Assessing legibility is pretty simple, just look it over and make sure that similar glpyhs have distinct forms. As for readability, just print yourself a sample and start reading.

No matter how legible a typeface is, it's quite easy for a poor typographer to make it unreadable.

Is there something about the instructions that requires speed reading? Conventional typefaces like Times, Minion, Garamond, Charter, Georgia, Dante, Clifford, Hoefler Text, Constantia, Galliard, Electra, Goudy Oldstyle, etc. are all adequate for instructions, tests, forms, etc. as long as they aren't mangled (negative tracking, inadequate linespacing, light inking, artificially condensed). There are better ones and of course much worse ones (Helvetica, Bodoni, display typefaces), but is there some critical reason the typefaces have to have some legibility rating? What kind of texts are you preparing?

I ask because there is no such standard test; it's a huge bugaboo in the type and typography world, and unfortunately it's all decided ad hoc. your best bet right now is actually to make a "safe" or conventional choice and not mess with the type too much; set it well. If you want assistance in choosing highly legible typefaces, be prepared either for a cacophonous disagreement, or else very subjective choices from whoever you ask.

You may have to design the test yourself, if this information is required. Contact me offline for suggestions.

Carl, I for one would love to have a list your personal top 3, 5, or 10 from you if you are willing.

Here, or shall I e-mail you?

Whichever you prefer. Thanks very much!

I know of some bad legibility tests.

I think that type designers typographers and graphic designers should get busy and work on some way of gauging relative legibility & readability before optometrists do it.

I already have to follow guidelines that are set by people who think they know about typography because they can misuse the word Kerning with complete confidence.

-=®=-

I think that type designers typographers and graphic designers should get busy and work on some way of gauging relative legibility & readability before optometrists do it.

You aren't really suggesting that we voluntarily assimilate with the Borg?

Karmina

You aren’t really suggesting that we voluntarily assimilate with the Borg?

No. but, graphic designers may find their hands tied, in signage if not elsewhere by accessibility standards that are set by the typographically ignorant.

What's a Borg? :p

-=®=-

"Borg" is a Star Trek reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)

Nick are you really against developing something to help test this properly? Or do you think it can't be done properly?

Optometrists and reading psychologists have been measuring aspects of reading performance for quite a while. This recent paper by a team of optometrists and reading psychologists uses a variety of methodologies: reading speed, distance threshold, preference, and eye strain reports. In this paper they aren’t testing fonts, only different versions of ClearType rendering:

Sheedy, J., Y.-C. Tai, et al. (2008). "ClearType sub-pixel text rendering: Preference, legibility and reading performance." Displays 29(2): 138-151.

Mary Dyson tells me that she is planning on using this paper in a typeface design seminar at the University of Reading because it is a nice introduction to different testing methods.

While optometrists and reading psychologists come from a different academic background than typographers, I don’t think it’s useful to describe them as the Borg. There is a common goal of providing a good reading experience and everyone stands to gain from cooperation.

Cheers, Kevin

p.s. Since I work for Microsoft I am expecting Borg jokes. I’m ready.

Nick are you really against developing something to help test this properly? Or do you think it can’t be done properly?

I'm against the productization of readability and the hyping of such type products with scientific or statistical terminology.
The effect of this is to derogate the acumen of type designers and typographers, by replacing their subtle creativity and design skills with principles that are simplistic and banal. So the client doesn't defer to the typographer's judgement, but wants hard proof. That would be nice, but typographic design, whether of typefaces or page layouts, doesn't work like that. Typography is design. Glyphs are drawn by hand.

Linotype was the Borg of the newspaper industry in the mid 20th century. The Legibility Series of types it developed played a significant role in making newspaper typography the stagnant backwater of the graphic design world, until the advent of DTP.

**

There's scientific research, which should test how people read. And there's product development, which tests how products perform. The efficacy of a design cannot be determined before it is marketed, and in many cases it creates its own demand (hence innovation and progress).

About a century ago, some clever people began applying scientific principles to advertising (Daniel Starch, for instance, and Claude Hopkins). But the furthest they have ever gotten down that road (apart from the subliminal detour) is market research. For actually coming up with creative, you want Kirk on the job, not One of Nine.

There is a common goal of providing a good reading experience and everyone stands to gain from cooperation.

Some however may resist such platitudes, prefering to be independent and not become assimilated into the optimum reading experience.

Performance principles do have a place in typography (for road signage and special needs accessibility), but typefaces should not be tagged with readability standards, which is where this is leading.

< nerd> not One of Nine < /nerd>

"I’m against the productization of readability and the hyping of such type products with scientific or statistical terminology.
The effect of this is to derogate the acumen of type designers and typographers, by replacing their subtle creativity and design skills with principles that are simplistic and banal. So the client doesn’t defer to the typographer’s judgement, but wants hard proof."

And yet this happens anyway; see Read Regular, Green Font, Tiresias, etc. etc. It's going to happen anyway, without scientific "proof". People still want the proof, even if it can't be had. What to do? I agree that it reduces too much, too simplistically, but it would sometimes be handy to be able to point to something easy for non-specialists to understand. There certainly is no consensus among typographers.

Nick I think you make some great points about the culture of type and business.

Despite that I think it would be great if really useful thorough research was done. It could be useful for Scientists, useful for Users, and useful for font makers. I think all of that & more could definitely be done if there was funds and a will. But I am not holding my breath! I am happy and in a way grateful that there is position at MS for Kevin! Were that there were more!

But the reality is that doing this research isn't a big priority in our Civ. We are very rich civilization and we could be doing much much much more. But we don't. This is party because we already seem to have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to fonts - and it's snowballing! And partly because the purpose of one font vs. the other is, so much of the time that of sensibility & tone served with the usual portion of utility; rather than sheer utility or with utility coming as a first or dominant priority. And because of that I think that the Nick Shinns of the world need not fear too much. Maybe this is a mistaken impression. Maybe there is more pressure as regards utility than I know. Feel free to correct me.

The efficacy of a design cannot be determined before it is marketed

This seems mistaken to me. You can learn things ahead of release of a font about it's utility. What you can't know is how well a face is going to sell. Which thing are you getting at here?

Some however may resist such platitudes, etc...

I agree that being assimilated into "group thought" would be a bad plan. But that isn't science. The conflation of Marketing & Science isn't helpful, even if one thing may trail on shortly after the other. Once Kevin's work published is in a peer reviewed scientific journal it is cooperative. And when MS decides that Kevin is allowed publish MS funded research then; to that extent, they are genuinely cooperating and contributing to the common good. The key word being extent.

Also in fairness to Kevin you can't expect his boss' priorities to be the general welfare of western civ or civ in general much as they might like to spin it that way – and have. If it can't be used for competitive advantage then it might not be worth it for them. They need to justify what they do in service to MS. Maybe there can be a bit of overlap as regards the world but that has to be secondary. By the same token you can't expect Nick to point to a competitor's typeface on Typophile. Obviously sheer scale means that it isn't the same. But I think it's the same kind of thing.

I also think there is also always going to be a cultural/experiential overlay to the results despite even an ideal testing process*. Data collected in OH might be different from NYC might be different from Germany & so on. So it may (or may not be) that you can get solid usable results but the practical application is questionable.

I feel am not contradicting myself here. Or shading things grey. I am just attempting to parcel things out.

For actually coming up with creative...

I think "Creative" isn't for the purposes of this discussion one thing. It is at least two. It is sensibility & tone rather and utility.** Obviously you are right when it comes to selecting for sensibility & tone. But utility is a different animal. It is true that if you can know the purpose a font will be put to, LCD screens or Newsprint or whatever you can use your eyes and go with your educated impression. And that works very well. If it didn't we wouldn't see the advances we have. What I reject in the abstract is the idea that Science can't be effectively added to the team as it were. The "unfair" advantage is simply that MS can afford the services of a scientist. But compared to dropping fonts into the market for free I suspect this is a minor advantage.

hyping of such type products with scientific or statistical terminology

Here I agree. Anybody can come up with a list of the most readable fonts ( or a best font) & then drop a white paper that is supposed to prove it. Okay not anybody. But is done in many industries and constantly. You have to be skeptical. And people are, more & more. But being critical is science. What sucks is when they decide that it's a good plan to pitch science along with it's superficial trappings. Don't conflate scientific process & hype. Hype doesn't have to attend Science. And when it does they can be separated. It isn't fun, but it can be done.

Also from what I can tell people have been less & less inclined to accept hype with re: to fonts. I don't think that the reception given to ClearType has been rapturous. It wasn't as bad as the din about Vista but still...

