Sofie Beier Sofi
e Beierbis
ISBN 978-90-6369-271-1
designing for legibility
Reading Letters is a book about typeface legibility.
In our everyday life’s we constantly encounter a diversity of reading mat-ters, these being display types on traffic signage, printed text in novels, newspaper headlines, or ones own writing on a computer screen. All these conditions demand different considerations of the typefaces applied.
In a straightforward manner, the book discusses these aspects by drawing on typography history, designers’ ideas, and by reviewing available scientific data concerning the process of reading.
Easily accessible, and heavily illustrated, this is a most have for any designer looking for guidance when choosing a typeface for a given project.
Sofie Beier is a type designer, researcher and lecturer employed at the School of Design under
The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts. She holds a PhD from the Royal College of Art in London,
on the subject of typeface familiarity and its relation to legibility.
Reading Lettersdesigning for legibility
Copyright © 2011 Sofie Beier and BIS Publishers
Sofie BeierOvink
bis PublishersHet SieraadPostjesweg 11057 DT AmsterdamThe NetherlandsT (+) 31 (0)20 515 02 30F (+) 31 (0)20 515 02 [email protected]
ISBN 978-90-6369-271-1
All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owners.
Reading Letters was partly funded by the Danish Centre for Design Research.
Text and designTypeface
Publisher
Reading LettersSOFIE BEIER
bis Publishers
designing for legibility
Introduction · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 7
1. Test methods · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 9
Readers’ preferences
Continuous reading
The search task
Visual accuracy threshold
2. Understanding reading · · · · · · · · · · · 21
Letter identification
Single letter and word superiority effects
Word wholes
Parts, wholes and context
3. Early approaches to legibility · · · · · · · 31
4. Theories on letter structure · · · · · · · · 37
Edward Johnston
Gerrit Noordzij
Frank E. Blokland
5. Stroke and contrast in history · · · · · · · 47
The Old Style stroke
The Romain du Roi
The Baskerville stroke
The Didone stroke
The Geometric stroke
6. The individual letter · · · · · · · · · · · · · 69
Internal letter relation
Scientific results
Designers’ ideas
7. Type for text sizes · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 85
Block text
Proportions
M-formula
Ink & printing
Type for screen
8. Type at a romandistance · · · · · · · · · · 105
Compensation for loss of detail
Proportions
9. The capitals · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 113
Roman inscriptions
Relative width
Which is more legible?
10. Sans or serif? · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 123
Ideas in favour of the serif
Scientific findings
Familiarity of the sans serif
11. Hanging and ranging figures · · · · · 131
12. The italic evolution · · · · · · · · · · · 137
The Cancelleresca italic
The development of the Didone italic
Cursive italic & sloped roman
13. Letter spacing · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 149
14. Familiarity in history · · · · · · · · · · · 155
Reading and writing in the Middle Ages
Blackletter and Latin types
The Civilité type
John Baskerville and his peers
Didone and the French Revolution
15. The validation of legibility · · · · · · · 171
Index · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 178
Contents
AcknowledgmentParts of the book are based on my PhD thesis ‘Typeface Legibility: towards defining
familiarity’, written while affiliated with the Royal College of Art, London, UK.
Doing the development of the book, a number of people have kindly informed
me on various aspects of their own expertise. In this regard I would like espe-
cially to thank Dan Reynolds for his helpful feedback on the final draft and for
providing me with images of blackletter type. I would also like to thank Kevin
Larson and Mary Dyson for general advice on scientific legibility research. I am
very grateful for the input given by James Mosley enlightening me on historical
matters, and for the help provided by Jan Middendorp pointing me towards use-
ful typographical images.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Chris Burke for putting me in contact with the
Tschichold estate, Gerard Unger for providing drawings of Dwiggins’ puppet, and
Eric Kindel for the test material applied by The Graphic Information Research Unit.
Last but not least, a big thanks to all the designers and foundries who so kindly
have supplied me with images of their work. Without these, the book would
never have been the same.
Sofie Beier
IntroductionThis book will, on the one hand, help type designers create highly legible type-
faces and, on the other hand, help graphic designers determine the optimal
typeface for a given project.
