Research Publication

Readability, Accessibility, Typography

A collection of articles on the evolution of readability and accessability in typography

Readability, Accessibility, Typography

A collection of articles on the evolution of readability and accessability in typography

Table of Contents

Introduction

Suggestions for Research on the Typography of School Textbooks

7. 11. The Effect of Typography Upon the Perceptual Span in Reading 19. Good Typography Lures the Learner 33. The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos 39. A Guide to Understanding What Makes a Typeface Accessible 69. Why Designers Need to Consider Accessibility in Type 109.

The Controversy of Accessible Type 81. Can “Bad” Type Design Help Readers Absorb and Remember Information? 93. The Hyperlegible Typeface Changing How We See Print 99. Focus Ex is a Digital Reading Aid for People with ADHD 103. Can Fonts Really Help Those With Dyslexia? 117.

Beyond Braille: A Look at 3 New Typographic Systems for Blind People 129. Bibliography 138. Image S0urces 140.

Introduction

Sarah Olick

For hundreds of years, typography and the printed word have increased access to literacy around the world, and, with the creation of new typefaces and design systems, typography has become a tool that can be used to improve efficiency in readability and make reading more accessible to those with conditions such as visual impairments, dyslexia and ADHD. The potential of accessible design in typography is important because it can help to level the playing field for those with disabilities and make reading easier for everyone. Typography has long been seen as a tool that can aid in improving the readability of text. As time has progressed, it has also become a tool for improving accessibility to written materials for those with disabilities. While research on both topics has been somewhat inconclusive, designers continue to innovate and create typefaces with accessibility in mind.

Research has been conducted on the topic of readability in relation to typography for a few centuries, but looking at typography as an accessibility tool is a newer phenomenon. That said, research on both topics has been somewhat inconclusive, but this does not mean that typography cannot be used to make reading easier and more accessible, it simply means that more research needs to be done. The need for more research has not gone unnoticed, but has continued to exist for a long time. In 1928, H. E. Wheeler wrote about how research had not been in done by those who were informed enough on typography itself, “Apparently the research workers have often been handicapped by a limited knowledge of typography, which rendered their results almost meaningless even when there were results to report” (Wheeler, 1928, pp. 27). In comparison, in 2018, Madeleine Morely, wrote about how there has not been enough research into typefaces created for those with dyslexia. “it’s imperative that these new fonts are tested in controlled, randomized studies, and that several of these studies are then published in peer-reviewed journals, before we can say for certain whether switching fonts can actually help dyslexics learn to read” (Morely, 2018). While not enough research has been done on typography, readability, and accessibility, this does not mean

that it should not be discussed. Typography has the potential to improve the reading experience for many, and the more it is discussed, the more impact it can possibly have.

In the mid 20th Century, discussion focused on readability in relation to typography rather than on accessibility. One definition of readability from this time period “has been suggested by Edgar Dale and Jeanne Chall: ‘readability is the sum total (including the interactions) of all those elements within a given piece of printed material that affects the success that a group of readers have with it. The success is the extent to which they understand it, read it at the optimum speed, and find it interesting’” (Witty, 1951, pp. 393). Many texts from this time period use precise measurements to figure out which elements of a typographic design impact reading speed and focus duration.

When asked about his typeface, Focus Sans, Vatány Szabolcs makes an important point, which may be the reason why, in general, many studies into the readability and accessibility of typography come back inconclusive. He said, “One of my conclusion[s] was that different people just have different needs, even in reading” (Hahn, 2021). Typography that one reader finds easy to read may be difficult for another reader. Every reader is different, and this makes it hard to design for universal readability and/or accessibility in typography. There are factors that improve readability for a significant number of people, but each individual has their own needs when it comes to readable and accessible typography.

Suggestions for Research on the Typography of School Textbooks

H. E. Wheeler

From The Elementary School Journal, 1929

Persons whose work is concerned with the selection of appropriate type for textbooks realize that all research in this field has been largely inconclusive. This is unfortunate since there is a real demand for reliable information on the subject. School boards have shown a disposition to try to set up standards, and in at least one case (New York City) certain standards of typography have been adopted. Publishers would gladly comply with authoritative recommendations if any were at hand.

Since much research work has already been done on this subject and more is contemplated, it seems advisable to discuss certain facts which have not received sufficient attention in the past. Apparently the research workers have often been handicapped by a limited knowledge of typography, which rendered their results almost meaningless even when there were results to report. It is hoped that the following brief statements may clarify at least the terminology of the subject.

The Point System

The expression “eighteen-point type” means that the capital letters are eighteen seventy-seconds of an inch high. It has only a general bearing on the size of the lower-case (small) letters, and for that reason the size of type is not fully described by the point sys tem. A lower-case letter of one style or face in eighteen-point type may be almost as small to the eye as the same letter of some other face in twelvepoint type. Therefore, it would seem necessary to carry out experiments on type size with one specified face.

One of the most useful faces for primary books was cut before the point system was adopted and therefore cannot be accurately described in points.

The layman does not have at hand ready means for determining the size of type in millimeters. It is not easy to measure to a tenth of a millimeter. Until a better way is devised, type should be described by giving the size and the face; for example, twelve-point Caslon, Old Style #337.

Faces

There are hundreds of type faces, but only a few general classes need be considered.