I agree that it reduces too much, too simplistically, but it would sometimes be handy to be able to point to something easy for non-specialists to understand.

Science is complicated and grey much of the time. It is really really rare and wonderful when real science can be presented as something easy to understand. Like "you need enough vitamin C to avoid Scurvey so get this citrus in your diet". I don't have much hope that this "something" will be produced for use with clients. And I am even less ceratin that they would make good use of it. I am much more hopeful that many small somethings might be available to type designers*** to make use of. And that we could be more effective at marketing.

And yet this happens anyway

"There is one born every Minute" comes to mind. This is why Marketing exists. I agree with Carl. I think you have to shrug it off basically. His "what to do" is certainly more pithy!

* Assuming such a thing could exist which it cannot.
** Maybe you don't mean to include utility but given the context of your use of it it seemed like you did.
*** Or type making companies

For those of you that made it this far - sorry about this overly long post.

Some however may resist such platitudes

The vast majority of reading research is devoted to understanding how people read, and is entirely agnostic to the concerns of typography. There are several conferences and journals devoted to understanding word recognition, reading acquisition, dyslexia, and reading comprehension where type is not considered an interesting variable. The researchers at all of these conferences find it perfectly acceptable to use Courier as their main typeface. That’s what we’ve achieved by resisting cooperation.

Nick: No matter how legible a typeface is, it’s quite easy for a poor typographer to make it unreadable.

A truer thought has not been spoken in years.

One test on readability we use to do for text in the shop was a relatively simple one. After the first repro came out - we turned it upside down. We made sure it had a nice balance of gray, and that there were no rivers. It was truly easier to see this upside down, because "your" proofing eyes did not have to concentrate on the words - typos - and other weird set behavior. (Oh, the days before WYSIWYGs)

The "readability" of *texts* can be measured by the Flesch index. This is, on the face of it, a "common-sense" approach to decoding text. But any count of words per line and characters per word, while appearing to be objective analysis, can be "gamed" by a writer who is trying to increase readability.

Imagine how typographic/marketing/design decisions could be "justified" (no pun intended) by calibrating such seemingly objective features as length of descenders, character count, stroke weight contrast, etc., then tossing in a couple of constants and passing the whole thing off as objective "analysis."

Designers already invoke such visual characteristics as "greater x-height" or "serifs" as primary signifiers of legibility. But, at what point will a further increase in x-height begin to *reduce* legibility? How long can a serif be, before it *interferes* with the reading process? Perhaps the latest fashion trend in fonts (popularity) is a more reliable predictor of legibility than any structural element inherent to the characters themselves; if it is read more often, mustn't it be more legible? Legibility of printed instructions would seem to vary more in direct proportion to time available for reading, as well as the visual acuity and emotional state of the reader, not unlike many other forms of perception.

if it is read more often, mustn’t it be more legible?

No. See Arial. Arial is with us as a result of a business decision and prior cultural history. Ubiquity is not anything like a useful measure.

Perhaps the latest fashion trend in fonts (popularity) is a more reliable predictor of legibility than any structural element inherent to the characters themselves

This is just silly because it mixes impact that voice flavor or style have on popularity with the effects that the sheer utility of the font have. I would be lovely ( in a creepy sort of way ) if the world was so simple but it isn't.

It's cool that you are thinking about it though.

@hellbox
You might like to read Gerard Unger's While You're Reading.

I do think that trying to make a science of legibility is pretty pointless. No doubt someone with a BSc will concoct a grand scientific method. However, I suggest that a better test is the reader's opinion (and your own, if you trust it). Typography is an art, not a science; and I'm much more interested in the opinions of good typographers, than even the most informed opinions of the world's most eminent scientists.

"Typography is an art, not a science; and I’m much more interested in the opinions of good typographers, than even the most informed opinions of the world’s most eminent scientists."

Can I have your baby?

"Sheedy, J., Y.-C. Tai, et al. (2008). "

Where, please? Must keep up to data.

Cheers!

"I do think that trying to make a science of legibility is pretty pointless. No doubt someone with a BSc will concoct a grand scientific method. However, I suggest that a better test is the reader’s opinion (and your own, if you trust it). Typography is an art, not a science; and I’m much more interested in the opinions of good typographers, than even the most informed opinions of the world’s most eminent scientists."

I think the proposition is that "the world's most eminent scientists" would build their tests around.... The Reader's Opinion. Determining which existing typefaces are more legible has less to do with scientists vapidly collecting abstract metrics, and more to do with testing typefaces in use: reading speed, comprehension, comfort over long reading times, eye fatigue. It doesn't presuppose dissecting or destroying anything, and it isn't necessarily divorced from what typographers "know" about type. The trick is to get typographers involved in designing tests. That's what Kevin is on to. One of the most frustrating flaws in research to date is wretchedly bad typeface selection. Courier, Curlz, Arial Condensed, Helveeta, etc. are not appropriate for testing in extended reading.

Eventually, the ergonomic project bogs down in demographics.
You can't design the one-size-fits-all product, you have to target a sector.
That's a distinction you can dispense with if your company owns most of the market.

Carl, great post.

Nick you said. Eventually, the ergonomic project bogs down in demographics.

You are asserting that demographic & regional differences might be significant?

you have to target a sector

What sectors would those be do you suppose?

I agree that this might be so, I would even guess that it is, but I am not aware of anything that shows that it is. It would be all too easy to mistake regional taste for one style or another with an objective test of what they read best. They might overlap in practice - but I think they are not the same thing.

I don't think that reducing things to simply "trust the craftman (or artist)" & waving hands helps us. Sorry, that's probably too much rhetorical flourish - but I hope you see what I mean. Obviously the craft has gotten plenty far already. But being luddite re: Science seem counter productive to me.

Your sense that science is bought off by the big guys and is in their camp; ( unless I have you wrong ) may be so. In fact it seems probable. But I think that is a separate cultural issue and should be dealt with as such. Put another way; intellectually I don't like to see them conflated. And I think it would be disingenuous to deny that science has anything to offer just because I don't stand to benefit from the admission. Or maybe I will... depending on what researchers and their employers ( or universities) decide to do.

I have faith that the best ideas for improving type will come from type makers be they indie or otherwise, and with or without research to inspire or gird their results. Maybe in that sense I agree with you. And maybe if people (type makers and scientists alike) notice useful stuff they will share that useful stuff. I plan to. You have. ( Thanks BTW! ) I think it's very promising.

And lastly I think that Fonts will probably always get their the vast majority of the economic value from their style. The utility differences are a kind of economic sideshow for the most part even if I think that culturally it is important enough to spend time on. Do you agree or not so much?

And lastly I think that Fonts will probably always get their the vast majority of the economic value from their style. The utility differences are a kind of economic sideshow for the most part even if I think that culturally it is important enough to spend time on. Do you agree or not so much?

I agree. The sideshow would include much of the commission work that goes on for sake of utility, often with real economic benefits (agate comes to mind). Meanwhile, brush scripts sell like hotcakes.

Randy would you even agree that text faces are sold on primarily on style too - with utility most assumed? eg It's a newspaper face it's a book face ( as in suitable for novels etc), it's a book face specifically with this flavor or that flavor.

Are Agate's economic benefits to do with space saving or reading utility or both? If both; which do you think was the dominant issue?

You are asserting that demographic & regional differences might be significant?

They are. One font for the lion and ox is oppression.

What sectors would those be do you suppose?

That is determined by the nature of a publication's readership.
So an Index of Typeface Readability that didn't have a demographic breakdown wouldn't be much use.

But being luddite re: Science seem counter productive to me.

Luddite? I'm all for science--in its place. We can investigate how reading works, but readability is not and never will be a scientific concept.

One font for the lion and ox is oppression.
hee hee! That is pretty purple prose but I basically do agree.

So an Index of Typeface Readability that didn’t have a demographic breakdown wouldn’t be much use.
Sounds like a better kind of science to me. You might make a heck of a good advisor to a scientist making a study of readability. ;-)

readability is not and never will be a scientific concept
No more so that love is or even he far simpler "sweet" is. So I agree - but in a specific way. Consider; it is possible to study what happens when people are in love and compare heart rates and variety of other data. It is also possible to see what reactions lead to the perception of "sweet". If you look at the studies and see how the scientists couch their work I doubt that the scientists were claiming to be able to in any way encompass love or to be equivalent to experiencing "sweet" for yourself. So the two are not synonymous exactly. What the scientist would say is that they are making falling in love the subject of their study - as a expedient way of putting it. Or making a study of how we perceive the taste "sweet". And doing so in a specific a specific, probably narrow, and hopefully repeatable way.

