Spring 2002 Issue 4 INTRODUCTION and typeface selections are vast, The major function of textual it is important that designers Journal of Design messages and graphic elements consider the individual elements is communication. The graphic/ of text and message design and text combination can evoke emo- how these elements interact to Communication tional responses or convey infor- determine a message’s legibility. Current Editor: Joan McLain-Kark mation for purposes as varied as motivating a sale to furthering LETTER DESIGN AND The Elements of Text and Message Design and a cause. According to Rousseau LEGIBILITY Their Impact on Message Legibility: (1998), four steps of interaction Textual messages are usual- A Literature Review between the viewer and the design ly constructed of words con- must be successfully completed sisting of two cases, upper and Laura Bix for a design to effectively convey lower, which are set in a single its meaning. Rousseau (1998) font (See Figure 1). “A font con- ABSTRACT but allow them to easily read states that successful messages are, sists of all the characters (up- When creating messages, de- and understand the message 1. noticed per and lowercase, figures, frac- signers must be careful to not created. This awareness con- 2. encoded [decoded] tions, reference marks, etc.) of affect basic letters, thus weak- sists of a basic understanding 3. comprehended one size of one particular type- ening communication (Craig, of the “anatomy” of letters, the 4. complied with by the viewer face” (Craig, 1980). Typeface 1980). The challenge is to make messages they form, and the Failure at any of these steps di- (see Figure 1) is defined as the the most effective use of the impact that changes in letter minishes the design’s ability to full range (of sizes) of type of enormous flexibility that is in- design and word layout has on effectively communicate, and the same design (Department herent in typographic design message accessibility. The arti- therefore, achieve its intended of Mathematics, University of (Bigelow & Day, 1983) by cre- cle presented here reviews the goal. Although graphic designers Utah, 2001). In other words, a ating designs that are both in- elements of letter and message do not frequently have control typeface consists of all charac- over steps three and four of the teresting and practical. Effec- design and the impact of each ters, in all sizes, of a particular model, their influence over the tive designers develop a high on the legibility of printed text. design. “Typefaces are usually success, or failure, of steps one level of awareness of typeface available in 6- to 72-point [one and two is significant. Because point is equal to 1/72”], with in order to construct messages communication is paramount, a complete font in each size” that not only attract readers, 2 (International Paper, 1997). A called counters), serifs (or lack family of type encompasses all of serifs, referred to as sans ser- related typefaces (see Figure 1) if), and stroke weight (thick and thin). The terms x-height, ascender and descender refer Despite the fact that it is the include letter and line spacing, only to lower-case letters, x-height, rather than the point letter contrast, print and back- while counter forms, ser- size, that conveys the visual im- ground color, and type style” ifs, and stroke weight ap- pression of letters (Craig, 1980), (Watanabe, 1994). The study con- ply to both upper and low- point size is, perhaps, the let- cluded, “horizontal letter compres- er case letters. X-height ter characteristic that is most sion had a greater effect on read- refers to the height of the frequently manipulated to im- ability than vertical letter height.” body of a lowercase let- prove legibility. While there is ter. It is called the x-height some validity to the argument An experiment conducted at because it is equal to the that increasing type size im- the Michigan State University height of the lowercase x proves legibility, to say that School of Packaging (Lockhart (see Figures 2 and 10). “Al- type size determines legibili- & Bix, 1997) also suggests that though the x-height is not ty is an oversimplification. The more factors influence legibil- a unit of measurement, design elements of letters, and ity than type size. A message it is significant because it the way they are presented, can in 4.5 point type with black on is the x-height - not the have a far greater impact on white contrast was more easi- point size - that conveys legibility than size of the type. ly read than the same message the visual impression of A study conducted at the New printed in 6 point type with