1. There is the style generally used in books for adults–Century, Caslon, etc. The faces vary but little in general appearance. The characteristics that need to be considered are (a) the extent to which the face is expanded and (b) the actual size of the lower-case letters.

2.

There is the style in which the lines of the letters are of equal width, similar to Copperplate Gothic. The general effect is much blacker than in the case of the faces described in the preceding paragraph.

Faces of this style have been used lately in primary books. There is no information as to whether the use of these faces is an advantage at the time or as to whether the subsequent change to book style causes difficulty.

3.

There are the “display” faces in which the usualforms of the letters have been modified to make them unusual.

Leading

The space between lines of type is called “leading.” There is no special term for the amount of space between words. The two have a definite relation to each other. Type which has wide spaces between the words needs to have more space between the lines to keep it from seeming to “fall apart.” It is obvious that, if the words are widely spaced and the lines are not sufficiently spaced, the appearance will be a page of columns of words rather than lines of words. Therefore, leading must be specified in terms of the size of type, the face of type, and the extra space between the words if any is used. The statement that for first-grade books the type should be leaded ––points does not mean anything.

Line Length

In the same way, line length must be considered in relation to the size of type. The bare statement that a line of type should not be more than ninety millimeters in length has been widely accepted as a fact. It must be evident, however, that in type the size of newspaper type, this length would be uncomfortably long, while in seventy-two-point type it would be ridiculously short. The optimum length of line for each size of type should be determined.

Expanded Faces

There has been a general feeling that young children should have large expanded type when they begin to read. The writer believes that the eye-movement studies made by Judd, Buswell, and others indicate that horizontally condensed type is preferable to expanded type. In the case of type of a given size, it must be true that more symbols are visible at each eye-

fixation with horizontally condensed type than with expanded type. It is easy to see from the eye-movement photographs that only one or two letters would be included in a single span of recognition if greatly expanded type were used.

An adequate measure of this quality of type (horizontally condensed or expanded) is given by the space occupied by the lower-case alphabet. For instance, in twelve-point No. 8 Modern Roman, the lower-case alphabet occupies two and one-eighth inches, or twelve picas and eight points, or fiftyfour millimeters.

It seems obvious that this quality needs to be taken into consideration in any research which attempts to specify the best type for certain purposes.

Margins and Paragraph Indentation

It is the practice of the book-making industry to place the type page in an offset position to the upper inside corner of the page. This makes the top margin the narrowest and the inside margin almost the same, with the most space at the outside and the lower edges. When the book is bound, especially if it is Singer-sewed, the inside margin almost disappears.

It would seem advisable to abandon this practice in the case of books for young children and to place the type near the outside edge of the page so that the type will be on the part of the page that lies fairly flat. It cannot be easy to read around a curved sheet.

With regard to evenness of length of line, again the eyemovement studies seem to indicate dearly that lines of a single lenghth would be desirable. Perhaps the element of desirable training would here outweigh other considerations.

Suggestions for Research on the Typography of School Textbooks

The question of paragraph indention must be considered in relation to the question of broken sentences; that is, sentences that are more than one line in length. First reading books have many sentences about one line in length. It is obvious that in such cases the use of hanging paragraphs will result in fewer broken sentences.

Paper

Investigators have reported that a pure white sheet with black ink produces the greatest legibility. In spite of this fact, several publishers use a “natural” tinted paper in the belief that it is “easier on the eyes” of the children. This seems to be a case where hearsay evidence outweighs actual results.

One investigator has attempted to report the minimum thickness of paper that should be used. From the standpoint of hygiene, thickness could only effect opacity, and opacity is not determined by thickness alone. It would seem necessary to specify the degree of opacity that is desirable. In almost all schoolbooks now in use the type shows through the reverse side of the sheet, at least to some extent.

The Effect of Soiled Pages

It might be well to consider the effect of certain other factors which may prove to be important.

The book the child actually reads from, in the first grade particularly, is usually somewhat soiled. Often finger marks have turned the entire page to a dull gray. Sometimes the paper has been creased. These conditions are common under a system of free textbooks. It is considered good economy to

On a recent tour of approximately thirty midwestern cities, the writer found only two where facilities for washing the hands were provided for the elementary-school child.

continue to rebind such books until they are no longer usable. It is possible that it would be truer economy to buy temporary, less expensive bindings and to throw the books away when they become badly soiled.

School officials are willing to pay for attractive books. However, the second or the sixth child to use a book may be using a very unattractive book because of the accumulated dirt.1

Hand-Printing Outfits, Seat Work, Etc.

In addition to the type in books, the child is exposed to type in several other forms. Many children begin to read from handprinted charts. The size and the shape of the letters have never been specified for any given distance. It would appear that a face similar to the book face should be used. It would be useful to know that for children seated at a maximum of eight feet from a chart type not less than –– inches high should be used, etc.

Summary

It is safe to predict that the results of any investigation in this field will be widely quoted and perhaps generally accepted. It is therefore important to take all factors into consideration and to express the results in a form that cannot be misinterpreted.

Schematic illustration of the visual field and perceptual span for text processing in normal readers. During a fixation, readers extract visual information from the foveal visual field (central white oval) and the parafoveal visual field (grey ellipse). Note that the drawing is schematic and not drawn to scale; the cross-hairs indicating fixation position do not resemble the actual initial fixation position, which would be probably on the “h” of the fixated word “that” in normal readers (optimal viewing position). (ResearchGate)

The Effect of Typography Upon the Perceptual Span in Reading

Donald G. Paterson & Miles A. Tinker

From

The American Journal of Psychology, 1947

1

Raymond Dodge, An experimental study of visual fixation, Psychol. Monog., 8, 1907, (no. 35), 1-95.