I suggest that we could learn things; maybe interesting or important things; or even just useful things, from studies of readability. And I think I can say this without doing any violence to idea of people "falling in love" or experiencing "sweet" or good bad or indifferent "readability".

>readability is not and never will be a scientific concept.

Within 5 years you will be proven wrong, is my bet.

Is that the result of scientific studies of predictability, or just a hunch?

Hunch

You luddite! :-)

Nick: One font for the lion and ox is oppression.

Ironically, almost all modern readers encounter Blake's 'writings' in typeset form, rather than the etched illustrated form that he intended. Doubtless the typeset text is more legible/readable than Blake's deliberately naïve etched writing, but the latter demonstrates nicely the irreducibility of 'a good reading experience' to a set of legibility metrics. This is not to say that the scientific study of reading as phenomena (not phenomenon) is without value, but there is no typography without text and text is anything but uniform.

Randy would you even agree that text faces are sold on primarily on style too - with utility most assumed?
I would guess so, but it will depend on the designer and an the application. A book designer might choose differently than another designer.

Are Agate’s economic benefits to do with space saving or reading utility or both?
There are lots of ways custom (newspaper) type can "save money." I'm sure someone with more experience in custom work can elaborate. Space savings and reading utility yes, but what if the new type allows you to run on cheaper paper? Saves money. What if the new type has all weights based around the same metrics so there is no text reflow for stylistic changes? Saves money. Small type is used in more than the financial section, there's tv listings, sports scores and schedules, weather forecasts, classifieds etc. A typeface tailored for these specific situations could beneficial in many ways. There are brand and sometimes license benefits too. H&FJ printed a booklet on their agate face Retina, that goes into detail about it's benefits. Font Bureau may have something similar for Poynter Agate.

John that is beautiful.

...but typefaces should not be tagged with readability standards, which is where this is leading.

Exactly. The day scientists hijack typography, then all is lost. There is something rather noble sounding in a scientific method for testing type; however, ultimately such a system would only do a disservice to type and to readers. This scene came to me in a dream:

The year is 2025. My client proposes that we go with WhatevernextSuperLegible Sans because it has a 5-star legibility rating. Cut to me, pan right as I slit my throat with a rusty razor blade. The End.

The problem I have with the whole science and type thing is that legibility is just one part of the equation. A good typographer (in fact, even an average one) knows whether a text is legible (and whether the typography is an aid to readability). We don't need science to confirm what we already know. Do we?

I think the proposition is that “the world’s most eminent scientists” would build their tests around.... The Reader’s Opinion.

But that doesn't sound like good science. 10,000 subjective opinions does not sum to universal truth; so, either a falsifiable theory of legibility is proposed; or, we simply do as we have done for the past 500 years.

I'm reminded of those TV commercials for shampoo and skin care treatments: "clinically proven", "scientifically tested", et al. The day a typeface is accompanied by something similar, I'll be reaching for that razor blade.

Right John, text (content) is a variable that influences readability, so add that to demographics (who's doing the reading) and typography (how the typeface is positioned and scaled on the page), as factors that effect readability, as well as typeface.

The effect of text on readability has been measured, as mentioned earlier, in the Flesch index.

I don't think typographers, in designing a page, consider those four in isolation from one another, so my primary objection to readability research is that it does. Kevin is doing the right thing in trying to introduce typeface as a variable in reading theory, but my concern is that an Index of Readability for typefaces that doesn't factor in, especially, typographic variables, will be used by the communications industry as if it does. So the client will tell the designer that they must use the "most readable" typeface. Or will foundries have to apply to a standards body to have their types tested and categorized by readability grade?

Pardon me for dragging this out, I've spent too much time on the 'phile today!

I’m reminded of those TV commercials for shampoo and skin care treatments: “clinically proven”, “scientifically tested”, et al. The day a typeface is accompanied by something similar, I’ll be reaching for that razor blade.

I hate to be an accomplice to your suicide, but Christopher Burke records that this kind of pitch was already being made in 1931 for Futura.

John, Nick, so it sounds like it isn't the science per se. It's the use (or misuse) that it it's put to. Fair enough!

What we might differ over is the inevitability of science being put to misleading and counter productive use.I really doubt that a 'standards body' is going to be set up. Nobody would want to pay for it.

Your previous scenario where only big type houses get the benefit of research seems a bit more likely although maaaaaybe that too can be avoided. I sure hope so. Certainly being interested and encouraging with researchers might help that to happen.

We don’t need science to confirm what we already know. Do we?

If we know it; then no. On the other hand some of what we 'know' is still subject to lively debate. So maybe we don't know it exactly. But even if we do; what could be exciting, and the purpose of science, is to learn something new!

Believe me, I don't think science is the only model of knowing that is worth while. If I did I would be a scientist. I just think it's worthwhile to notice the difference between science as a way of considering something and other quite different things - marketing, PR, hype, client idiocy, simple minded interpretation of science & so on. In fact, if you want to effectively debunk false claims this kind of separation is in my view, a prerequisite!

Craig, nice point!!

On account of my reading of the literature on ‘crowding’ I’ve come to think of affordance as a curve with an initial steep climb, than a wide plateau and eventually a gradual decline. Proposing that affordance is a curve with a distinct shape is more useful than thinking of readability as a simple equation of more versus less. And it is a perspective that has it's source in science.

Where, in terms of type-size the climb begins or the plateau sits; how wide the plateau is are issues involving thresholds and ranges and vary from type to type. I suspect an analysis of variance will show that, for most standard text fonts the thresholds and ranges don't vary dramatically under normal conditions of use or covary linearly. In other words, a change that affects a threshold positively might have a negative effect on where the plateau sits. Perhaps the styles of termination, or types of contrast can be an example. But thresholds and ranges do nevertheless, I think we'll find, interact with the traditional typographical parameters. And I suspect they do so in demonstrably more complicated ways than we have seen codified so far.

Simple affordance has to be balanced with issues of comfort in large texts, with concerns about heirarchical transparency, surveyability and navigability in instructional manuals, and with the cultural-historical positioning or affiliation statements a document has to make. Comfort in large texts, positioning, and the demands for heirarchical transparency, surveyability and navigability can exert countervailing pressures on the choice of type. This makes a decontextualized descision based soley on simple or generic affordance micro-advantages short-sighted.

Many clients groups are aware of these subtlities in how affordance works and of countervailing pressures. Many others willingly learn. What seems to count is explicit evidence of well-motivated and knowledge-based decision-making.

Nice see your ideas again Peter!

Would you expand on & give some context for this phrase?
In other words, a change that affects a threshold positively might have a negative effect on where the plateau sits.

What is affordance? Surveyability and navigability would have to do with layout rather than anything to do with font choice - yes? I am guessing thats right except in as much as they relate to having Italics or Small caps or Weights as options.

What seems to count is explicit evidence of well-motivated and knowledge-based decision-making. That has been my experience as well.

Having said all this though; you would not I suspect say that generic affordance micro-advantages are not worth thinking about. Just that they have to be seen in a broader context. And this was Nick's point as well.

If those doing the research don't refer to and include other relevant specializationst, it all can get to be a bit like those blind sages trying to describe an elephant (It's like a tree. No, it's like a snake...) (Why didn't they just ask the mahout?)

It might be difficult to design a font that is completely illegible and still include identifiable letters, and it's true, the most legible font in the world can be mangled by bad typography. The fact there is bad typography though, suggests that starting with a highly legible typeface should mitigate the awfulness somewhat. But, what's a legible typeface 'sposed to look like?

The rules of what make a legible typeface are in my opinion are quite simple and straightforward and allow for a great deal of flexibility. I don't think is is even possible to design a definitively "most legible" typeface. I think in any fare test of comparable fonts, you'll find that differences in performance can be so slight as not to matter.

I really don't think legibility standards need to be anything to get knickers in a twist about. It's mostly common sense to anyone with some expertise in typography. I think where that kind of standardization would apply would be on wayfinding signage, medicine bottles, captioning on TV, operating instructions that come with power tools and the TV guide in the newspaper. (OK that last one is personal, but Really! Would it be possible to make it worse?) and things like government and public transit websites and other printed materials, where accessibility is a right that these organization should make honest efforts to honour.

This sort of graphic work seldom actually gets designed in any real way. The objective in producing a set of instructions may turn out to be "How many tiny black words can I fit onto this tiny piece of paper that will be packaged with these potentially deadly drugs" instead of what percentage of people who should read these instructions will not be able to?". Even if the designer conscientiously designed this sheet to be as readable as possible, he or she would have no way of telling you what percent of people could read it. That should be something that could be determined. At the very least, there should be some set of guidelines that can be referred to, that are a bit more sophisticated than, "use Arial and make it big" (the real purpose of such a spec is to keep people who know less than the spec writer from using some crazy Spenserian script, and Arial is a font they can name.)