the size of the letter. Typefaces Figure1 England College of Optometry yellow on red contrast. The- of the same point size may ap- Font, Typeface and Family (Watanabe, 1994) found ele- seresults indicate that color pear larger or smaller because ments other than type size had a contrast can have a greater im- of variations in the x-height” There are several common more significant impact on leg- pact on legibility than type size. (see Figure 2) (Craig, 1980). elements of letters that can ibility. “Type size alone may not Figure 2 be examined. These include be responsible for poor read- Additionally, different type- Comparing the x-heights of x-height, ascenders and de- ability. Other factors that may faces that are “the same” size various fonts scenders, counter forms (also be contributing to this difficulty can vary greatly in their legibil- Journal of Design Communication/Issue 4, 2002 4 ity. This is not only due to the of “6 points” does not produce will print a letter 8 points high” sons are considered, it is suggest- fact that they can have different a letter that is 6 points in height. (Ralph, 1982). Organizations ed that a minimum of 12 points x-heights, but also because of Typefaces that utilize a large have frequently believed that be used (Ralph, 1982). Ensur- the system used to determine percentage of the block are close they could ensure legibility by ing design legibility by specify- typeface size. The size of a giv- to 6 points tall. Typefaces that specifying a minimum type size ing a minimum type size is not en font is based on the now-an- do not use as much of the block (Food and Drug Administration, advised. Other design elements tiquated system of setting met- are much shorter, but they are February 27, 1997; Food and Drug that impact legibility include: al type. Metal type setting was still referred to as 6 point type. Administration, March 17, 1999; counter forms, the presence or the technique used when letter- Figure 3 Nonprescription Drug Manufac- absence of serifs, and variations press, a type of relief printing, Diagram of a block of type turer’s Association, 1991). This in stroke thickness, referred to as was the only way to print text. approach has problems, not only “ stroke weight”. These elements In letterpress printing, each let- As a result, “the face of any letter because of the issues associat- apply to both upper and low- ter is raised from the surface of is not the full point size…. Cor- ed with varying type heights er case letters. Although most a metal block (see Figure 3). The responding letters in the same and x-heights, but also because readers do not have a conscious block is referred to as the body; size type may vary in height” there is no agreement with re- awareness of the negative spaces the printing surface (the letter) (International Paper, 1997). gard to the minimum legible within letters, also called count- is referred to as “the face” (Craig, “No type face fills the amount type size. The manufacturers of er forms or counters (see Fig- 1980). Type size is based on of space allowed in its measure, nonprescription drug products ures 4 and 5), the design of these the size of the block from (Nonprescription Drug Manu- spaces significantly impacts let- which the letter is raised facturer’s Association, 1991) in- ter identification and, therefore, and is not directly related dicate that the minimum legible legibility. Both the negative and to the height of the letter. type size is 4.5 points, while the positive spaces of each letter The discrepancy occurs Food and Drug Administration work in concert to allow view- because different typefac- (February 27, 1997; March 17, ers to identify letters at a glance. es utilize different areas of 1999) suggests nothing smaller the block, and even though than 6 points. Hauptman (1979) type is now created using recommends a minimum of 7 computer programs, type size e.g. a type face in 10 point may points, while Jewler (1981) sug- is still based on the letterpress print a letter only 6 points high; gests sizes no smaller than 10 system. As a result, a type size another type face in 10 point points. If visually limited per- Journal of Design Communication/Issue 4, 2002 6 Figure 4 easier to read at smaller sizes er counter parts (see Figures the uneven appearance made Counter forms of various type- when compared with a typeface 5), allowing readers to use the by their tools” (Craig, 1980). faces that contains smaller counter positive and negative spaces Sans (without) serif fonts do not Figure 5 forms, like Helvetica Condensed for easy letter identification at contain these terminal strokes. Small counter forms