Few of us will appreciate if the typeface we read is legible; however, we
quickly notice if it is not. Creating type for optimal legibility is therefore a
thankless task, since readers only register your failures. For instance, typefaces
presented under difficult reading conditions, such as small point sizes in low-
quality newspaper print or street and building signs viewed from afar, need to
be created in specific ways to function at their very best.
To understand the topic in depth, two very different areas of expertise
have been consulted. One area is that of punchcutters and designers who,
through their experience, possess useful knowledge that can help us better
understand the various aspects of the matter; the other is that of academic
reading research, where a significant amount of relevant scientific studies
have been carried out over the years.
Type designers have a subtle understanding for details and nuances that
seem difficult to test in a laboratory, but many of the theories and ideas
presented by designers do in fact lend themselves to laboratory testing.
Some theories have already been verified, while others have been rejected.
The outcome of this research has yet to be made widely available to design-
ers. Consequently, many designers make assumptions without really knowing
whether they are right or wrong. In a synergy between the two topics, this
book will evaluate typeface legibility from different angles in an effort
to provide useful information that can, hopefully, be transferred to practice.
7
arm
asce
nder
aper
ture
x-height
cap height
desc
ende
rlo
opta
il
cont
rast
stem
axis
coun
ter
cros
sbar
ear
shou
lder
tear
drop
term
inal
junc
tion
spin
eey
e
Cons
titu
ent
part
s of
the
lett
ers
Ttyp
ogra
phsc
e
1Test methods
Scientific studies on legibility-related matters have been carried out in a
number of ways over the years. Many of the methods have been criticised
for being insufficient. An argument often raised is that we must understand
legibility fully before attempting to study it. One implication of this would be
that all existing test methods are ineffective, since reading is such a complex
process that no single method can ever produce sufficiently useful results.
A common criticism is that a reader who is placed in a laboratory setting
will always be aware of the action of reading, which means that obtaining
a realistic measurement becomes problematic. The claim is that the human
mind is too complicated for any valuable information to be extracted during
a laboratory test. Whenever one aspect is tested, a range of other factors will
inevitably influence the subject, and the experiment is bound to lead to inad-
equate findings. However, studies carried out in a natural environment allow
for too many uncontrollable variables, while a laboratory setting, on the other
hand, makes it easier to control and isolate the many correlating factors that
play a role in everyday life.
A central point of criticism that is voiced in the legibility debate is that
different test methods produce different results. Legibility researcher Miles A.
Tinker1 compared 10 typefaces in terms of visibility under reduced illumina-
tion, perceptibility at a distance, speed of reading, and the reader’s opinion
about the most legible type. In this study, he found little agreement between
the results of the four test methods. In the measurement of reduced illumi-
nation, bolder types performed better than lighter ones, a finding that had
much in common with the test of perceptibility at a distance. Tinker also
found that the reader’s opinion was less compatible with speed of reading
than the two other aspects, and that readers in general judged types that
10
perform well in distance studies to be best for comfortable reading. Instead
of viewing this as a setback for the prospects of scientific legibility investi-
gation, one might view the different findings as an indication of something
more useful. Comparisons such as these reveal that typeface legibility is not
a universal issue, where one feature or set of features improve legibility in all
reading conditions. In other words, the level of legibility for a given typeface is
not constant but varies, depending on the situation in which it is observed.
Figure 1.1. Different test methods pro-duce different results. The findings by Miles A. Tinker when he exposed the same typefaces to different test methods showed a large difference in performance1.The typefaces are illustrated with digital fonts that are similar in style to the metal types applied by Tinker.
Legibility ranking(1 = best performance)
Visibility un-der reduced illumination
Perceptibilityat a distance
Speed of reading
Readers’ opinion of legibility
Antique (illustrated with Bookman Old Style)1 3 3 2
Cheltenham 2 2 8 1
American Typewriter 3 1 9 6
Cloister Black 4 10 10 10
Bodoni 5 7 4-5 3
Garamond 6 6 1 5
Old Style (illustrated with Century Old Style) 7 4 4-5 4
Caslon Old Style (illustrated with Adobe Caslon Pro) 8 5 6 8
Kabel Light 9 9 7 9
Scotch Roman 10 8 2 7
11
Continuous reading Designers often argue that book typefaces should only be tested in running
text, as this is, after all, how the type is going to be read. The issue is not,
however, quite as straightforward as it may seem. Comparing two columns of
text set in different typefaces raises a range of potential dilemmas. Leading
and spacing in the text always interact with one another, an issue that is
particularly evident when matching two designs of different x-height (Fig. 1.2).
