.2
The percentage (%) of respondents who rated the sample with the regular font as higher quality	73.6	76.4	83.6	86.4	93.6
The percentage (%) of respondents who rated the sample with the ecofont as higher quality	8.2	5.5	6.4	7.3	4.5
The percentage (%) of respondents who considered the difference between the samples negligible	88.2	90.9	77.3	50.9	43.6

Table 11. Results of the visual testing for the Vera Sans group.

Font and Font Size	Vera 8 pt	Vera 9 pt	Vera 10 pt	Vera 11 pt	Vera 12 pt
The percentage (%) of respondents who noticed a difference between the samples	40	62.7	61.8	75.5	89.1
The percentage (%) of respondents who rated the sample with the regular font as higher quality	23.6	43.6	50.9	67.3	83.6
The percentage (%) of respondents who rated the sample with the ecofont as higher quality	18.2	19.1	10.9	8.2	5.5
The percentage (%) of respondents who considered the difference between the samples negligible	99.1	97.3	95.5	90.9	69.1

Table 12. Results of the visual testing for the Source Sans Pro group.

Font and Font Size	Source 8 pt	Source 9 pt	Source 10 pt	Source 11 pt	Source 12 pt
The percentage (%) of respondents who noticed a difference between the samples	38.2	52.7	59.1	64.5	77.3
The percentage (%) of respondents who rated the sample with the regular font as higher quality	24.5	42.7	40	50	66.4
The percentage (%) of respondents who rated the sample with the ecofont as higher quality	14.5	10.9	19.1	14.5	10.9
The percentage (%) of respondents who considered the difference between the samples negligible	98.2	97.3	96.4	97.3	90.9

Table 13. Results of the visual testing for the UnizgDisplay group.

Font and Font Size	Unizg 8 pt	Unizg 9 pt	Unizg 10 pt	Unizg 11 pt	Unizg 12 pt
The percentage (%) of respondents who noticed a difference between the samples	70	74.5	80	89.1	89.9
The percentage (%) of respondents who rated the sample with the regular font as higher quality	43.6	47.3	56.4	64.5	73.6
The percentage (%) of respondents who rated the sample with the ecofont 1 as higher quality	2.7	10.9	12.7	17.3	8.2
The percentage (%) of respondents who rated the sample with the ecofont 2 as higher quality	23.6	16.4	10.9	7.3	8.2
The percentage (%) of respondents who rated the sample with the regular font as the lowest quality	10.9	12.7	5.5	16.4	2.7
The percentage (%) of respondents who rated the sample with the ecofont 1 as the lowest quality	40	41.8	50	54.5	64.5
The percentage (%) of respondents who rated the sample with the ecofont 2 as the lowest quality	19.1	20	24.5	18.2	22.7
The percentage (%) of respondents who considered the difference between the samples negligible	71.8	75.5	68.2	59.1	48.2
The percentage (%) of respondents who considered the difference negligible only between the regular font and Ecofont 1	6.4	3.6	5.5	5.5	8.2
The percentage (%) of respondents who considered the difference negligible only between the regular font and Ecofont 2	12.7	11.8	12.7	24.5	25.5

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gudelj, A.; Vukoje, M.; Itrić Ivanda, K.; Kulčar, R.; Cigula, T. Efficiency of Ecofonts in Legibility and Toner Consumption. Sci 2025, 7, 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci7010029

AMA Style

Gudelj A, Vukoje M, Itrić Ivanda K, Kulčar R, Cigula T. Efficiency of Ecofonts in Legibility and Toner Consumption. Sci. 2025; 7(1):29. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci7010029

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gudelj, Ante, Marina Vukoje, Katarina Itrić Ivanda, Rahela Kulčar, and Tomislav Cigula. 2025. "Efficiency of Ecofonts in Legibility and Toner Consumption" Sci 7, no. 1: 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci7010029

APA Style

Gudelj, A., Vukoje, M., Itrić Ivanda, K., Kulčar, R., & Cigula, T. (2025). Efficiency of Ecofonts in Legibility and Toner Consumption. Sci, 7(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci7010029

Article Menu