vs large Black. This is because the counter small type sizes (Craig, 1980). counter forms forms of the letter are not “swal- Figure 6 lowed up” as Letters with vary- letter size de- ing weights creases; read- Legibility is also ers are able to affected by the pres- use both pos- ence, or absence, of itive and neg- serifs (See Figures ative spaces 7 and 8, respective- to identify the ly). Serif fonts have letter. Letters terminal strokes that are produced are short cross lines in a wide va- at the end of the riety of stroke weights (see main stroke (In- Figure 6). Possible weights, ar- ternational Paper, ranged from lightest to heaviest, 1997). “Serifs originated with Literature reviewing how ser- are: hairline, extralight, light, ifs impact legibility is divided. book, regular, medium, demib- Many works indicate that serifs old, semibold, bold, extrabold, positively contribute to message heavy, black, ultra and poster legibility, while others indicate (weights that appear in bolded that sans serif typefaces are more type are pictured below) (De- easily read. Researchers who be- A comparison of the two type- partment of Mathematics, 2001). lieve serifs contribute positively faces in Figure 5 reveals that Letters with thinner strokes are the Roman masons who ter- to legibility (Burt, 1959; Craig, a typeface with large counter characterized by more open minated each stroke in a slab 1980; McLean, 1980; Perles, forms, like Helvetica Light, is counter forms than their thick- of stone with a serif to correct 1977; Rehe, 1990; Tinker, 1963; Journal of Design Communication/Issue 4, 2002 8 Vanderplas & Vanderplas, 1980; following explanations for im- MESSAGE DESIGN AND to adjust the distance between Wright, Warner, Winter, & Zei- proved legibility in the absence of LEGIBILITY letters. Because designers no gler, 1977) generally provide two serifs. “Sans serif type is free of vi- The preceding discussion in- longer have the physical limita- reasons for the improvement of sual distractions” (Garcia, 1981), volves the elements that come tions imposed by a metal block legibility when using serif types: which improves legibility. Ad- together to create letters. How- (see Figure 3), negative spacing (1) “They (serifs) contribute ef- ditionally, the x-heights of sans ever, messages are not merely between letters is now possible. fectively to the horizontal move- serif fonts are frequently greater letters. Letters must be integrat- “Negative letter spacing involves ment of the reading eye and than the x-heights of serif fonts ed into words to be used to con- the removal of space between thus help in combining separate of equal point size; this increase vey meanings through messages. letters individually (kerning) or letters into word-wholes” (Per- allows for more open count- Legibility is affected not only by between all letters equally (white les, 1977) (2) Letters with serifs er forms, filling more of the the design of the letters, but also space reduction or tracking)” (See Figure 7) by the way that they are present- (International Paper, 1997). Let- are more easily ed. Several elements of the pre- ter combinations that typically differentiated sentation, or layout of the letters allow kerning (negative spac- by readers than and words, can impact the read- ing between pairs of individual letters without er’s ability to access the infor- letters) include: we, We, yo, Yo, serifs (sans ser- mation effectively. “Letter spac- wa, Wa, Ta, To, ye, Ye, wo, Wo, if: see Figure 8). ing is the amount of space used va, Va, WA, VA (International between letters, negative or pos- Paper, 1997). The first letter in Researchers itive, either for readability, aes- each of these two letter com- who support the thetics or to fill a certain area” binations provides a negative legibility of sans (International Paper, 1997). space that allows for the “over- serif types (Bix, Historically, in letterpress print- lap” of the two letters in the 1998; Food and ing, which used “…metal type, form of kerning (see Figure 9). Drug Adminis- letter spacing is [was] accom- Figure 9 tration, February 27, 1997; Food and space provided by the type size plished mechanically by insert- Kerning (Negative letter spac- Drug Administration, March 17, 1999; measure, improving legibility. ing pieces of metal between the ing between specific pairs of Nonprescription Drug Manufactur- type” (Craig, 1980). Currently, letters) er’s Association, 1991; Pietrows- letter spacing is accomplished ki, 1993) generally provide the by using computer programs Journal of Design Communication/Issue 4, 2002 10 of type, leading, also im- Figure 11 the more leading is