Taking the example of Erik Spiekermann's work for the Financial times, where he improved the legibility of their typeface by cleaning up the shapes somewhat, increasing tracking and leading and (counter intuitively to most) slightly decreasing the font size.

I think that the form such "standards" might take need not be unreasonably restricting at all and would have no impact on what the vast majority of designers do.

Hellbox, email me (russ.mcg at gmail.com), and I'll tell some of what I've done to test legibility. It was for signage, but some of it might apply to what you are doing.

-=®=-

Eben, I felt the need to say something in this thread, but this reply will have to suffice for the time being.

[Affordance] (I explained it elswhere some time ago on typophile — I think it was the rule or law thread — affordance is the relationship between an object or artifact and what we choose to do with it or use it for): legible writing affords or promotes or lends itself to effective perceptual processing in reading, so ease of reading is an affordance of legible writing or its typographical correlatives or surrogates.

[Expanding / giving some context] I'll have to ask you to think about how styles of termination, or the presence or abscence of contrast, or wider spacing, or the sizes of counters affect performance at thresholds of size or distance, versus how they effect performance at normal type sizes and distances where reading speed and comfort are at a plateau.

Arguing against studying readability scientifically is to me like arguing against studying disease scientifically. You can make the same arguments, and they will be just as wrong-headed and against the progress of humanity.

For example, the issue of text size has an obvious and measurable affect on readability. You can make text small enough that people can't read it. And you can measure how small that is, how it varies with age and acuity, and so on. There is no reason to think that less obvious things can't be studied also, with sufficient imagination in theorizing and sufficient cleverness in experimentation.

That doesn't mean that everything to do with readability, particularly the aesthetic side, is likely to be measured soon or ever. But to just wave aside scientific study is highly misguided.

As Peter explains, a successful science of readability is likely to come up with theories that are as complex and subtle as we know reading to be. And such insights may well help us to improve reading on screens, to help those with limited vision, with forms of dyslexia, and so on.

Bill, reading is not an ailment.
I'm wary of analogies used in discussing type and reading, because there's nothing quite like it.
(I'm sure I use analogies though from time to time, it's hard to avoid.)
So I won't develop your health analogy by going into the perils of big pharma.

And you can measure how small that is, how it varies with age and acuity, and so on.

You can measure text size, but not as a scientific absolute, in the way that an object's dimensions or mass may be determined.
Size is a nominal value, determined by the foundry.
Don't you recall the thread here last year on the definition of the em square?!

A typeface does not have size.
A scientific parallel would be fractals, as in "how long is the perimeter of the Jenson "a"?
It would depend on which particular "a" one chose to measure, the resolution of the medium in which it's set, and the resolution of the measuring device.

Of course, it's possible to take a particular setting of a particular typeface, vary its size, and see how the variations perform with different age groups.

Whatever knowledge this reveals, as Peter says, "a decontextualized descision based soley on simple or generic affordance micro-advantages [is] short-sighted."

Consider these specimens from The Designer's Guide to Text Type (King and Esposito, Van Nostrand Rheinhold).

I put it to you that the readability of Janson and Kennerley will vary against one another according to leading, amongst other factors.
Also consider paper stock and, of course, tracking (this book was published in 1980, and man, is that 8 pt. type tight!)
Then there is line length and paragraph length. And might not one type perform better for rag right setting, the other for justified? And how would they fare when one varies the Flesch index? Would Janson's readability index be better for longer words?

All in all, for an index of typeface readability to be meaningful and useful, a standards manual would have to be published in the form of a type specimen, showing the exact setting which had been tested. For online use, the monitor and operating system would have to be specified, as well as pixel-height and application or file format (hinting varies).

However, AFAIK, reading tests in laboratories are not conducted using "real" text. For instance, the Moving Window technique restricts the amount of text that is visible to a certain number of letter around a fixation point, and replaces all of the other letters on the page with the letter x.

I don't believe there would be anything particularly scientific about indexing the readability of typefaces. It would be a simple form of market research. Investigating how reading works is one thing, and of course I support it, but applying readability standards to typefaces (the subject of this thread) is something else.

Neural networks may be developed to simulate a reader, in which case a piece of text in a particular setting might be run through a software application to measure its readability.

Compare with recent developments in the shampoo industry. It so happens that CGI has become so proficient at rendering the effect of moving hair (thanks to Hollywood money)--at a microscopic resolution--that it is now possible for chemists to apply a virtual shampooing of a chemical formula to a virtual hair type, and see how it will effect body and lustre.

Ultimately, this kind of virtuality will be great for product development (laboratory animals especially), but would be problematic if an "independent" organization used software to grade products by chemical formula. IMO, that's a bit too virtual, but I guess it's coming.

Nick,

Your comments are confusing, to put it mildly. What comes thru is your irrational fear of science, or maybe laboratories, or possibly shampoo.

Previous testing has indeed been less than satisfactory; often irrelevant and misleading. It does not follow that all testing forevermore has to be similarly flawed. We're already at the stage of discussing designs for tests that intentionally account for the variables you, and others have named. In fact, you list some techniques or features of such tests that would be useful. We know the problem is that typographers have been left out of such testing. So, here we are.....

Ryan asked for tests to assess the legibility of typefaces. This does not presuppose excluding, ranking, or naming names. I think Ryan should reappear and clarify, and maybe comment on the discussion. I think mention of ranking, rating, or establishing specific, literal metrics that define readability are all figments of paranoia.

Carl, I don't worry about shampoo anymore.

I think mention of ranking, rating, or establishing specific, literal metrics that define readability are all figments of paranoia.

The people who post questions like Ryan's at Typophile aren't paranoid, they want numbers that can be used to reassure clients (or themselves) about typeface choices.

Here's the plan:
We all contribute a paragraph of gobbledygook type-speak strung together into nearly incomprehensible sentences that we can then index into a master "Use this to convince your client about your choice of typeface" book.

Why not? There are scads and scads of books on color combinations with explanations that designers can thumb through. Why not a book about "What typeface and Why, and How to effectively convince your client"?

Best seller, I tell ya.

"We all contribute a paragraph of gobbledygook type-speak strung together into nearly incomprehensible sentences"

See above.

"The people who post questions like Ryan’s at Typophile aren’t paranoid, they want numbers that can be used to reassure clients (or themselves) about typeface choices."

Now we're in upside-down land. You're reiterating what I said days ago. WTF? I'm not talking about Ryan.

You are the one who is presupposing all kinds of unrealistic, irrelevant and detached scientific processes in the discussion, which was originally about assessing the legibility of a typeface or some typefaces, and not, as you say above, about applying readability standards to typefaces, or measuring random micro features of letters, or isolating single words in artificial reading scenarios, or giving all typefaces ratings or rankings of some kind. Seeing all that as inevitable, as you seem to, is what I'm calling paranoid. You seem to be saying that the testing done to date proves that there is nothing useful to be learned by additional testing, because it also seems that you're saying that there is no possibility that there will ever be tests that account for the variables that we've all identified...... Even though we're here virtually designing just such tests.

Seeing all that as inevitable, as you seem to, is what I’m calling paranoid.

If I'm paranoid, you're naive.

it also seems that you’re saying that there is no possibility that there will ever be tests that account for the variables that we’ve all identified...... Even though we’re here virtually designing just such tests.

Who's this "we"? I'm not designing tests. Are you working on any such projects as a typographic consultant, or are any other typographers?

No, I don't believe that it's possible to account for all, or even very many of the variables; typographic, demographic, and textual.

I agree with you that it is better to at least have some typographic intelligence in reading research, but that's not my bone of contention. It's the absurd notion that readability is an inherent quality of typefaces, which can be measured. IMO, readability does not begin to exist until the graphic designer, art director or typographer begins to work on a layout. For analogy (this is for William and Eben), as Maria Muldaur once put it, "It ain't the meat it's the motion".

Nick, in fairness I think you have climbed down slightly from your original doom and gloom outlook on all science/font nexus'.

I’m not designing tests

Not designing them soup to nuts - no. But you have begun to state what might start to look like a reasonable set of parameters to be considered if you were attempting to examine one face vs another. You wroteAll in all, for an index of typeface readability to be meaningful and useful, a standards manual would have to be published in the form of a type specimen, showing the exact setting which had been tested.