In the reading situation, the amount of material perceived at each fixational pause is known as the perceptual or fixationspan. The material perceived at any one fixation is greater than the words or letters within the area of clear vision which covers only three or four letters. Dodge points out that this area of clear vision merges into a less clear and less distinct peripheral area.1 There are no sharp boundaries between the two areas. In reading, one fixates an area, not a point. As emphasized by Dodge, practically all the significant stimulation of the retina in any reading pause is extra-foveal.

Dodge, op. cit., 33

Peripheral vision has an important role in reading. In the unclear vision to the right of a fixation it is possible to distinguish vague word forms (outlines of words). For words that are close to the area of clear vision, the word-forms are frequently clear enough to be perceived without direct fixation. The more vague word-forms in the more remote regions of the peripheral vision provide a pre-fixational beginning of perception and act as guides to subsequent fixations. “It seems probable that the normal reading pause represents a comparatively late moment in the total process of perception of the fixated object.”2 The degree to which peripheral vision is utilized by the reader is an important determinant of perceptual span. For instance, it is probable that the proficient reader makes maximum use of cues in peripheral vision in reading easy narrative prose. Certain factors appear to condition the utilization of peripheral vision in reading.

3

Matthew Luckiesh and F. K. Moss, The extent of the perceptual span in reading. J. Gen. Psychol., 25, 1941, 267-27

It is obvious from experimental evidence that the extent of the perceptual span is partly determined by the complex central processes of apprehension and assimilation. Abundant data show that, as the requirements of comprehension increase, more and longer fixational pauses are required. This means a smaller perceptual span.

It is possible that another group of factors may also condition the extent of the perceptual span. In a group of eye-movement studies the authors have demonstrated that there is considerable variation in oculo-motor behavior with variations in typographical arrangements. This suggests that perceptual span may be conditioned significantly by the physical characteristics of the printed page.

In an inconclusive investigation, Luckiesh and Moss studied the influence of type-size and line-width upon the perceptual span in reading.3 They found a slight decrease in span as the type-size was increased from 4 to 10 pt., and a slight increase in span as line width was increased from 13 to 29 picas. On the average the span was about 8.5 characters (letters and spaces). They concluded that the number of characters recognized in a ‘typical’ fixation, i.e. the perceptual span, is substantially independent of type-size and of line-width for their readers. It is not only desirable to check these results, but to add data for reading text with other typographical variations than typesize and line-width. The purpose of the present investigation is to study the effect of various typographical factors upon the perceptual span in reading.

D. G. Paterson and M. A. Tinker, How to Make Type Readable, 1940, 1-209.

Beginning in 1927, the writers began an extensive series of studies to discover the influence of typographical variations upon speed of reading. The results have been summarized in book form.4 Textual material in certain typographical arrangements were read significantly faster than with other

The Effect of Typography Upon the Perceptual Span in Reading

Paterson and Tinker, Influence of line-width on eye movements, J. Exper. Psychol., 27, 1940, 572-577; Influence of line-width on eye movements for six-point type, J. Educ. Psychol., 33, 1942, 552555; Influence of size of type on eye movements, J. Appl. Psychol., 26, 1942, 227-230; Eye movements in reading type sizes in optimal line-widths, J. Educ. Psychol., 34, 1934, 547-551; Eye movements in reading optimal and non-optimal typography, J. Exper. Psychol., 34, 1944, 80-83; Influence of typeform on eye movements, J. Exper. Psychol., 25, 1939, 528-531; Eye movements in reading a modern typeface and Old English, this JOURNAL, 54, 1941, 113-114; Eye movements in reading black print on white background and red print on dark green background, this JOURNAL, 57, 1944, 93-94.

arrangements. To discover the specific oculomotor patterns responsible for the disclosed differences, a series of eight eyemovement studies were completed.5 The original data of these eight studies have been re-analyzed to discover the effect of typographical variation upon the perceptual span.

The typographical arrangement employed in each study is described in the tables for each investigation. In each comparison, 20 college students read 10 paragraphs (29-30 words in each paragraph) from the Chapman-Cook Speed of Reading Test, Form A as a standard and 10 different paragraphs from Form B of the same test set in a typographically different arrangement. A different group of Ss was employed for each new comparison.

A count was made of the total number of words in each of the two sets of 10 paragraphs of reading material, the total number of picas of linage in each selection (one pica equals about 1/6 in.) and the total number of printed characters (letters and letter spaces) in each of the two selections. This made it possible to determine the number of words, the number of picas and the number of characters covered in each fixational pause. The extent of the perceptual span can be evaluated, therefore, not only in number of words read per fixation, but also in terms of the number of picas or characters covered by each fixation. Pause duration is included in the reported data to facilitate the interpretation.

