Anecdotal evidence shows that this author's formatted texts are effective in a variety of educational settings for both children and adults. However, this author was curious to find out how the guidelines established in her research about English typography would correlate with Hebrew typography. One variable that could be tested was Hebrew font preference.

This author designed a survey containing samples the Hatzi Kaddish prayer set in ten different fonts available in the DavkaWriter Platinum word processor. The goal was to get data from both novice and experienced Hebrew readers about which font they preferred. Each font was set to approximately the same visual size on the page (not necessarily the same point size).

The respondents were asked to look at each font sample for no more than ten to fifteen seconds and then mark whether they "liked" or "didn't like" the font. The criteria for "liking" a font was left to the respondent to decide. The names of the fonts were not provided to avoid respondent's opinion being influenced by knowing a font's name.

Four cohorts were surveyed:

1. School of Jewish Music, Hebrew College, Newton Centre, Massachusetts.
   This was a group of eighteen graduate students and staff. The students were enrolled in a program for cantorial ordination or certification in cantorial arts. Some of these students were simultaneously studying for a Master in Jewish Education.
   
   
   
   

   Cohort: SJM Students & Staff	Raw Data / Percentages
   Font Name	Liked	Didn't Like
   Davka David	12 / 67%	6 / 33%
   GuttmanD FrankNew	16 / 89%	2 / 11%
   Davka FrankRuhl	14 / 78%	4 / 22%
   GuttmanD Ashknaz	2 / 11%	16 / 89%
   Davka Drogolin	7 / 39%	11 / 61%
   Davka Hadassah	16 / 89%	2 / 11%
   GuttmanD Hatzvi	1 / 6%	17 / 94%
   GuttmanD Keren	9 / 50%	9 / 50%
   Davka Miriam	0 / 0%	18 / 100%
   GuttmanD Roedelheim2	9 / 50%	9 / 50%

   
   

   Figure 31:
   Results of font preferences for SJM Students & Staff
   
   
2. Third and fourth grade supplementary Hebrew school students.
   This was a group of 46 third and fourth grade students in the supplementary Hebrew school where this author worked. All of these students were novice Hebrew readers. They were not expected to be able to read the Hatzi Kaddish. They were only expected to indicate their font preference.
   
   
   
   

   Cohort: TBE Students	Raw Data / Percentages
   Font Name	Liked	Didn't Like
   Davka David	34 / 74%	12 / 26%
   GuttmanD FrankNew	32 / 70%	14 / 30%
   Davka FrankRuhl	36 / 78%	10 / 22%
   GuttmanD Ashknaz	13 / 28%	33 / 72%
   Davka Drogolin	18 / 39%	28 / 61%
   Davka Hadassah	28 / 61%	18 / 39%
   GuttmanD Hatzvi	17 / 37%	29 / 63%
   GuttmanD Keren	24 / 52%	22 / 48%
   Davka Miriam	15 / 33%	31 / 67%
   GuttmanD Roedelheim2	31 / 67%	15 / 33%

   
   

   Figure 33:
   Results of font preferences for TBE Students
   
   
3. 49 anonymous respondents from three ListServ communities:
   • Hebrew College students
     
     
   • Women Cantors Network
     
     
   • IMUN, graduates of the lay leadership workshop run by United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
   
   An e-mail was sent to these ListServ communities with a PDF of the survey attached to the e-mail. The respondents were asked to print the PDF before going to a web site to enter their font preferences. It is not known if any of the respondents viewed the PDF on their computer screen, which might have altered a respondent's opinion of each font.
   
   
   

   Cohort: Listservs	Raw Data / Percentages
   Font Name	Liked	Didn't Like
   Davka David	22 / 45%	27 / 55%
   GuttmanD FrankNew	44 / 90%	5 / 10%
   Davka FrankRuhl	44 / 90%	5 / 10%
   GuttmanD Ashknaz	10 / 20%	39 / 80%
   Davka Drogolin	24 / 49%	25 / 51%
   Davka Hadassah	39 / 80%	10 / 20%
   GuttmanD Hatzvi	8 / 16%	41 / 84%
   GuttmanD Keren	35 / 71%	14 / 29%
   Davka Miriam	4 / 8%	45 / 92%
   GuttmanD Roedelheim2	29 / 59%	20 / 41%

   
   

   Figure 32:
   Results of font preferences for Listservs
   
   
4. 2011 GISHA Conference attendees, Hebrew College, Newton Centre, Massachusetts

   These were all teachers, parents or other individuals interested in making Hebrew education accessible to all types of learners.

   
   

   Cohort: GISHA Conference	Raw Data / Percentages
   Font Name	Liked	Didn't Like
   Davka David	34 / 54%	29 / 46%
   GuttmanD FrankNew	55 / 87%	8 / 13%
   Davka FrankRuhl	54 / 86%	9 / 14%
   GuttmanD Ashknaz	22 / 34%	42 / 66%
   Davka Drogolin	32 / 52%	29 / 48%
   Davka Hadassah	53 / 84%	10 / 16%
   GuttmanD Hatzvi	13 / 21%	50 / 79%
   GuttmanD Keren	50 / 77%	15 / 23%
   Davka Miriam	4 / 6%	59 / 94%
   GuttmanD Roedelheim2	46 / 73%	17 / 27%

   
   

   Figure 34:
   Results of font preferences for GISHA Conference
   
   

The survey was done informally and without any controls to keep track of the actual Hebrew reading ability of each participant. Nor, were any of the participants asked to read the text they were scoring. The 3rd and 4th grade student cohort was more diverse in their preferences, but that may be due to the fact that this author did not establish the criteria for "liking" a font. Some of the students admitted after they handed in their surveys that some of the fonts were "fun" to look at. This may account for the higher scores in that cohort for Hatzvi and Miriam fonts.

The results of the survey indicate overall that this author's premise for using the Davka FrankRuhl font is validated. As noted earlier in Strizver article on "Typography for Children", favored fonts have rounded counters (the enclosed shapes within characters, such as the inner area of the letter 'b', or in the case of Hebrew, the letter ' ס' (samech). FrankRuhl is not too condensed, too wide, too bold or too hairline in nature.