When you say No, I don’t believe that it’s possible to account for all, or even very many of the variables; typographic, demographic, and textual. I can help but think that okay not at once... but in small steps, bit by bit a picture might emerge of what is going on & eventually testing methodologies can get better & better, and meaningfully include more & more variables ( typographic, demographic, and textual and others too perhaps). This might sound like I am building to the dramatic "all" of your statement but I am not. Instead it's the bit by bit aspect of building an increasingly cogent but always incomplete view over time that matters. That is why an absolute/authoritative list can't really be drawn up by scientists or anyone. Opinions we can always have though! And how much better to have them be increasingly informed opinions?

I don't think that anybody would disagree with your notion that type outside of the context of use cannot be considered fully/properly. That said I don't think that you have to test the full battery of possible uses & possible demographics etc ( which is infinite ) to notice meaningful things. If you did you could never do meaningful research.

So instead of saying "readability is an inherent quality of typefaces" which is a bit too 2-d for reality (I agree) you might well do better to admit "readability is a potential quality of typefaces which could be described albeit imperfectly with some decent scientific tests". No?

Dan you wrote “What typeface and Why, and How to effectively convince your client” Would you make the book you describe given a 1k advance? 5k? 10k? In other words; "what price self respect?". ;-)

Carl, I don’t worry about shampoo anymore.

Priceless :)

I think mention of ranking, rating, or establishing specific, literal metrics that define readability are all figments of paranoia.

But how else would this 'science' be used?

@Eben
"Would you make the book you describe given a 1k advance? 5k? 10k? In other words; “what price self respect?”. ;-)"

Dude, sign me up. I have school debt I need to kill.

dberlow wrote:
> Sheedy, J., Y.-C. Tai, et al. (2008). “
>
> Where, please? Must keep up to data.

Visit http://www.sciencedirect.com and search for author:sheedy :-)

--
Regards,
Dave

Eben: “readability is a potential quality of typefaces which could be described albeit imperfectly with some decent scientific tests”. No?

Either you can measure something or you can't, so 'describing something imperfectly' isn't really science, although it may be anecdotally useful (and the plural of anecdote is data). I think legibility is probably an inherent quality of a typeface, determined by the legibility of individual glyphs, as individual forms and as distinct from each other. But readability is a measure of a document: we read typesetting, not typefaces. Choice of typeface is one variable in the readability of a document. If one were able to isolate and make equivalent all the other variables, then perhaps one could measure the degree to which the typeface contributes to the overall readability of the document. But this would still be something other than a readability index for the typeface, because I'm pretty sure that if the other variables were different, even though equal for the purposes of comparison, the contribution of the typeface to readability would also vary. For example, typeface X might be determined to be more readable than typeface Y in a document set in 12pt, but typeface Y might be determined to be more readable than typeface X in a document set at 8pt. Isolating the other variables in a single document only indicates which typeface is more readable in the context of those variables, not which typeface is inherently more readable.

"Visit http://www.sciencedirect.com and search for author:sheedy :-)"
Thanks!

"Within 5 years you will be proven wrong, is my bet."
How much is the bet?

Cheers!

Either you can measure something or you can’t, so ’describing something imperfectly’ isn’t really science

Seems to me like Eben's talking about a kind of "proxy" measurement. For example, there's no clear way to measure the effectiveness of my teaching directly, but one could make inferences about it from evaluating student evaluations of it. The assumption is that there is some reasonable (albeit "imperfect") correlation between the student evaluations and my unmeasurable (but not ipso facto nonexistent) teaching effectiveness.

Describing something incompletely is might be said to be imperfect. Incompletely & precisely are not at odds. For instance I can measure very precisely the lumens a light bulb gives off. This doesn't mean I have perfectly described the light bulb. Or even the light. So how about "readability is a potential quality of typefaces which could be described albeit incompletely with some decent scientific tests”?

Isolating the other variables in a single document only indicates which typeface is more readable in the context of those variables, not which typeface is inherently more readable.

Yes. Absolutely. But, what if you do a wide range of tests? You could see trends. Or maybe not I suppose depending on the shape of reality. But I bet you would; and it would be the shape of those trends across a wide enough range of variables that would start to show what works better & in what contexts. Sort of like digital photo is made up of layers of RGB or CMYK color. One dot is pretty meaningless. 12 megapixels may not be.

So while I agree it is stupid or perhaps more charitably overly simple to say in a blanket way one face has better potential readability than the other, it would not be nearly so silly to describe a pattern of relatively greater or lesser success in a series of specific contexts and then interpret the data to help choose a type face for some project or purpose ( say way finding signage or a novel ) or to take conclusions away in order to try to design a better font for contexts tested.

John your post suggest that you doubt that data you would get back could be meaningfully interpreted. Is that correct? Also, is this formulation at odds with your legibility/readability distinction? I don't think it is but I am interested to hear what you would say.

If you can test cars & cameras and draw meaningful but specific conclusions you can take things a few steps further and test a typeface.

Eben: So while I agree it is stupid or perhaps more charitably overly simple to say in a blanket way one face has better potential readability than the other, it would not be nearly so silly to describe a pattern of relatively greater or lesser success in a series of specific contexts and then interpret the data to help choose a type face for some project or purpose ( say way finding signage or a novel ) or to take conclusions away in order to try to design a better font for contexts tested.

But this is what we've been doing for five hundred years, only we called it typography, not reading science. We have been building the data set, and we have these meat machines call typographers who interpret the data and develop new hypotheses and experiments based on that interpretation.

John, of course I agree. :-)

We have to trust ourselves; especially as we start out with a new design.

On the other hand, I think it's not a bad idea to see what other meat machines say about comfort - especially if they will actually be using our design. That could be anecdotal or scientifically measured. A spirit of service need not belittle ourselves. Agreed?

Also, what do you make of my point about many small specific tests potentially building up an incomplete but maybe still very useful picture of a font's potential performance?

That could be anecdotal or scientifically measured.

Practically, I think the science, at least what I have seen to date, is itself anecdotal. That is, the only way to relate the science to design is to treat it as further anecdotal data, to combine with existing practices. It is, perhaps, a matter of how we interpret the data: in a hermeneutic of continuity, in which scientific knowledge of reading is interpreted in combination with typographic experience and practice, or in a hermeneutic of rupture, in which scientific knowledge of reading is interpreted as overthrowing and replacing typographic experience and practice.

Peter Enneson's comments in the legibility and comfort thread are worth reading again. Peter has probably read more of the actual science than the rest of us, with the exception of Kevin, and I think he has a good handle on the limitations of generalising from the data.

Also, what do you make of my point about many small specific tests potentially building up an incomplete but maybe still very useful picture of a font’s potential performance?

I think that's what typography is. If you can quantify the data, I suppose you have a mechanism to help non-typographers do typography or, rather, to do a kind of typography minus inspiration. That's not a bad thing, because a lot of text is being produced by non-typographers these days, and if it can be made more pleasant to read with some help from data collection and quantification that's welcome. But that's not the same thing as turning a non-typographer into a typographer.

Also, what do you make of my point about many small specific tests potentially building up an incomplete but maybe still very useful picture of a font’s potential performance?

Yes, I have no problems with tests, whatever their form, whatever their foundation; what troubles me is how the results of those tests will be misused and misapplied. Attach 'scientific' to anything and it all too quickly evolves into that ugliest of beasts, dogma. However, I do think there's something in John's comment,

...because a lot of text is being produced by non-typographers these days, and if it can be made more pleasant to read with some help from data collection and quantification that’s welcome.

That sounds reasonable to me--tempered by the above caveat.

But that’s not the same thing as turning a non-typographer into a typographer. Agreed. Let alone a designer of type... But you seem to be saying that a built up picture made from many tests cannot help a font designer. Am I reading into what you are saying accurately? I think I am but I would like to be clear about it.

Practically, I think the science, at least what I have seen to date, is itself anecdotal. Would you expand on this? There are waaay too many ways of reading this. When you say I think that’s what typography is. it does make me laugh a bit because of course yes on some level that's right. We try things. We observe the result. We keep going. We gain experience. We start to generalize & so on. This has some properties in common with science to be sure. But saying that they are much of a muchness is simply not accurate. There are important differences. These differences are both limitations & strengths.

I think he has a good handle on the limitations of generalising from the data. Very probably yes. I don't feel qualified to say despite my respect. But that is maybe a side issue because it's today's data. We are talking about what might happen in the future. What might be possible.

John B, you said, Attach ’scientific’ to anything and it all to quickly evolves into that ugliest of beasts, dogma.

