John Benjamins Publishing Company This is a contribution from Information Design Journal 20:1 © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet. For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com Information Design Journal 20(1), 16–31 © 2013 John Benjamins Publishing Company doi: 10.1075/idj.20.1.02bei Sofie Beier and Kevin Larson How does typeface familiarity affect reading performance and reader preference? Keywords: familiarity, legibility, readability, typeface approach is represented by type scholar Stanley Morison design, fonts, experimental study, typographic research (1889–1967), who believes that a functional typeface should “be so good that only very few recognize its Some typographers have proposed that typeface novelty” (Morison, 1930, p. 63); elsewhere Morison familiarity is defined by the amount of time that a explains that for a typeface to be satisfactory, the essen- reader has been exposed to a typeface design, while tial form must “correspond with that handed down” other typographers have proposed that familiarity is (Morison, 1924, p. 59). In his later years, typographer defined by the commonalities in letter shapes. These two Jan Tschichold (1902–1974) further supports this view by hypotheses were tested by measuring the reading speed stating that “Our type is in fact an absolutely inflexible and preferences of participants. Participants were tested form, and offers no possibility for any but minute alter- twice with common and uncommon letter shapes, once nations if we still want to read with ease” (Tschichold, before and once after spending 20 minutes reading a story 1969, p. 53). A more liberal approach is advocated by with the font. The results indicate that the exposure period type designer Eric Gill (1882–1940), who argues that, has an effect on the speed of reading, but the uncommon although we are used to material that is less legible letter shapes did not. Readers did not like the uncommon than other material would be if it were equally familiar, letter shapes. This has implications for the selection of we should still try to improve on the existing material type and the design of future typefaces. (Gill, 1936). This view is later supported by William Addison Dwiggins, who notes, “If the reader is used to Introduction bad design, he must be led to accustom himself to better design” (Dwiggins, 1947, p. 40). Typographers believe that typeface familiarity plays an The question is then: should we follow the conserva- important role in the reading process, and use the theory tive view and not change the appearance of letterforms, of familiarity to make a number of arguments. Conserva- or should we be more open to adjustments? In an tive typographers argue that readers are best supported attempt to find an answer, the focus of the present inves- by not making changes to the design of typefaces, while tigation is on two hypotheses: (1) that familiarity is based liberal typographers argue that we need to overcome on common letter shapes, so typeface design must stay the status quo to improve legibility. The conservative within strict parameters; and (2) that familiarity is based 16 S. Beier and K. Larson • How does typeface familiarity affect reading performance and reader preference? idj 20(1), 2013, 16-31 on the amount of exposure to a particular typeface, so form matrix model argues that every character has a typeface design can change since it is just a matter of basic skeleton based on a collective memory of all the time before the new design becomes familiar as well. different character variations a person has ever encoun- tered. The skeleton emerges when widely read typefaces The prototype hypothesis are superimposed, so that the parts of the letterform that are shared across all typefaces are shown. Frutiger The first hypothesis argues that familiarity comes from demonstrates this effect by using eight of what he defines a mental prototype for each letter that each of us has as the most widely read typefaces: Garamond, Basker- developed from a lifetime of exposure to common letter ville, Bodoni, Excelsior, Times, Palatino, Optima, and shapes. Type designer Adrian Frutiger’s (1998) letter- Helvetica. While Frutiger created his images using a Figure 1. The complete a-z set of upper and lowercase letters for Adrian Frutiger’s letterform matrix model. © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company 17 All rights reserved S. Beier and K. Larson • How does typeface familiarity affect reading performance and reader preference? idj 20(1), 2013, 16-31 phototypesetting machine, we recreated his experiment The exposure hypothesis by superimposing digital fonts. Each font was scaled to a matching x-height for the lowercase and cap-height for The second hypothesis is that familiarity improves with the uppercase. The letters were shifted horizontally to the exposure to a particular typeface design. This suggests position that maximized overlap. The results can be seen that while new typefaces will be read inefficiently, readers in Figure 1. The white area is contained in no font, the will become efficient at reading a particular typeface by lightest level of grey is contained in one font, darker grey spending time reading with it. Advocating this view, the is contained in multiple fonts, and the black area in all Emigre type designer Zuzana Licko famously states that eight fonts. “Readers read best what they read most” (Licko, 1990, p. Frutiger’s letterform matrix provides a useful defini- 12). According to Licko, when the typeface Times Roman tion for prototypes. Some fonts have a very high degree first came out, readers were not used to reading it, and of overlap with the matrix, while others have less. For it is only because of its frequent use that it has become example, the Garamond “a” has less overlap with the legible today. Licko made these comments at a time in matrix because it is narrower than the other fonts and her career when she was experimenting with some rather the bowl of the “a” is lower. For any letter in a particular unusual looking typefaces. In the text she goes on to font, it is possible to quantify the amount of overlap with speculate whether in 200 years her own typefaces will be the letterform matrix by correlating the pixels that are viewed as legible (Licko, 1990). turned on in a particular font’s letter with the darkness Research carried out by Zineddin, Garvey, Carlson, of the pixels in the letterform matrix. The correlation and Pietrucha (2003) supports the hypothesis that will be low if the target letter contains pixels that are people read more efficiently with typefaces that light grey or white in the letterform matrix, or high if the they read frequently. Their study investigated the target letter’s pixels are completely contained in the black improvement on a distance threshold task after reading or dark grey area of the matrix. with three fonts with different familiarity levels in the The prototype model is supported by Langlois’ letter shapes. Improvement in letter and word legibility research on the recognition of human faces. Langlois and was compared between one font with an exposure Roggman (1990) found that composite faces, created by session and two other fonts without an exposure blending pictures of many individuals, were judged to session. The methodology was as follows: the three be more attractive than individual faces. In another of fonts were tested on a visual acuity chart; one of the Langlois’ experiments mentioned by Dingfelder (2006), fonts was used for an exposure session of reading text the researchers found that both toddlers and adults aloud; then a second acuity test was carried out on recognized attractive faces more quickly than ugly faces. all three fonts, followed by a second exposure session Since we know that attractive faces are average faces, on the same font used in the first exposure session, it suggests that prototypical faces are recognized faster followed by a third acuity test on all three fonts. The than faces that are further from the prototypical face. If authors found a general improvement in performance the Langlois discoveries can be transferred to typefaces, for the fonts used in the exposure sessions, and it suggests that common letter shapes are viewed as established that exposure is part of familiarity. more beautiful, and also recognized more quickly, than uncommon letter shapes. 18 © 2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved S. Beier and K. Larson • How does typeface familiarity affect reading performance and reader preference? idj 20(1), 2013, 16-31 Font tuning completing this task if the preceding lexical decision was shown in the same font rather than a different one. The exposure hypothesis is different from a related find- Gauthier, Wong, Hayward, and Cheung (2006) ing called “font tuning”. Font tuning is a quick-acting demonstrated that only experts in an orthography adjustment by the visual system. In an experimental exhibit font tuning. They found that English readers investigation, Sanocki (1988) compared strings of letters viewing English, and Chinese readers viewing Chinese from one font with strings of mixed letters from another both exhibited font tuning, but that non-Chinese readers font made out of letters from two different typefaces.