1. The results of the first study are given in Table I. The investigation was concerned with perceptual span for all-capital printing in comparison with ordinary lower case. There were 12.4% more fixations for reading the all-capital text. The words per fixation were 12.5% less for reading the all-capital printing. Also 13.6% fewer characters were included in each fixation for reading the all-capital text, but 34.4% more distance

The Effect of Typography Upon the Perceptual Span in Reading

2.

along a line (picas) was covered per fixation with the all-capital material. Un doubtedly this increase is due to the fact that for all-capital printing, 35% more space is taken for the printing in comparison with lower case text. All these differences are significant at or beyond the 1% level when checked by the t-test for significance of differences. In all tables the ‘Prob. diff.’ line refers to the level of significance discovered for the differences.

There is another variable involved in the perceptual span that is usually not emphasized when the span is discussed. This is the time taken for the fixational pause. In this study, for instance, the pause duration is significantly less for reading all-capital text than for the lower case as shown in column 2 of Table I. In general this study reveals that type form as a typographical factor affects significantly the perceptual span in reading.

The results for the next study are given in Table II. The perceptual span was determined for reading two type faces: Cloister Black (Old English) and Scotch Roman More fixations are required for the Cloister Black. The span, in terms of words per fixation, picas per fixation, and characters per fixation, is significantly smaller. The differences in span are established statistically with a probability at or beyond either the 1% or 2% level. For the fixation-frequency the change was significant at the 5% level. As shown in column 2, Table II, there was no significant change in pause duration. The results reveal, therefore, a significant change in perceptual span with change in type face when the type faces are markedly different, i.e. Cloister Black vs. Scotch Roman.

The Effect of Typography Upon the Perceptual Span in Reading

4.

Results obtained in the third study are given in Table III. The perceptual span for reading 10-pt was compared with span for 6 pt. and for 14 pt. All line-widths were constant at 19 picas. A significantly larger number of fixations was required for reading both text in 6 pt. and in 14 pt. in comparison with the 10 pt. In all instances the perceptual span in terms of words per fixation, picas per fixation and characters per fixation was significantly smaller. There is an interesting trend in pause duration. For the 6-pt. print it was significantly greater, probably reflecting increased difficulty in visual was significantly less. So size of type, with line-width constant, significantly affects perceptual span.

The next study was also concerned with type-size, but here each size of type was printed in the optimal line-width for that type-size.6 The perceptual span for reading text in 11-pt. type was compared with span in 8- and 6-pt. type. The results are given in Table IV. Examination of the material in the upper part of the table reveals a significant increase in fixation-frequency for reading the 8-pt. print. Although about 26% fewer picas were covered per span, the decreases in words per fixation and characters per fixation are of doubtful significance. Pause-duration, however, increased significantly. The trend for the 6-pt. type in comparison with the 11 pt. is similar in some respects. There is no significant difference in fixation-frequency, words per fixation or characters per fixation, but there are significantly fewer picas per fixation and a significantly longer pause duration for the 6 pt. In general, therefore, when printed in optimal line-widths and leading, changes in size of type do not materially affect perceptual span. The amount of linage covered per fixation varies with changes

5.

in size of type but the number of words and of characters remains about the same. There is, however, a significant increase in pause duration for the smaller sizes of type. Thus we find that variation in type-size produces significant changes in perceptual span when line-width is kept constant, but no significant effects are present when line-width is optimal for the particular size of type although in the latter instance pause duration does vary significantly.

The effect of varying line-width on perceptual span for 10-pt. type is shown in Table V. Decreasing linewidth from 19 to 9 picas produces a significant increase in fixation-frequency, a decrease in words and characters per fixation, and fewer picas per fixation. When the line-width is increased from 19 to 43 picas there is also a significant change in all measures of the perceptual span except words per fixation. For both the very short and the very long lines, pause duration is increased significantly. These data show, therefore, that varying line-width for 10-pt. type produces significant changes in perceptual span although the trend is less certain for the very long lines.

6.

The picture is somewhat different when line-width is varied for 6-pt. type. The data are given in Table VI. When the line-width is reduced from 13 picas to 5 picas, the span is significantly shortened and the pause duration is significantly lengthened. When, however, the line-width is increased from 13 to 36 picas no significant change occurs in perceptual span although the pause duration is significantly increased. With 6-pt. type, therefore, very short lines decrease the perceptual span but lengthening the lines has no effect on the span.

The Effect of Typography Upon the Perceptual Span in Reading

7. 8.

The next study is concerned with a comparison of perceptual span for reading an optimal arrangement (10-pt. type with 2-pt. leading and a 19-pica line-width, black print on white eggshell paper) with a non-optimal arrangement (6 pt. set solid with a 34-pica line-width, white print on black background on white enamel paper). The data appear in Table VII. In comparison with the optimal arrangement, reading the non-optimal print produced significantly more fixations, fewer words and characters per fixation, and 29% less line space (picas) per fixation. The increased pause duration was significant only at the 5 % level. When several deleterious typographical factors are combined in a non-optimal printing arrangement, therefore, there is a marked and significant shortening of the perceptual span.

The final study is concerned with a comparison of perceptual span for reading black print on white paper with span for reading red print on dark green paper. The data are given in Table VIII. For reading the red print on green paper there were significantly more fixations, fewer words and characters per fixation, and less linage space (picas) per fixation. Also the pause duration was significantly increased. For reading the red print on green paper where there was much less brightness contrast between print and paper than for the black on white, therefore, there was a marked reduction in the perceptual span. The implications of these results are clear. Certain typographical arrangements reduce the speed of reading. The reduction in speed of reading is accompanied by changes in oculomotor patterns. Where these changes involve highly significant reductions in fixation frequency, as occurs in most instances,

there are significant variations in perceptual span. When significant changes in span occur, there may or may not be a significant change in pause duration. In general, it may be concluded that typographical variation frequently is an important determinant of perceptual span. There are, of course, other factors which influence the span such as the comprehension requirements of the particular reading situation. It is quite probable that when such comprehension requirements are exacting, this factor may be more important in determining perceptual span than variation in typography.