required for pacts message legibili- Examining Differences in Lead- good readability” (International ty. Leading is measured ing Paper, 1997). Ascenders and de- from baseline to base- scenders are not the only aspects line (see Figure 10) and The vast majority of the liter- of typeface that dictate differ- is expressed in points or ature indicates that the optimal ences in leading, “serif type calls fractions of a point. Fig- amount of leading for maxi- for less leading than sans serif ure 10 Ascenders, de- mum legibility is dependent on type because the serifs reinforce scenders and x-height. the elements of both letter and the horizontal eye flow. Bolder “The amount of space message design. “There is no set typefaces require more leading or leading used in rule to follow [with regard to than lighter faces” (Rehe, 1990). printing is usually 0 to appropriate lead]… Too much Typographical researchers Beck- Although letter spacing is widely 2 points depending on the type- leading can sometimes be as bad er et al. (1970) agree that optimal recognized to impact legibility, face used” (Ralph, 1982). 50-point as not enough. Typefaces with leading is dependent on a variety there is little documentation with type with no lead is written as of design factors, regard to specific requirements 50/50; the type size is 50 and “different type- for legible messages. Glenn the distance between baselines faces need dif- Pettit, an instructor of package (see Figure 11) is 50. 50-point ferent amounts printing at Michigan State Uni- type with 10 points of lead- of leading.” In versity, indicates that legibility ing is written 50/60 (see Figure another area that impacts the legi- bility of messag- es, color contrast, the majority of research findings are consistent: long ascenders and descenders dark text on a light background is most dramatically reduced 11). The type size is 50 and the [see Figure 10] require more provides the best legibility. A when negative spacing is prevalent distance between base lines is leading. Also, the wider the study conducted at Michigan (Pettit, 2000). The space between lines 60; 10 points of leading is used. measure of text composition, State University (Lockhart & Bix, Journal of Design Communication/Issue 4, 2002 12 1996) examined the legibility of tions avoid difficulties associated four steps of Rousseau’s model, the design of your typeface and 6 color combinations: black type with red/green color blindness so the message does not accom- the layout of your message. The on a white background, blue that messages are accessible to a plish its intended purpose. Ef- parts, or the individual elements type on a yellow background, large percentage of the popula- fective designers develop sen- of design and layout, do not de- white type on a blue back- tion. Substrate color is not only sitivity to typeface design and termine legibility; sufficient leg- ground, blue type on a white a factor in color contrast; it also message layout, and recognize ibility is the outcome of the sum background, yellow type on a affects the color of the printed that they must strike a delicate of the parts. Be aware of the el- red background and black type text and graphics. International balance between form and func- ements text and message design on a red background. Black type Paper (1997) advises, “Type is tion. Although it is important to and their interactions, remember- on a white background proved more easily read against a soft remember that legibility is the ing that viewers must complete the easiest combination to read (yellowish) white, while process overall goal in a complex system four steps of interaction (Rous- for all age groups tested (six age colors reproduce most accurate- of interrelated elements that are seau, 1998) for your message to groups ranged in age from 19 ly on neutral white paper.” As a difficult to dictate one by one, accomplish is goal. to 81). Research conducted by result, the optimal printing sub- designers can use some general Sorg (1985) concurs that black strate for a textually oriented de- guidelines when creating with on white is the easiest combi- sign may be quite different than text. x-height, not point size, nation to read. Arnold (1972) one that is graphically loaded. “conveys the visual impression” and Summer (1932) found dark of a letter (Craig, 1980). Let- ink printed on yellow back- CONCLUSION ter compression has a greater ground to be the best contrast, It is paramount that designers impact on legibility than type while the Institute of Grocery remember that messages must size; legibility is significant- Distribution (1994) supports not only attract