Typeface Legibility: Towards Defining Familiarity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Typeface Legibility: Towards defining familiarity Sofie Beier A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Royal College of Art for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2009 The Royal College of Art [ 2 ] typeface legibility: towards defining familiarity © This text represents the submission for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Royal College of Art. This copy has been supplied for the purpose of research for private study, on the understanding that it is copyright material, and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. sofie beier 2009, royal college of art [ 3 ] Abstract The aim of the project is to investigate the influence of fa- miliarity on reading. Three new fonts were created in order to examine the familiarity of fonts that readers could not have seen before. Each of the new fonts contains lowercase letters with fa- miliar and unfamiliar skeleton variations. The different skeleton variations were tested with distance threshold and time thresh- old methods in order to account for differences in visibility. This investigation helped create final typeface designs where the fa- miliar and unfamiliar skeleton variations have roughly similar and good performance. The typefaces were later applied as the test material in the familiarity investigation. Some typographers have proposed that familiarity means the amount of time that a reader has been exposed to a typeface design, while other typographers have proposed that familiarity is the commonalities in letterforms. These two hypotheses were tested by measuring the reading speed and preference of partici- pants, as they read fonts that had either common or uncommon letterforms, the fonts were then re-measured after an exposure period. The results indicate that exposure has an immediate ef- fect on the speed of reading, but that unfamiliar letter features only have an effect of preference and not on reading speed. By combining the craftsmen’s knowledge of designing with the methods of experimental research, the project takes a new step forward towards a better understanding of how different type- faces can influence the reading process. [ 4 ] typeface legibility: towards defining familiarity Contents • Copyright statement . 002 • Abstract . 003 • Contents . 004 • List of illustrations . 007 • Acknowledgements . 009 • Author’s Declaration . 010 1. Setting the Stage 1.1. Introduction . 012 1.2. Different approaches to legibility . 015 • The two cultures • The designer’s lack of interest 1.3. Defining the meaning of central terms and use of language . 021 1.4. The validation of the most essential test methods . 024 • Continuous reading • Reading aloud • Errors • Speed • The search task • Visual accuracy threshold • Variable distance • Short exposure • Readers’ preferences 1.5. Perception of letters .................... ..034 • Letter identification • Single letter and word superiority effects • Word wholes • Parts, wholes & context 1.6. The Internal relation of visibility and familiarity ..........................044 • The cognitive aspect of separation in visual perception • ‘Readers read best what they read most’ sofie beier 2009, royal college of art [ 5 ] 2. Visibility 2.1. The visibility of typefaces for different needs ..050 • Continuous reading • Type at a distance • The pixel • On print 2.2. Empirical findings on differentiation of lowercase characters ...................... 061 • Individuality of the x-height letters • Individuality of the narrow letters 2.3. Designers and differentiation of lowercase characters ................... 069 • Differentiation in the early days of printing • Individuality of the x-height letters • Individuality of the narrow letters 2.4. Three new fonts ....................... 078 2.5. A Study of the character shapes in three new fonts ...................... 082 • Test material • Familiar letter variations • Unfamiliar letter variation • Study 1 • Methods • Participants • Material • Procedures • Results of short exposure study • Study 2 • Methods • Participants • Material • Procedures • Results of distance study • Discussion • The x-height letters • The narrow letters • The unfamiliar letter shapes 2.6. Implementing results in three new typefaces . 102 [ 6 ] typeface legibility: towards defining familiarity 3. Familiarity 3.1. The long-term influence of familiarity . 110 • Uncommon letterforms • Reading and writing in the Middle Ages • Gothic and Latin types • Common letterforms • John Baskerville • Didone • Serif and Sans Serif 3.2. A study of familiarity before and after an exposure session . 