## 3 Results with Discussion  
### Experiment 1: Speed of Reading of Task Instructions in Terms of Typographic Solution  
Figure 9 (table values are in Appendix B) shows a descriptive statistic of Experiment 1 presenting mean values of reading time for Tasks 1-5 (task factors) with standard deviation for the typographic solution. Upon analysing the descriptive statistics for five distinct tasks and the typographic solution devised for the instructions (Latin square), the following outcomes were derived. It is evident from Figure 9 that students displayed consistent reading speeds when presented with instructions in black typefaces (TS1 mean = 10.05 s, SD = 2.47 s; TS2 mean = 10.64 s, SD = 2.91 s; TS3 mean = 10.85 s, SD = 1.52 s). Conversely, a slightly longer duration was observed for reading instructions presented in red typeface (TS4) (mean = 11.97 s, SD = 4.99 s) and in white typeface on a blue frame (TS5) (mean = 11.94 s, SD = 2.90 s). Figure 10 presents the estimated marginal means of Time for groups of the Latin square A-E (Experiment 1). Figure 10: _Cont._  
The data indicate that the highest estimated marginal means for the dependent variable, reading time, were observed for Task 1 with typographic solutions TS1-TS5, followed by Task 4 and Task 3. Conversely, the lowest values were associated with Task 2 and Task 5. Table 5 presents the ANOVA statistical analysis results for the reading speed of the task instructions using typographic solutions, with time as the dependent variable. Upon examining the variables in Table 5, it is apparent that neither the shape nor the colour of the typeface in which the instructions are presented yields statistically significant  
Figure 10: Estimated marginal means of Time for groups of the Latin square (**A**–**E**) in Experiment 1 analysing dependent variable reading time in dependence of variables tasks Task 1–5 and typographic solutions TS1–TS5. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Source**} & **Type III Sum** & \multirow{2}{*}{**df**} & **Mean** & \multirow{2}{*}{**F**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**_p_**} \\  & **of Squares** & & & **Square** & \\ \hline Model & 3233.42 a & 13 & 248.73 & 52.42 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline Typographic solution & 14.19 & 4 & 3.55 & 0.75 & 0.578 \\ \hline TASK & 123.00 & 4 & 30.75 & 6.48 & 0.005 \\ \hline INSTRUCTION/typographic solution & 20.65 & 4 & 5.16 & 1.09 & 0.406 \\ \hline Error & 56.94 & 12 & 4.75 & & \\ \hline Total & 3290.37 & 25 & & & \\ \hline a. R Squared = 0.983 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.964). & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Tests of between-subject effects. Dependent variable: time. effects on the speed of reading the task instructions. Both the Typographic solution factor and the combination of instructions with typographic solution exhibit _p_-values greater than 0.05, indicating a lack of statistical significance. However, the analysis indicates statistical significance in the case of the Task factor, with a _p_-value of 0.005, suggesting that the speed of reading the instructions is contingent upon the content of the task text. To identify significantly different groups within this variable, an additional post hoc analysis was conducted using [PERSON]'s multiple comparison procedure, revealing two homogeneous subsets. The 1 st subset comprises instructions for the 5 th and 2 nd tasks, showing no significant difference in the speed of reading. The second subset includes Tasks 3 and 4, as well as Task 1, with no difference between Tasks 3 and 4 and a significant difference from the fifth and second tasks in terms of reading speed. Regarding task 1, also belonging to subset 2, the analysis demonstrates that students took the longest average time (mean = 14.85 s) to read the instructions for completing the task. Conversely, students took the least time on average to read the instructions for the 5 th task (mean = 8.27 s), irrespective of the shape and colour of the typeface.