Summary and Conclusion

1.

The Purpose of the present investigation is to study the effects of various typographical factors upon the perceptual span in reading.

2. 3.

Data from eight eye-movement experiments were analyzed. In each investigation the oculomotor behavior in reading a standard was compared with the behavior when some typographical factor such as size of type was varied. Measures compared were pause duration, fixation-frequency, and words, picas and characters (letters) per fixation. The number of units (words, etc.) read per fixation yields the perceptual span. A more complete picture of the oculomotor and perceptual changes is obtained by also noting any variation in pause duration.

The following typographical changes were found to affect significantly the perceptual span in reading: all-capital printing vs. lower case; Old English (Cloister Black) vs. Scotch Roman type face; 6 point and 14

The Effect of Typography Upon the Perceptual Span in Reading

point vs. 10 point type with line width constant at 19 picas; 9 and 43 pica line widths with 10 point type vs. 19 pica line width; 5 pica vs. 13 pica line width for 6 point type; a combination of non-optimal factors vs. optimal typography; and red print on dark green background (low brightness contrast between print and background) vs. black on white printing. Typographical variations which did not produce significant changes in perceptual span follow: 11 point vs. 6 point type in optimal line widths; and 13 pica vs. 36 pica line widths in 6 point type.

4. 5. 6.

Certain typographical variations produced significant changes in pause duration, with or without significant changes in perceptual span.

The data warrant the conclusion that typographical variation is an important determinant of perceptual span in reading. Optimal typography favors a large perceptual span, and conversely, most non-optimal typography reduces significantly the perceptual span.

It is conceivable that other factors, such as the requirements of comprehension, may affect the perceptual span more than typographiocal changes.

Good Typography Lures the Learner

Burton L. Stratton

From The Journal of Education, 1948

Students often like the appearance of a particular textbook without knowing why. If they are asked to explain their feeling, they may say, "Oh, I don't know. It's easy to read, I guess." What they really mean is that the typography of this book has helped them to digest the text easily and increased their pleasure in study.

As far as the users are concerned, textbooks as physical things just happen. This stork-brings-them attitude is a failure to appreciate the graphic arts. Few people realize that the visual aspect of textbooks is carefully designed for specific readers. The facts are, of course, that a text goes through a long process of growth from manuscript to book, and that typography can contribute greatly to the students' understanding of it, or, on the other hand, greatly reduce its usefulness as a teaching aid.

If the page of type is composed of elements that please the eye and appeal to the esthetic sense, the author's intention is promoted and the learning process stimulated. If the opposite is true, then the task of student and teacher is made more difficult.

The Designer and His Audience

The textbook designer is well aware of the possibilities of display typography as a visual aid, but he will be the first to admit that type has only one purpose–to spread ideas. He knows that by changing the typographic pace, by introducing a smaller or a larger type or one from a different face, he can give the text additional meaning for the reader. The latter can benefit from these typographic tricks while only partially conscious of them.

The outline of the books is perhaps the most important thing the designer has to deal with. If the organization of the text is simple and easily discernible, he has greater freedom than he would otherwise have.

It is the designer's job to bring together in typographic harmony all the teaching elements of the book. He must also use type to emphasize or de-emphasize various textual features as the editors and authors require. This implies understanding of the author's underlying motives and of the purpose of the book. In addition, the book must be palatable to the eye, acting as an appetizer for further reading and study.

A textbook designer must subordinate his own feelings in favor of his audience. In that respect he is considerably different from those who design so-called trade books for the adult reading market. Some designers have successfully worked in both fields, but the textbook man works under greater restrictions. The typographic appreciation the teacher may have for a bedtime "who-done-it" should be considerably different from that given to a physics or history text. The textbook designer is confronted with this or similar differences wherever he turns. He designs a book for a child but it is reviewed and purchased by adults. The typographic flavor objectionable to the teacher might be relished by the student. Knowing this, the designer sets about making the book appealing to different age levels, but he concentrates on the group that will use it most. To overcome adult objection, he may introduce a bit of advertising typography. The appealing design on the outside of a book should not influence the prospective buyer as much as his impression of the interior. The student may like the book with the striking cover but he won't like it long if the typography of the text is poor - and the same thing goes for the indiscriminate teacher buyer.

How Does a Visual Aid Get that Way?

From a few simple illustrations the reader can grasp how easy it is to introduce visual aids that relate to but are not part of the reading text. For example, a few lines from now you will notice a "line of space" and a little farther on a couple of words are set in capitals. The chances are you noticed these things before you reached this point in your reading and you have subconsciously prepared yourself for them because you are curious about their meaning. If such simple devices were used over and over again, you would accept them as reading aids. On the other hand, if they were merely typographic eccentricities, you would try to fathom out their meaning and very soon would become annoyed. They would be visual hindrances. The italicized side headings in this article are one of the most common visual aids.