123 • Test material • Method • Participants • Material • Procedures • Results • Reading speed for group-1 • Reading speed for group-2 • Questionnaires • Discussion • The exposure hypothesis • The letter feature hypothesis 4. Closure 4.1 Summary, perspectives & conclusion . 142 • Future familiarity studies • Future visibility studies Appendix A: Data of visibility study . 152 Appendix B: Tinker sketches & specimen . 160 Appendix C: Ovink sketches & specimen . 176 Appendix D: Pyke sketches & specimen . 194 Definitions & Bibliography • Letter-Parts ..............................210 • Glossary .................................211 • Bibliography .............................218 sofie beier 2009, royal college of art [ 7 ] Figures no. page 1 The Stroop effect . 30 2 The internal relationship of letters in the feature-comparison theory . 35 3 Neisser’s lists for visual searching (Neisser 1967). 36 4 Explaining the forced-choice study . 37 5 The Parallel Letter Recognition (PLR) model . 41 6 The knockout test material by Pelli & Tillman (2007) . 42 7 Visualisation of test material by Hochberg (1968) . 44 8 Data from the study by Posner & Mitchell (1967) . 46 9 The typefaces InfoText and InfoDisplay by Ole Schäfer and Erik Spiekermann . 51 10 The typeface Balance . 52 11 The typeface Quadraat . 52 12 The typeface Trinité ..............................52 13 The typeface Avance . 52 14 Dwiggins’ illustration of the M-formula doll . 53 15 Dwiggins’ m-formula in type design . 53 16 The fonts tested by Waller (2007) . 54 17 The ‘Series B’ and the ‘Series D’, the former standard fonts for American Highways . 54 18 Sketches by Gerard Unger for m.o.l. 55 19 The typefaces Akzidenz and Airport . 56 20 The typeface Univers . 56 21 Signage from the Charles de Gaulle Airport . 56 22 The typeface Cheltenham . 57 23 Test material applied Roethlein (1912) . 57 24 Example of hinting in the typeface Georgia . 58 25 Cleartype in the typeface Constantia . 58 26 Optical scaling by Justus Erich Walbaum . 58 27 Type by Johann Fleischman . 59 28 The typeface Parable . 59 29 The typeface Bell Centennial . 59 30 The typeface Optima . 60 31 The typefaces Meta and Officina . 60 32 The typeface Gill Sans . 60 33 The version of Futura applied by Geyer (1977) . 62 34 The work of five different researchers looking into misreading of lowercase letters . 63 35 Test material applied by Legros & Grant (1916) . 64 36 The test material applied by Ovink (Ovink, 1938) . 65 37 Letter ‘a’ variations of the study carried out by Spencer and colleagues (1973a) . 65 38 The test material applied by Harris (1973) . 65 39 The typeface Didot . 66 40 The typeface Adobe Jenson . 66 41 The typeface Adobe Garamond . 66 42 The typeface Swift . 67 43 The typeface Didot . 67 44 Type specimen of work by Van Dijck . 70 45 Type specimen of work by Fournier . 70 46 Type specimen of work by Caslon . 71 47 Characters from a Bodoni type specimen . 72 48 Type specimen of work by Garamond . 72 49 Type specimen of work by Didot . 72 50 Type specimen of work by Griffo . 73 51 Type by Jenson . 73 52 Type specimen of work by Goudy . 73 53 The typeface Clearface . 73 54 The typeface Futura . 74 55 The typeface OCR B . 74 56 The London Transport typeface . 74 57 Johnston’s ‘the Foundation Hand’ . 74 [ 8 ] typeface legibility: towards defining familiarity no. page 58 A Romain du Roi plate ............................75 59 Psalter printed by Fust and Schoeffer . 75 60 A calligrapher specimen possibly Nicolas Jarry . 75 61 The typefaces Centaur and Adobe Jenson . 75 62 Type specimen of work by Caslon . 75 63 The terminal of the lowercase ‘f’ on the type body . 76 64 The terminal of the lowercase ‘f’ . 76 65 The typeface Sabon . 76 66 The typeface Sabon Next . 76 67 Type specimen of work by Garamond . 77 68 Internal proportions of PykeTest, TinkerTest and OvinkTest . 78 69 Specimen of the new typeface TinkerTest . 79 70 Specimen of the new typeface OvinkTest . 79 71 Specimen of the new typeface PykeTest . 79 72 Lettering by Knud V. Engelhardt . 80 73 A Bodoni type specimen . 81 74 Skeleton variations for test material . 84 75 The TinkerTest letter variations . 85 76 The OvinkTest letter variations . 85 77 The PykeTest letter variations ......................85 78 Visualisation of the exposure method . 87 79 Errors in study 1 for the letter ‘a’ . 88 80 Errors in study 1 for the letter ‘c’ . 88 81 Errors in study 1 for the letter ‘e’ . 89 82 Errors in study 1 for the letter ‘n’ . 89 83 Errors in study 1 for the letter ‘s’ . 89 84 Errors in study 1 for the letter ‘u’ . 90 85 Errors in study 1 for the letter ‘f’ . 90 86 Errors in study 1 for the letter ‘i’ . 90 87 Errors in study 1 for the letter ‘j’ . 91 88 Errors in study 1 for the letter ‘l’ . 91 89 Errors in study 1 for the letter ‘t’ . 91 90 Errors in study 2 for the letter ‘a’.