Exploratory font selection using crowdsourced attributes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents interfaces for exploring large collections of fonts for design tasks. Existing interfaces typically list fonts in a long, alphabetically-sorted menu that can be challenging and frustrating to explore. We instead propose three interfaces for font selection. First, we organize fonts using high-level descriptive attributes, such as "dramatic" or "legible." Second, we organize fonts in a tree-based hierarchical menu based on perceptual similarity. Third, we display fonts that are most similar to a user's currently-selected font. These tools are complementary; a user may search for "graceful" fonts, select a reasonable one, and then refine the results from a list of fonts similar to the selection. To enable these tools, we use crowdsourcing to gather font attribute data, and then train models to predict attribute values for new fonts. We use attributes to help learn a font similarity metric using crowdsourced comparisons. We evaluate the interfaces against a conventional list interface and find that our interfaces are preferred to the baseline. Our interfaces also produce better results in two real-world tasks: finding the nearest match to a target font, and font selection for graphic designs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".