readers, they ly diminished when compres- “dark print on a light back- must also be legible. Too of- sion is high (Watanabe, 1994). ground.” The work of Bradley et ten form takes precedence over At small sizes, heavier strokes al. (1994) concurs with all of the function; designs are produced cannibalize counter forms, di- aforementioned findings, indi- that are sufficiently noticeable minishing legibility. Negative cating that black text on either (step 1 of Rousseau’s model), but letter spacing should be used a white or yellow background not sufficiently legible (step 2 of cautiously. Dark text on a light provides good legibility; they the Rousseau model). When the background is desirable. Op- also suggest that these combina- viewer cannot accomplish the timal leading is dependent on Journal of Design Communication/Issue 4, 2002 14 REFERENECES Institute of Grocery Distribution. (1994). Packaging Design: Arnold, E. (1972). Ink on Paper. New York: Harper and Row Pub- Improving Legibility. International Paper. (1997). Pocket Pal: A lishers. Graphic Arts Production Handbook (17th ed.). Becker, D., Heinrich, J., von Sichowsky, J., & Wendt, D. (1970). Jewler, J. (1981). Creative Strategy in Advertising. Belmont: Wad- Reader Preferences for Typeface and Leading. The Journal of Typo- sworth Publishing Co. graphic Research, 4(1), 61-66. Lockhart, H., & Bix, L. (1996). Color Contrast Studies. From un- Bigelow, C., & Day, D. (1983). Digital Typography. Scientific Ameri- published file. Lockhart, H., & Bix, L. (1997). Comment to FDA can, 249(2). on Proposed Rule. From unpublished file. Bix, L. (1998). The Effect of Subject Age on Legibility. Unpublished McLean, R. (1980). The Thames and Hudson Manual of Typog- Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing. raphy: Thames and Hudson, Ltd. Bradley, B., Singleton, M., & Li Wan Po, A. (1994). Readability of Nonprescription Drug Manufacturer's Association. (1991). Label patient information leaflets on over-the-counter (OTC) medicines. J Readability Guidelines. Clin Pharm Ther, 19(1), 7-15. Perles, P. (1977). Readability, Has It Gone? Or, Pity the Poor Burt, C. (1959). A Psychological Study of Typography. London En- Reader. Direct Marketing, 39(10), 32-40. gland: Cambridge University Press. Pettit, G. (2000). PKG 330 (Package Printing) Lecture. East Lan- Craig, J. (1980). Designing with Type: A Basic Course in Typogra- sing: Michigan State University. phy. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications. Pietrowski, J. (1993). Development of a Methodology to Quantify Department of Mathematics, U. o. U. (2001). Font Name [Web Package and Label Legibility. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Mich- Page]. Retrieved August 15, 2001, 2001, from the World Wide Web: igan State University, East Lansing. http://www.math.utah.edu/docs/info/fontname_toc.html. Ralph, J. (1982). A Geriatric Visual Concern: The Need for Pub- Food and Drug Administration. (February 27, 1997). Over-the- lishing Guidelines. Journal of the American Optometric Associa- Counter Human Drugs; Proposed Labeling Requirments, Federal tion, 53(1), 43-50. Register. Rehe, R. (1990). Newspaper Typography Some Do's and Don'ts, Food and Drug Administration, F. (March 17, 1999). Final Rule- Step-by-Step Graphics: Designer's Guide (pp. 116-121). Over-the-Counter Human Drugs; Labeling Requirements, Federal Rousseau, G. K. (1998). Designing warnings to compensate for Register. age related changes in perceptual and cognitive abilities. Psychol- Garcia, M. (1981). Newspaper Design. Englewood Cliffs: Pren- ogy & Marketing, 15(7), 643. tice-Hall, Inc. Sorg, J. (1985). An Exploratory Study of Typeface, Type Size and Hauptman, D. (1979). Effective Direct Response Typography. Direct Color Paper Preferences Among Older Adults. Unpublished Marketing, 42(8), 24-28. Master's Thesis, Pennsylvania State University. Journal of Design Communication/Issue 4, 2002 16 Summer, F. (1932). Influence of Color on Legibility of Copy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 16, 201-204. Tinker, M. (1963). Legibility of Print. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Vanderplas, J., & Vanderplas, J. (1980). Some Factors Affecting Legi- bility of Printed Materials. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50(1), 1923- 1932. Watanabe, R. K. (1994). The Ability of the Geriatric Population to Read Labels on Over-the-Counter Medication Containers. Journal of the American Optometric Association, 65, 32-37. Wright, J., Warner, D., Winter, W., & Zeigler, S. (1977). Advertising. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Journal of Design Communication/Issue 4, 2002