Typophile - Know any good legibility tests for typefaces? - Comments

The New York Times magazine

TypographyShop — Sun, 4 May 2008 21:20:03 -0700

The New York Times magazine did a wonderful piece on the design of Clearview, a typeface designed for maximum nighttime and inclement weather visibility for highway signs. It’s not quite the same dynamic as print legibility issues, but a fascinating read nonetheless:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/magazine/12fonts-t.html?_r=1&ref=magaz...

and oldstyle zero for

Nick Shinn — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:46:50 -0800

and oldstyle zero for Constantia!

Left: Times “o”, right: Times oldstyle zero.

Oldstyle vs. Oldstyle, Times may still have “disadvantaged” Constantia, as its oldstyle zero is both taller than x-height, and is monolinear rather than stressed.

The issue raised: is it better to have disambiguation to take care of extremely *rare* problems, or live with some ambiguity, for a better *normal* experience (the decision John made with Constantia’s oldstyle zero). And how do the designers of reading tests decide on what’s normal?

(Please don’t call me “softly” in unaccented Greek capitals:-)

Understanding is not the

Eben Sorkin — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:17:37 -0800

Understanding is not the same as Experience. Experience is not the same thing as insight. Peas are not the same thing as carrots. Yes yes. I have a dictionary too. English is great isn’t it? All these words that don’t mean precisely the same thing...

Knowledge is not the same

russellm — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:49:31 -0800

Knowledge is not the same thing as understanding.

-=®=-

”..science can help

dberlow — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 05:56:57 -0800

”..science can help improve our knowledge of anything.”
I totally agree with this. It gets tricky though, when people read it, or the results, as,
“’..science can prove our knowledge of anything.’”

John: “...don’t disadvantage Constantia...”
You can now join People for the Ethical Study of Type Studies.
I have seen to it, that the normal member fees were waived, in a vote of 1 to o.

Cheers!

That’s who you read the

Scalfin — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:14:58 -0800

That’s who you read the results, not just the conclusion.

We could look at how often

John Hudson — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:34:45 -0800

We could look at how often they confuse character, as was done in a test looking at the relative legibility of Constantia, Cambria, and TNR.

And if you are showing glyphs in isolation, as in that test, don’t disadvantage Constantia by using a lining zero for the other two fonts in the test and and oldstyle zero for Constantia!

I think we’re agreed on

Nick Shinn — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:49:41 -0800

I think we’re agreed on that, it’s banging nails with a saw that is objectionable.
Although I have been known to saw the head off an intransigent screw.

That is an interesting

Eben Sorkin — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:45:32 -0800

That is an interesting point.

And then there is the oblique strategies model...

Still it remains that there are things about perfume that are beyond science’s ability to help with & things about perfume that only science could ever help with. There isn’t any need for opposition. It needn’t be hammer vs saw. Both are useful.

science can help improve our

Nick Shinn — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 10:26:10 -0800

science can help improve our knowledge of anything.

Research and development that fails in its primary goal may yet come up with useful accidents and spin-offs.
Penicillin and stainless steeless steel, for example.
And then there is the drug development strategy obliquely described by the protaganist of Quadrophenia, “I’ll do it, what is it?” — in other words, lets see what effect this chemical has, perhaps it will cure something. Not a bad strategy for type design, BTW, as art directors can come up with quite unexpected uses for fonts.

science can help improve our

Eben Sorkin — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:03:28 -0800

science can help improve our knowledge of anything.

This is an under-dissected phrase. As such; there is no point in a yes/no dichotomy.

Because The Passion was

Scalfin — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:43:35 -0800

Because The Passion was really informative, and the quote in the bible of Jesus say “he who is not with me is against me” has really improved diplomacy.

science can help improve

Nick Shinn — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:41:35 -0800

science can help improve our knowledge of anything.

LOL.

Scaflin, what part of

enne_son — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:14:13 -0800

Scaflin, what part of readibility or legibility would your scores give us information about? Its perceptual processing component? And by that should we mean only what occurs inside the visual cortex? What about the other dimensions of readability that typographers are convinced exist?

Variables associating is exactly Nick’s point. He regards the confounding effect as insurmountable when it comes to isolating factors in any useful way. An disassociating them for the purpose of our tests creates bad type.

There are several ways. We

Scalfin — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:24:03 -0800

There are several ways. We could ask a person to read something then answer some questions about the text and look at how quickly they read. We could look at how often they confuse character, as was done in a test looking at the relative legibility of Constantia, Cambria, and TNR. The only problem is that it would take a large study size to get a satisfyingly low p-value.
By characteristic associating, I mean that fonts w/ open counters usually have long descenders (hypothetical, you could probably name real examples of something like this), thereby confounding any findings on either.

Know any good legibility tests for typefaces?

Hellbox — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:35:40 -0800

The tests need to assess the legibility (& perhaps readability) of typefaces for print-based instructional texts (not continuous).