Good textbook design employs the garden variety of typographic devices. TYPOGRAPHIC SUBTLETIES have a place, but incorrectly used, confuse the reader. One of the worst offenders in this connection is the use of trick numbering devices for parts and chapters, and sub-divisions thereof. Another is the numbered and lettered outline that continues, page after page, long after the readerhas forgotten whether the principal tems are numbered E, I, A, (1), or (a), or dozens of other combinations.

In the modern textbook one will notice a tendency of designers to "play" with the chapter numbers and headings and the part titles. The reason is simple; these are the main places where a designer can get some of his own personality and mood of the moment into his work. Carefully done, such typographic play can contribute to a feeling of friendliness between the book and the reader Taken as a whole, the typographic picture is presented for another's edification and at the same time the principal divisions of the text are dressed up and should invite the student to pursue his work after a little refreshing pause between the long sections of reading text.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

Eva Brumberger

From Technical Communication, 2004

Introduction

In the recent flurry of activity focused on visual rhetoric in technical communication, discussions of typography have largely been left behind. While we have taken significant steps forward in the ways in which we treat design, with greater attention given to theories of design and models of visual communication, typography occupies an infinitesimal portion of that work. Yet, typography is, in a very real sense, the basic building block on which design of primarily verbal texts relies. It also occupies a place that is simultaneously verbal and visual, functioning at multiple levels within a document. Relying on practitioners’ lore and intuition to guide us in our decisions about such a central design element is potentially problematic. This article presents a theoretical and empirical framework for considering the rhetorical role of typography along with the findings of a study that begins to test that framework.

Review of the Literature

A Theoretical Framework

Given the unique role typography plays as both a verbal and a visual element in documents, any theoretical framework for a study of the rhetoric of typography must draw on theories of both verbal rhetoric and visual rhetoric— defined by Kostelnick (1989) as “the ability of the writer to achieve the purpose of a document through visual communication” (p. 77). It must also explore intersections between the two. Theories of both verbal and visual rhetoric point clearly to the importance typography may have in conveying rhetorical information to the reader.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

The Division Between Verbal and Visual Language

Verbal and visual thinking—and thinking and seeing—have long been considered distinct in western society, in what Horn (1998) refers to as “a great either/or division that we have relied on for millennia” (p. 2). Horn suggests that the split between verbal and visual thinking dates back to the invention of the Phoenician alphabet, when “words and images . . . began to take separate routes” (p. 2). Initially, alphabetic symbols provided visual representations of objects and concepts. However, with the development of a phonetic alphabet, that relationship changed and became less clear cut; the correspondence of written symbol to object was replaced by a system far more cognitively complex.

According to Ong (1982), “Though words are grounded in oral speech, writing tyrannically locks them into a visual field” (p. 12). Ong also argues that writing makes possible context-free language—verbal discourse that can be separated from its author, and, by virtue of that separation, can be read in a greater number of ways than can oral language. The development of printing, he argues, extended these changes; for example, the enhanced legibility of printed texts over hand-penned texts allows rapid silent reading, a purely individual interaction with the text (and thereby with the author’s message) that did not exist in an oral culture.

McLuhan and Fiore (1967) suggest that fundamental shifts like these in the ways in which people communicate play a greater role in shaping society than does the actual content of their communication. At the individual level, McLuhan (1962) argues, interaction with texts shapes readers’ thoughts; that is, readers’ thinking and perceptual processes are guided by the ways in which communication is structured. For example, hearing was the primary means of sensory and social orienta-

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

tion before development of the phonetic alphabet; the phonetic alphabet shifted the focus to the eye, and printing extended that shift (McLuhan and Fiore 1967).

Critics of these theories contend that species-wide physiological changes on an evolutionary scale are highly unlikely in such a relatively short time. However, thought and perceptual patterns are not necessarily physiologically “hard-wired,” and one can draw a fine line between evolutionary changes and adaptations to new types of stimuli. In this light, it seems not only feasible, but also reasonable, to expect new thought patterns to emerge as the result of such extensive changes in the ways we communicate.

Theories of Visual Thinking and Visual Rhetoric

Whether or not one accepts that evolutionary changes in thought patterns can result from changes in communication design, these arguments at the very least provide an entry point for thinking about the visual structure of texts as more than simply aesthetic. They suggest that the visual structure of a document contributes to readers’ meaningmaking, that the design conveys information that is separate from the content of the text itself.

Other theoreticians of visual language certainly support this contention. For example, graphic designers have long contended that design serves a rhetorical purpose. Hurlburt (1981), for example, describes design as having three primary functions: to persuade, to identify, and to inform. In fact, he describes design in terms that clearly mark it as a process comparable to that of writing, the product of which must be appropriate to the purpose and context of the communication.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

Similar arguments have been made specifically about typography. Designers such as Gill (1983) and Morison (1983) talk of typeface appropriateness and the importance of matching typeface to document purpose. Others, such as Zapf (1970) and White (1988), stress the importance of designing and choosing type carefully to convey a particular persona and to assure a “unity of content and form” (Zapf p. 59).

Even Beatrice Warde (1956a), whose most well-known work emphasizes that type should be invisible—a “crystal goblet” for the verbal text—describes type as analogous to tone of voice, bringing a distinct personality to the text.