If the leading is kept constant, one of the two is likely to be at an advantage.
If, on the other hand, the leading is adjusted to give the typefaces a visual
similarity, one text might take up more space on the page than the other,
which may introduce a bias.
A common goal in studies of continuous reading is to measure reading
speed. It may, however, be problematic to assume automatically that fast
reading equals high legibility. Perhaps speed should not be the goal. Maybe
when we read a highly legible text, the type will make us read with less
effort rather than increasing the speed of reading. This notion is supported
by a study2 that compared text with different margins; the study found that
although the speed of reading was reduced when readers were exposed to the
text with larger margin, they had a better understanding of the content under
this condition.
Another central criticism in relation to tests of reading speed is the fre-
quent lack of significance in the measured time differences between the fonts
tested. Unfortunately, this does not necessarily mean that there is no differ-
ence; more likely, the test method simply is not sensitive enough to detect
any variation.
To test continuous reading, there are several methods to choose from. One
method is to look at oral reading. Here, the participant reads a text aloud, and
the researcher records the number of errors or the time it took. A problem
with this approach is that the situation is unnatural for most adults. It can
be difficult to determine whether mistakes are based on errors of identifica-
tion or errors of interpretation or memory. When reading aloud, we often use
similar words or restructure the text to improve the flow; this does not mean
that we actually decode the text that way. Another consideration is that oral
reading leads to a higher frequency of fixations on the line of text, and that
oral reading speed is about half that of silent reading3. Furthermore, because
the eye is faster than the voice when we read aloud, only substantial perfor-
mance differences will show up in the test results.
12
Figure 1.2. What leading can do to a text. Leading can post a challenge when comparing typefaces of different x-height. The optimal leading for a typeface with a small x-height is not always the same as the optimal leading value for one with a large x-height. Illustrated with the typefaces Brandon Grotesque by Hannes von Döhren, and DS Musee by Dino dos Santos, both set in 22 point size, with a line height of 22. Note the difference in the white areas.
Beautiful printing is an educator, the same as is any art. The thoughts of an author take on added value by reason of it. The mind is always receptive in proportion as it is helped to com-prehend the real mean-ing of the writer.
Beautiful print-ing is an educator, the same as is any art. The thoughts of an author take on added value by rea-son of it. The mind is always receptive in proportion as it is helped to compre-hend the real mean-ing of the writer.
Brandon Grotesque, 22/22 DS Musee, 22/22
13
Based on the problems related to measuring oral reading, it might make sense
to study silent reading instead. The challenge here is how to measure read-
ing when others cannot hear it. One way around this challenge is to test for
comprehension and check whether readers have understood the text that
they read. This does, however, lead to a new range of issues that need to
be addressed. How, for instance, can we ensure that participants all have
the same degree of interest in the topic of the text? If they find the topic
boring, will that influence their concentration, and will their comprehension
suffer as a result? Will we in fact be testing the participants’ intelligence or
simply their experience of being in a test situation? Furthermore, it has been
demonstrated that high-frequency words such as ‘the’ are read faster than
other three-letter words4, and that sentences in the active voice are recog-
nised faster than sentences in the passive voice5. If the experiment involves
comparing two different texts set in two different fonts, the level of high-fre-
quency words and the structure of the individual texts are likely to influence
the outcome of the study. Then again, if all participants are tested on all type
conditions, and if the test material is counterbalanced between conditions,
these issues should not cause problems.
Expert craftsmen magically produce a wonderful instrument, which reveals almost incredible improvement over everyday music producing machines.
14
The search task Another possible approach is to measure readers’ ability to locate specific
words or letters in a text. Such methods were applied in studies carried out
by the research unit working at the Royal College of Art6 in the 1960s and 70s.