Must it? Is in inevitable? I don't think so at all. Maybe with people who don't know what Science is. But those people will do that with anything. Arts, Etiquette, Politics, Religion and yes, Science. It's that is the fault of rigid and small minds. It's not the fault of Science per se. It seems like you have a small axe to grid here. What's it all about?

Dogma is best avoided. That we agree on.

Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
-- Bertrand Russell

Not sure where that leaves us, but it seems apropos...

Eben
No, no axe to grind. I had a feeling that this thread would come to this: science vs whatever. Science is not the problem; attempting to scientize typography is the problem. Therefore, the only axe I'm grinding is the one that defends art from science. If 99% of all texts produced in the past 500 years were unreadable and illegible, then yes, bring on the scientists, but...

So, to reiterate, I am most certainly not anti-science; I just don't like this obsession with attempting to codify and rationalise and pigeon-hole everything--just employ a good typographer.

Must it? Is in inevitable? I don’t think so at all. Maybe with people who don’t know what Science is.

As the majority know little or nothing about science and its methods, then I fear that it is indeed inevitable; men in white coats selling shampoo and diet pills comes to mind yet again.

By all means test away, but doesn't science best begin with a theory--a testable falsifiable theory? It's the theory that you need to concentrate on; not the testing (that's step 2).

The fact is, science can study anything and produce useful results, because science does not start with a capital S. It is nothing more than observing cause and effect, and trying to make a clear distinction between the two.

Employing the scientific method isn't the opposite of fine craftsmanship. In fact, it might be an inherent, if seldom recognized or acknowledged quality of a good craftsman.
Whether or not Big Science, PhD can publish an article about readability and legibility has no impact on the careful observations of centuries of typographers.

And vice-versa.

Eben: But you seem to be saying that a built up picture made from many tests cannot help a font designer. Am I reading into what you are saying accurately?

No, I don't think I every said that. What I'm saying is that this gradually built, imperfect, incomplete picture, insofar as it is useful in making decisions about type design, has to be made up of a lot more than what specifically scientific methodologies provide. This is what I mean when I say that at the point of usefulness scientific data and other kinds of information are basically at par, i.e. I think it would be a mistake to privilege new scientific data in the context of a humanistic craft with a developed wisdom of several hundred years. Instead, one would need to interpret that data within a hermeneutic of continuity with that wisdom, which means putting the scientific data and anecdotal data and experience and inspiration -- and everything else that makes up typographic wisdom -- into the same bucket and giving it a good stir to see what floats to the top.

We are talking about what might happen in the future. What might be possible..

We are? I'm not big on speculation, so I'd rather look at where we are now and consider what might be likely, not what might be only possible. Of course, I'm always ready to revise my analysis....

The way I see it now: reading science is providing some good insight into how we read, but I'm looking for a lot more, especially with regard to readerability, i.e. insight into why we're so darned good at reading such a diversity of systems, styles, etc. and what the tolerances or limits are. I don't yet see a complete description of how we read, and that makes me very wary about trying to draw practical conclusions in terms of 'doing things differently' in type design, which is what we're all concerned about isn't it? If the science ends up confirming everything that we're already doing, that's interesting and reassuring, but it doesn't have a positive impact on the development of new type design. The tantalising notion is that the science might one day give us a clue how to make type better, and that's what makes it sexy or scary depending on one's proclivities. At the moment, I don't see anything in the science that is being done that suggests I should be doing anything different. Put another way, if you put today's science into the bucket with accumulated typographic wisdom it just gets absorbed: it isn't significant enough to contribute to the mix.

There are narrowly defined areas in which scientific study is presently useful, e.g. reading at low resolution, but the same limitations that make scientific study useful make type design correspondingly less significant. The science is more useful for rendering engine developers, screen manufacturers and document creators than for type designers.

John H,

I think you have sunmed up the state of affairs extremely well. And Maybe now your Paragraph should be read & re-read as well. Specifically:

At the moment, I don’t see anything in the science that is being done that suggests I should be doing anything different. I haven't followed the science closely enough to suggest otherwise. And certainly I am not suggesting that you should.

which means putting the scientific data and anecdotal data and experience and inspiration — and everything else that makes up typographic wisdom — into the same bucket and giving it a good stir to see what floats to the top. Yes. Absolutely.

The science is more useful for rendering engine developers, screen manufacturers and document creators than for type designers. And maybe given time they can be useful to Typographers and type designers as well. We shall see.

Craig,

If what you mean by your quote is that we should remain curious then I certainly agree.

John B,

I agree that there is a part of our culture that would just assume as you put it attempt to codify and rationalise and pigeon-hole everything that is certainly anti-craft, anti-art and incidentally; anti-science. You cannot defend art from science because art does not need defending - from science. It needs defending from that culture of pigeon holes. And incidentally science needs protection from them too. And as a side note i am not sure typography, font making or even letter making is just an art. I think you are still so to speak setting aside intellectual homelands. This canton for Typographers that one for Scientists... Is that correct? If it is, I can't think that's healthy. Different ways of looking at things is a bit like different tools; my saw should have no cause to envy my hammer even if they both work on wood.

As the majority know little or nothing about science and its methods, then I fear that it is indeed inevitable; men in white coats selling shampoo and diet pills comes to mind yet again. It's time for you to stop holding the wrong party accountable. This is marketing.

It’s the theory that you need to concentrate on; I am busy working on this now. And I am keen on it's being tested in the fullness of time. And in the meantime if the culture of type wants to bury it's head in sand that won't help one bit.

the past 500 years Or even longer; 5000 years or more if you care to admit scribes and stone carvers to the group!

Dan,

It is nothing more I think it's a little more...

Whether or not Big Science, PhD can publish an article about readability and legibility has no impact on the careful observations of centuries of typographers. If by this you mean that science must remain irrelevant then I cannot agree. If you mean that science is not a threat but merely adds it's offering to their observations then I agree.

”…has no impact…”?

Science does more than measure. In my reading I encounter terms like “salience,” “response bias,” and “cue value,” and because I am unhappy with the cognitive processing connotations of the term “word recognition” I propose “visual wordform resolution” to describe the perceptual processing component in reading.

My aim in doing this is to give type designers new and useful ways of seeing what they are doing when they manipulate proportions, contrast, weight and construction. That is, I want to expand the repertoire of constructs by which we channel our actions, or according to which we make our assessments. What I think we are doing (when we say we are improving legibility or enhancing readability) is manipulating cue-values, strengthening response bias, managing salience, improving perceptual discrimination affordances in such a way that the ease and automaticity of visual wordform resolution is enhanced. I want to expand — or diversify beyond the conventional, rather contentious ones we use — the repertoire of personal constructs we use to channel are actions or make our assessments. Metanoia

(I am also interest in “crowding” and “interfacilitation” because they seem to hold a key, but that’s anther story.)

I think of type design as both a fine art and an exact science. It is an exact science because, beyond the simple requirement of making a recognizable letter ”m,” manipulating salience and cue values is a game of tiny incremental adjustments in conformity with the laws of gestalt vision. The fine art is in knowing where to make the adjustments.

I'm back, so some responses:

>Bill, reading is not an ailment.

I didn't say it was. That's a red herring. But there are indeed reading ailments, known as dyslexia. Your view here seems to be that scientists should not research reading, because their work is never going to be of help. And that I think that any restriction on scientific research--except for ethical issues of ill treatment of human research subjects, etc.--is a bad idea. It is opposed to the growth of knowledge, which can help us all.

>How much is the bet?

David, I would say a good 'stakes' would be a good lunch for all the participants of this thread at a type conference five years from now. And say Eben could be the referee on whether there has been any significant advance on readability.

I personally doubt that future discoveries in reading are going to discover that classic type faces, printed on paper at the usual sizes, have something fundamentally wrong with them. However, I do think that the progress will be able to tell us more about the limits of readable type: what screen resolution is needed, what spacing becomes dysfunctional, and so on. So I do think they will be able to guide the creation of new type faces, though more than readability will always be involved.

>manipulating salience and cue values is a game of tiny incremental adjustments in conformity with the laws of gestalt vision.

I very much like Peter's phrase here "the laws of gestalt vision". We are able to "resolve", as he puts it, marks on paper into meaningful words, and I am sure there is law-like process in our brain that good theory can describe and good testing reveal in the future. My bet, as I said is five years. We'll see.

Your view here seems to be that scientists should not research reading, because their work is never going to be of help.

I'm all for the science of reading, and for incorporating typographic expertise into that research.
But I don't believe that readability is a scientific concept.
It's too soft. Which is to say that there are too many cultural variables: typographic, environmental, demographic and textual.
There is also the issue of what yardstick to use: speed is too trite, while comprehension and retention of anything other than simple grammar and facts is the preserve of the humanities, is it not?

