Hi Thomas,

Very fair question.

When we originally developed the instrument, we found that this formulation of Q5 most precisely captured the item "readability" we had in mind. That's also why I kept it as the "default formulation" in this article. Because we also anticipated exactly what you're asking about, we gave participants in our first studies a clear and understandable definition of typography along with the questionnaire, which worked really well.

However, in later studies, we did reformulate to something along the lines of "Everything was well readable," and found that this also led to perfectly valid results.

That being said, both seem to be possible and not impact the questionnaires reliability or consistency.

Thanks for reading and thanks for the thoughtful question. :)