According to Zelman (2000), modernist designers operated under the assumption that the eye will always perceive an object or message the same way, regardless of prior knowledge, expectations, or experience. They held that “our internal makeup does not alter the impressions we receive” (p. 53). Zelman argues that the shift away from this perspective began once designers began relying on the computer for their work; they began to reconceive the viewing process as one in which the reader/viewer is an active participant rather than simply a passive recipient.

Whether or not the change in designers’ underlying assumptions grew out of a change in their tools, most contemporary designers now approach design from the perspective that a reader interacts with a document—with both its verbal and its visual content—to make meaning. Such an interactive model complements the notion of audience put forth by Ede and Lunsford (1984), who argue that readers bring their own experiences and expectations to a text, while at the same time being shaped to some extent by that text. Their position serves as a balance point between the notion that writers can simply address a “real” audience and the theories of Ong (1975) and Gibson (1980), who claim that the reader is a “fiction” whose persona shifts with each document that he or she reads.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

Arts psychologist Rudolph Arnheim (1969) explores the notion of interactivity as it pertains to visual rhetoric, arguing that perception is a thinking process that is shaped by the viewer’s prior experiences, values, and expectations. Just as a reader actively interacts with a verbal text, a viewer actively interacts with a visual text.

Additionally, Arnheim holds that, while verbal thinking and visual thinking are distinct, thinking and seeing cannot be separated. He suggests that the dividing line between thinking and seeing was drawn—incorrectly—in ancient Greece and the works of Plato. Sensory activities such as seeing were treated with suspicion, and their related disciplines (such as art) were dismissed accordingly, while nonsensory activities and their related disciplines (such as mathematics) were privileged, a hierarchy that continues to the present day in our education system.

Arnheim’s argument serves as the backbone for the entire study of visual rhetoric, which discards the idea that seeing and thinking can be neatly separated into distinct realms and instead argues that they must be conceived of as interconnected processes.

The contention that we can separate verbal and visual thinking, but not thinking and seeing, seems particularly apropos given the dual verbal-visual nature of typography. However, rather than according verbal and visual thinking equal importance, Arnheim takes the rather extreme position that the two are hierarchical, that visual language is “the principal medium of productive thinking,” while verbal language is one-dimensional, static, and limiting in contrast (p. 295).

Although our society is certainly moving more and more toward the visual, it seems at the least problematic to dismiss verbal language as inferior, particularly given humanity’s lin-

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

guistic history. A more practical model posits verbal and visual language as complementary, each contributing—though not always equally—to communication.

Kostelnick, in his discussion of the visual rhetoric of printed documents, moves in this direction. Like Arnheim, Kostelnick (1989) argues that “. . . visual processing may be mediated by familiarity, contextual variables, or culturally influenced aesthetic norms” (p. 83), just as we assume verbal processing is mediated. Kostelnick (1994) likewise suggests that the visual rhetoric of a text “can radically transform the message” (p. 112): visual elements of a document affect readers’ attitudes toward that document, shape the way in which readers process the information from the document, and affect the value that readers assign to the information. Thus, a document designed in a way consistent with its purpose should enhance the communication value of that document, whereas a poorly designed document may misdirect readers, creating dissonance that counters the author’s intent.

Unlike Arnheim, Kostelnick does not suggest that one form of thinking or language is superior to another; instead, he argues for “cognitive interdependence” between visual and verbal thinking (1989). According to Kostelnick, visual and verbal language interact and work together, each contributing to the effectiveness of the communication. This approach offers a productive way to consider both verbal and visual rhetoric and their potential intersections.

Kostelnick proposes a model—the 12-Cell Matrix of Visual Communication—in which he identifies four interdependent levels of visually rhetorical elements in a document. According to Kostelnick (1989), the elements within the matrix comprise “the visual raw materials of the document” (p. 82), all of which communicate with the audience in some way.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

In separating visual language into individual components and emphasizing the importance of understanding those components to “exert rhetorical control,” Kostelnick asks us to interrogate the visual elements of a document in much the same way that we interrogate its verbal elements when planning, drafting, and revising for a particular rhetorical situation. Kostelnick implies a clear parallel between visual and verbal rhetoric, between the ways visual components and verbal components shape a document. This perspective is crucial to thinking about the rhetorical role of typography.

Reconnecting Verbal and Visual Language

Trummel (1988) states explicitly the relationship implied by Kostelnick. That is, he argues that the actions of the designer and the typographer closely parallel (or should closely parallel) the actions of the rhetorician in constructing an argument. For example, the designer must design with the audience in mind, even if, as Ong (1975) contends, that audience is a “fiction” constructed by the writer; the designer must consider emphasis, clarity, tone, ethos, and so on, just as the writer must consider these aspects when constructing a written document.

Consequently, the visual form of a document should be no more arbitrary than the words in a text because both contribute to the message the document is intended to express (Trummel 1988, p. 125). Documents thus communicate with readers through their design as well as through their words, and that fact inextricably links visual and verbal rhetoric together. It is exactly this argument that forms the foundation of an exploration of the rhetoric of typography.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

Trummel is not alone in asserting that visual rhetoric, including the rhetoric of typography, is analogous to verbal rhetoric. Buchanan and Kinross offer similar perspectives. Buchanan (1989) argues that, like a writer, a designer creates an argument rather than simply creating an object. He states, “The skillful practice of design involves a skillful practice of rhetoric” (p. 109).