Scientizing typography will do more harm than good: it's a job for designers, not technicians.

But I don’t believe that readability is a scientific concept.

I don't believe that concepts are there to be balkanized; in other words they don't necessarily belong exclusively to one area of information or study rather than another.

I am unclear on what you mean by Scientizing but it does sound catastrophic. Even without know yet I suspect that scientizing typography isn't going to happen. I am fairly certain that's a straw dog.

Instead; if we are lucky we typographers & type makers might have a situation a bit more like another deeply human and sensorially rich activity: cooking. For the cook there are nutrtionists, agonomists, biologists, and culinary anthopologists. None of which stop me from cooking any way I like. On the other hand I do draw on their observations from time to time. How is food any less complex than Typography? Moreover there is no rush to displace cooks from their jobs by the dreaded white coats...

As you know I don't think that Science is all good all the time. It can be used for "bad stuff" the same way Typography can. So I am happy to point out the obvious counter-argument of all the heavily processed food made with the help of "food scientists". It's a hell of an counter example. Maybe this is the kind of thing you mean when you say Scientizing.

But the counter-counter argument might be increasing use of composting and also the food experiments of Ferran Adrià. Having eaten at the restaurant of one of his proteges, Jordi Butrón's Espai Sucre in Barcelona I can say that I was definitely getting the sense that in this case science was being used to enhance the humanities.

>Which is to say that there are too many cultural variables: typographic, environmental, demographic and textual.

Um, we are talking about type here. Yes, one can write unreadable prose, but we are talking about the contribution of type. Good experimentation separates the influence of different variables. The idea you seem to be assuming--that in principle the influence of different variables can't be separated--is just wrong. It isn't easy, but it it is done all the time in science. If you couldn't separate the influence of different variables there would be no successful scientific research, which is clearly not the case.

>while comprehension and retention of anything other than simple grammar and facts is the preserve of the humanities, is it not?

No, it's not, in so far as typography is also an influence. You can have a text book on a difficult subject, and a good typeface and good typography can help make it more readable. Of course, how well the writer writes is critical.

Eben's analogy to the influence of science on cooking is superb: science helps the cook, but isn't going to make a mediocre home cook a great chef. It can help both, though. For example, Julia Child turned to food scientist Shirley Corriher. And I cook a little better because of her science-based advice also.

Same with advances in readability of type and typography. It would help the amateur and the expert, but not turn one into the other, because so much more is involved.

Bill: "David, I would say a good ’stakes’ would be a good lunch for all the participants of this thread at a type conference five years from now. "

I'm much more interested in targeted cash, and not at all in a bunch of freeloaders getting in on my winnings.
You wanna put your money where my mouth is, that's fine, the rest can make their own bets.

Peter: "The fine art is in knowing where to make the adjustments."
I agree, with the even finer art knowing where not to make the adjustments. ;)

John: "I don’t yet see a complete description of how we read, and that makes me very wary about trying to draw practical conclusions in terms of ’doing things differently’ in type design, which is what we’re all concerned about isn’t it"

It's already been done. The renderings of the OS all went to doing things differently without letting the type or the designers 'at it' properly. A year ago you were in utter denial, now... crappy 'variations' will be brought to us by.... 'filtering expertz'.

Cheers!

I don’t believe that concepts are there to be balkanized; in other words they don’t necessarily belong exclusively to one area of information or study rather than another.

Phrenology, graphology, the ego and the id have been banished from the scientific sphere, as has the study of race and intelligence.

By the same token, realism lost its credibility in art long ago. Art students don't study life drawing any more, or even drawing. Representation is the preserve of photography.

scientizing typography isn’t going to happen. I am fairly certain that’s a straw dog.

OK, how do you implement a disability policy that provides access for the reading challenged to important documents? Do you pass a Legibility Act that stipulates only certified typographic practitioners may produce such reading material, or one that stipulates certain physical criteria for typography?

The latter is what's happening, and, as has already been pointed out, scientific claims have been made in the marketing pitch for faces such as Read Right and Tiresias, which do not stand close scrutiny.

With regard to the food analogy, this is something I've considered, but I wish you guys would stop making analogies, there's nothing like type!

Good experimentation separates the influence of different variables. The idea you seem to be assuming—that in principle the influence of different variables can’t be separated—is just wrong.

You're assuming I'm assuming. What I actually said was there are too many variables. As Peter put it "...a decontextualized descision based soley on simple or generic affordance micro-advantages [is] short-sighted."

And again, I would ask you to make the distinction between studying reading, and studying readability.
Certainly, the variables can be limited in tests that are designed to address particular aspects of the reading process.
However, the putative study of typeface readability is impossible, because there are too many extraneous factors which skew the results.

OK, here comes an analogy: manners.
Science can study manners--anthropology or sociology --but it's not its job to offer etiquette tips.
Readability is like manners, typographers use certain types and "style sheets" for different kinds of publication.
If the wrong typespec is used, readability will tank.
How can science assign a particular typeface a readability quotient when it is good manners to use it in one kind of periodical, but a faux pas in another? Sure, you isolate the variable and say, THIS quotient IF these circumstances. And so on, as you take account of all the variables--the reader's education and eyesight, where they're reading, what the writing is, and so on, not to mention the typographic variables of size, leading, line length, and paper stock. Do you really believe that the appropriateness of typefaces doesn't vary drastically against one another as such circumstances change?

>too many variables

Nick, that amounts to the same thing. The point is that with good experimentation you can get the influence of one variable. Blood is incredibly complex--probably as complex as reading--but medical testing regularly isolates different components to detect and diagnose illness.

>OK, here comes an analogy: manners.
Science can study manners—anthropology or sociology —but it’s not its job to offer etiquette tips.

It may not be its job, but it can help those who want to be polite or to offer etiquette tips. For example, the book Questions and Politeness points out that there is a conflict between being clear, as is a priority in debate for the growth of knowledge, and politeness. The goal in politeness is avoid embarrassment to anybody in the conversation. For that reason vague, open-ended questions, such as 'How do you do', are standard polite questions. Pointed, personal, close-ended questions, like "How much money did you make last month?" and "When did you have last have sex with your wife?" are rude.

I think the lessons for etiquette tips are pretty obvious. As is the challenge of trying to have a debate for the sake of better understanding--such as this one--while maintaining politeness.

As Kant said "There is nothing so practical as a good theory." A good theory is true, and therefore has practical applications. I have no doubt the same would be true for advances in the scientific study of readability.

It’s already been done. Phooey. Not the same thing at all. Letting technical folk try to solve something outside of their base of knowledge is not the same thing as having something studied from a new angle or better put : using a different process; ideally with some input from Typographers. Being technical is not the same as being scientific, even if science is used for creating technology. But your point about it being a mistake to not let "designers ’at it’ properly" is a solid one.

The latter is what’s happening, and, as has already been pointed out, scientific claims have been made in the marketing pitch for faces such as Read Right and Tiresias, which do not stand close scrutiny.And what close scrutiny will show is that it was faux science if it is*. And actually, that will be more useful to say than simply "this is the realm of the humanities"! So if you had more scientists involved the faux science would be easier to debunk.

....the study of race and intelligence All of these turned out to be mistaken theories. "Race" for example turns out to be construct that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It was just an over-fixation on one variable:skin. Instead; now a more complex reality emerges. So looking at genetics, environment, nutrition, behavior and abilities etc. hasn't stopped. If Readability turns out to be a flawed theory maybe the same thing will happen with type - a more complex reality can emerge.

* I admit that that I haven't spent time looking at either fonts of the marketing associated with them. Perhaps I will this week.

Eben, here is the definition:

Scientism: The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.

So phooey to you, because "technical folk out of their depth" are the very people most apt to be scientistic.

>I’m much more interested in targeted cash, and not at all in a bunch of freeloaders getting in on my winnings. You wanna put your money where my mouth is, that’s fine, the rest can make their own bets.

But you're going to lose :)

In any case lunch will be a pleasure, whether I pay or you do, so that's fine with me.

The problem is finding the referee who's going to decide whether there was significant progress on 'readability'.

>the distinction between studying reading, and studying readability.

If you can study reading, I don't see why you can't study readability. As I said, you aren't going to capture everything, particularly in the beginning, but I don't see why you can't identify factors that contribute to or hurt the ease of reading, which is what readability is. I expect that researchers will be able to identify thresholds where bad leading and spacing start to significantly hurt ease of reading, and these will be quite objective.