Their reason for choosing this method was a dislike for testing the readers’
comprehension, as they judged the comprehension method as being influ-
enced by too many unaccountable variables that were not related to the
visual properties of the text.
The problem with the search task method, however, is that it is more
closely related to scanning than to actual reading. In addition, since most
reading situations do not allow us to know the exact words we are about to
read, the method is not a very close approximation of real-life situations.
When participants know what to look for, the interrelation between the
process of reading the word, and the processes of reading the individual let-
ter, is dominated more by the word process than is the case in more natural
reading situations (see more in Chapter 3). That being said, the search task
method is very useful for studying participants’ ability to identify a target
object located among other elements.
Figure 1.3. Eye tracking. The measure-ment of eye movements during continuous reading can provide researchers with useful information on lengths and durations of saccades and fixations. Illustrated with the typeface Stella, designed by Mário Feliciano.
15
Figure 1.4. Search task test material. Test material applied by The Graphic Information Research Unit working at The Royal College of Art in the 1960s and 70s. Participants were asked to locate the words on the left in the text shown on the right.
16
Visual accuracy threshold In this approach, the focus is on letter and word identification, while compre-
hension is not a priority. Participants in tests based purely on perception tend
to be unaffected by the awkwardness of the test situation. As we know, optom-
etrists can make rather accurate vision measurements in laboratory settings.
That is because word recognition occurs on an automatic level and is therefore
unaffected by the surroundings. This is confirmed by the famous phenomenon
discovered in 1935 by J. Ridley Stroop7. Asking participants to name the print
colour when presented with words such as ‘Yellow’ in a green colour and ‘Blue’
in a red colour, Stroop demonstrated that most participants found this to be
very difficult; thus, the study concluded that we recognise words even when it
would help us to ignore them (Fig. 1.5).
There are several methods for measuring visual accuracy; one way is to briefly
expose the participant to the stimulus. After this rapid exposure, which is so
short that the eye is unable to move from one fixation to another, the partici-
pant is asked to identify the presented material. Because of the single fixa-
tion, an obvious risk is that the test method might vary too much from a more
regular reading situation. On the other hand, it can be argued that the differ-
ence is not that significant, since the eyes are relatively stable when fixating
Figure 1.5. The Stroop effect. The task is to name the print colour of the word ‘Blue’ when it is printed in red, or the ink colour of the word ‘Yellow’ when printed in blue, etc. Illustrated with the typeface Ovink by Sofie Beier.
BLUEYELLOWREDGREEN
17
on a stimulus, both in short exposures and in normal reading situations. It
thus seems reasonable to assume that the perceptual processes would be the
same. Yet this may not always be the case. It appears that humans sometimes
process the same information differently, depending on the task they set out
to perform9. In the short-exposure method, the participant mentally prepares
for the task of perceiving the material in one fixation. In normal reading,
the fixation is a part of a larger process and is not treated as a specific task.
However, the method is useful for studying the legibility of individual charac-
ters or words and for identifying specific features for further investigation.
Figure 1.6. Testing short exposure with a mask8. To control the time frame in which the image will appear, it is helpful to let the stimuli be followed by some form of mask consisting of random dots or lines. That will remove the afterimage from the retina. a
a
18
Sofie Beier
Sofie Beier
bis
ISBN 978-90-6369-271-1
designing for legibility
Reading Letters is a book about typeface legibility.
In our everyday life’s we constantly encounter a diversity of reading mat-ters, these being display types on traffic signage, printed text in novels, newspaper headlines, or ones own writing on a computer screen. All these conditions demand different considerations of the typefaces applied.
In a straightforward manner, the book discusses these aspects by drawing on typography history, designers’ ideas, and by reviewing available scientific data concerning the process of reading.
Easily accessible, and heavily illustrated, this is a most have for any designer looking for guidance when choosing a typeface for a given project.
Sofie Beier is a type designer, researcher and lecturer employed at the School of Design under
The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts. She holds a PhD from the Royal College of Art in London,
on the subject of typeface familiarity and its relation to legibility.