Perhaps a better way to describe what we should oppose is the illusory belief or expectation that adequate or fitting decisions about the right or best course of action can or should be based principally or exclusively on naked evidential knowledge of cause and effect.

…ease…

The problem with studying readability under your definition is, the researcher has to propose an understanding of ease in order to isolate and investigate. Is ease to be thought of as the sustainability of immersion with comprehension over large periods of time, or is it to be thought of in terms of the lightness of the computational load in neurological processing terms, or is it to be thought of in terms of the rapidness or automaticity of visual wordform resolution, or is it to be thought of in terms of perceptual attentional demands, or is it to be thought of in terms of the abscence of physiological stress.

All these are somewhat more tractable than ease, and probably related, but none of them really covers all we mean in ordinary, everyday terms, by ease, so a result derived from only one of it's more quantifiable dimensions can't bring us to where we want to be. And there is a naturally tendency for that to happen.

[added “with studying readability under your definition” at the begining later]

The definition I am using is the one from my late Uncle J. Ben Lieberman's book ‘Types of Typefaces,’ from 1967:

“'Legibility' is based on the ease with which one letter can be told from the other. 'Readability' is the ease with which the eye can absorb the message and move along the line."

Generally as there is progress in science, there is refinement in the meaning of terms, such as the distinction between 'mass' and 'weight' that came in with Newtonian physics. So I'm sure there will be further clarification and refinement in the meaning of 'readability' as more is understood of the reading process. What I am claiming is that there is more to readability than the ease of distinguishing one letter from another. These additional aspects of readability is what I hope and expect there will be progress on.

Any of the alternative description you put forward may win out, but they will all be about 'readability' in the sense that they involve more than ease of individual letter identification.

David: It’s already been done. The renderings of the OS all went to doing things differently without letting the type or the designers ’at it’ properly. A year ago you were in utter denial, now... crappy ’variations’ will be brought to us by.... ’filtering expertz’.

I was talking about me doing things differently, not rendering engines. What a rendering engine does might force me to do some things differently, but that's different from reading science directly influencing design decisions. A rendering engine can make my life difficult whether it is based on reading science, focus group response, unfounded optimism about gains in screen resolution, or voodoo.

Is what the rendering engines do, in fact, based on reading science? I don't think it is. Retroactively, some reading science is being applied to figure out whether particular rendering models have advantages over others, and that may affect the future development of those models, but I think the decisions to ship ClearType, CoolType or Quartz, were as anecdotally driven as they come: they made it, they liked the way it looked, they shipped it.

Denial? I'm just a bit slow: slow enough to spend 18 months designing a typeface to address a conflicting set of requirements without really understanding how they are conflicting.

Nonetheless, it must have been quite a ride.
But what I really want to know is, what's the scoop on Jelle Bosma's Greek and Cyrillic?
Did they fail the readability test?

Nick, under your definition of Scientism it appears that you might be as "guilty" as I of this "ism" because you appear to appreciate Peter's work -as do I. This is in part because as provided the definition itself is more charged than clear.

Certainly if by Scientism you mean that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are to be considered not merely potentially applicable; but further that they are priviliged; then I am am as ready as you are to condemn Scientism. Usually an "ism" supposes a privileged position for the thing being mentioned before the "ism". "Ism"s are just dogma, not theory; and they offer false certainty and stunt curiosity.

This is ( I think what peter is talking about when he says Perhaps a better way to describe what we should oppose is the illusory belief or expectation that adequate or fitting decisions about the right or best course of action can or should be based principally or exclusively on naked evidential knowledge of cause and effect.. Peter please disabuse me if I am wrong.

What worries me almost as much as Scientism though; is is reactionary Anti-scientism. It's no better.

Although I am no doubt flogging a dead horse by now I will say again: It isn't necessary that "the investigative methods of the physical sciences" be either subservient, equal or superior. What needed is mutual respect, curiosity and interest among the various "modes of inquiry" as they used to say back at my college during the 80's. All this bristling and fuming at "Science"* in the thread does nothing to help that along. Still from what I have read I wonder if we don't agree agree on far more than we disagree on. We both have significant respect for the caprices of the eye when making fonts for instance.

Perhaps what is left is mostly a question of how relatively worried or unworried we are about threats from faux-science being wielded by marketing.

* I am using quotes here because as often as not it wasn't Science per se but the claim that it was.

John, Bill & Peter thanks for your interesting posts!

[reacting to Bill’s] "Any of the alternative description you put forward may win out…"

I don't see them as alternative descriptions but functional-specification proposals. And the issue for me isn’t which wins out but what gets looked at, and how what gets looked at is named. They all need to acknowledged for what they are, and explored for how they function. My prefered genral category to describe the domain I’m in is perceptual processing in reading.

The danger with designating a science of legibility or readability as the research goal is the danger, in the case of readability, of turning a value into a number, and in the case of legibility, af creating a reliance on threshold statistics (in the domain of perceptual discrimination affordance) for relevant information about functionality at a plateau (in the domain of visual wordform resolution).

That being said, I'm all for constructing legibility quotients and readability profiles. I'm just sensitive to how they are constructed and used. If concerns for readability and legibility are included in the brief, these shouldn't be a threat. And they shouldn't be all there is to consider.

"Phooey."?
I was at an early publication of the latest mass discontinuity between test type and user: first the dreamer gave his ideas, then the scientist gave his scientifically studied presentation, then the type designer showed how simple it was going to be to make fonts, and then the typographer showed beautiful stuff a bit too far away to see. Kevin, before he was Kevlar, gave the scientific explaination for reading, which he still believes and which still inspires this CT effort, I think. It revolves around letters, not sylables, words, or lines — people read letters. I got close to him at Typecon, not just because I like him, but also to make sure he would say it three times while I was right there. "Chinese?" "No," "the word 'a'?", "NO," "youth vs expertise?" "Noooooo, people read letters one saccade at a time!

So, unless 'Ready Rendering Skills' lead science to bad reading science, and influenced type design decisions, an unthinkable thing, then Science did it. ;) By, ready rendering skills, in this case I mean the ability, for better or for worse, to cleave the resolution into components, not triple the resolution, as is so often claimed. Read the MS 'white paper' on anti-aliasing type, which 'scientifically' led this off. It measures, prods and pokes around the solution without ever mentioning type, or typography. This last study, if Sheedy only lets MS change the filter, (and not the oil or driver;), it is not going to change the fundamentally saccade-hiccupic nature in low resolution text across the Windows universe. This is not my fault, who ever let that French guy name this bluddy eye movement? it's their fault.

" I’m just a bit slow:"
Me too, has something to do in my case, with having to ceaselessly pry into the seemingly endless 'overlays' upon the concept of text for readability. I'd give up, but that each overlay leaves such fertile ground for custom work...I'm just a busy bunch of monkeys in the orchestra of type.

"...is what the rendering engines do, in fact, based on reading science? I don’t think it is."
I great question, No, in the strictest sense rendering engines do not do anything based on reading science, they are non-sentient e-world objects. But, who, or what, are these scientific studies of CT done for, if not for the engineering staff(s) who render rendering engines? Kevlar just said, 5 filterings were tested in their scientific study, and 2 filterings were released to the developing public. Maybe he knows then? Is what the rendering engines do, in fact, based on reading science? Or, are the renderings which are released, released based on reading science?

Cheers!

What worries me almost as much as Scientism though; is is reactionary Anti-scientism. It’s no better.

I am not a reactionary, I am progressive, and that has nothing to do with science. I just think we should move forward and leave a lot of past garbage behind (suitably recycled).

I am not anti-science, I am "anti-scientism", because I dislike all forms of totalitarian-ism.

which he still believes and which still inspires this CT effort, I think.

Well, if the folks in the Microsoft typography department want to stay busy and keep their jobs, they have to have something to develop. The boss will fund projects with measurable results; he is an engineer and runs a large-volume, small margin business, so that's understandable. Having a scientific readability component in a type-development project, one that is able to produce a result such as "5% faster", does the trick. This much I gleaned from the CT documentary video that MS published.

So although the people involved may be variously inspired, the CT project itself exists as a condition of the way the business works.

So I am happy to point out the obvious counter-argument of all the heavily processed food made with the help of “food scientists”. It’s a hell of an counter example.

There was an interesting show on public radio this morning about how food science (and marketing, and journalism) encourage people to eat much less healthfully. I know this seems off-topic, but I think the analogy might have some legs, and indeed Michael Pollan (the author who was the guest on the radio show) seems to be identifying similar dynamics in the food supply world that Nick is calling out in the type world.