Kinross (1989) makes a comparable argument when he states that no clear distinction can be drawn between designing for informational purposes and designing for persuasive purposes, when he claims that “nothing is free of rhetoric” (p. 143).

Buchanan and Kinross echo theorists such as Weaver, Kuhn, and Foucault, who hold that all communication is rhetorical and imbued with values. And in fact, “design,” whether of textual or graphical elements, by its very name implies not only art, but also artful management and intent—in short, persuasive communication.

As Lanham (1993) suggests: “In the rhetorical tradition, language comes not transparent and neutral but intrinsically colored . . . and inherently nonneutral” (p. 196). This applies not only to verbal language but to visual language as well, and typography is an essential component of that language. It is a means “by which the meanings of a text (or its absence of meaning) can be clarified, honored, and shared, or knowingly disguised” (Bringhurst 1996, p. 17). Like verbal style, visual style— including typography— fulfills an important purposive function well beyond mere ornamentation.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

These arguments take important steps toward dispelling notions of visual language as transparent, providing yet another important parallel to verbal language. Arguments by Miller (1979) and others have already moved the field away from notions of verbal language as transparent; theoretical discussions of visual rhetoric are suggesting we must re-think likewise our treatment of visual language, including typography.

If visual language parallels verbal language in its functions, then the “crystal goblet” of which Beatrice Warde (1956b) spoke in her well-known essay on typography is a myth; typography serves not as a clear window into the verbal text, but rather as a prism that refracts the verbal message of a document. However, this theoretical perspective remains to be empirically tested.

A Pragmatic and Empirical Foundation

Practitioners generally support the theoretical stance that the visual attributes of a document may have a subtle and complex impact. For example, Carter, Meggs, and Day (1997) emphasize that typographical choices should be driven by the rhetorical triangle —by purpose, audience, and subject—as well as by context:

Just as elocution and diction enhance and clarify the meaning of our spoken words, typographic signs can be manipulated by a designer to achieve a more lucid and expressive typographic communication. (p. 75)

In addition, type is perceived to reflect the credibility of the writer or designer, even of the organization. Mismatches in typeface and text message may thus decrease credibility and alienate readers (Kostelnick and Roberts 1998). Bringhurst (1996) presents a comparable perspective, suggesting that

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

“When the type is poorly chosen, what the words say linguistically and what the letters imply visually are disharmonious, dishonest, out of tune” (p. 23).

According to White (1988), the effects of these mismatches are likely to be subliminal because most readers are probably unaware of typeface as they read. However, consciously or otherwise, readers may respond to the atmosphere created by the type, suggesting the importance of matching form and content to each other.

The empirical support for both theoretical and pragmatic perspectives on the rhetoric of typography is multidisciplinary, including studies on perception, reading, memory, and affect, as well as on typography itself.

Perception and Reading

A substantial body of research in psychology has investigated the processes that take place during reading, and this work in turn informs the investigation of the rhetoric of typography. Two dominant models of reading provide an organizing framework for interpreting many of these studies: a featuredriven (bottom-up) model, which stipulates that reading begins with the perception of basic features, such as letters, and ends with comprehension; and a context-driven (topdown) model, which stipulates that readers map information onto a foundation of prior knowledge as they read.

According to the feature-driven model, the reading process is a sequence of eye fixations and saccadic sweeps that culminates in the formation of an “icon” on the retina. Letters are recovered through what is essentially a pattern recognition process, while the effects of context and prior knowledge come into play only after individual letters have been processed (Gough 1972; Kintsch 1988). Various researchers have presented find-

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

ings that appear to support this theory. For example, Massaro (1973) found that letters are recognized equally well in words and nonwords, a fact that suggests that context does not play a role in initial processing.

Feature-driven processing offers a fairly straightforward way to consider the effects of typography on reading comprehension: if a typeface is not legible, the initial feature recognition stage of processing will be slower and more difficult. Of course, this approach leads to the question of what features constitute a legible typeface, a question that remains to be definitively answered.

Even more problematically, though, it does not provide a framework for considering other typographical issues, such as persona and appropriateness, and the ways in which these issues might impact the reading process. Finally, data from several studies suggests that context may, in fact, play an important role in even the initial stages of the reading process.

For example, Johnston and McClelland (1973) presented evidence of a “word-letter phenomenon”: each letter of a four-letter word was perceived more accurately than a single letter in isolation. Becker and Killion (1977) found that visual and cognitive effects interact in word recognition, and that context and the expectations resulting from that context can compensate for poor stimulus quality. Other researchers have found that forced-choice letter recognition is better and faster for words than nonwords.

In addition, when one is reading for meaning, typographical errors frequently go unnoticed, suggesting that readers are processing at a word (or higher) level, not a letter level (Brewer 1972). The idea that readers normally process text word by word rather than character by character is also supported by the work of Cattell and of Erdmann and Dodge (cited in Spencer 1969).

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

All of this data supports the notion that readers’ prior knowledge and experiences, as well as whatever schemata or genre expectations they bring to the text, shape their reading of a document from the very beginning of the reading process, as Arnheim, Kostelnick, and other have argued. In turn, this idea implies that typography may play a role far beyond legibility and readability. Because readers perceive typefaces to have connotations in much the same way as verbal language often has connotations, the context provided by the particular typeface of a document could have a significant impact on the reading of a text.

Perception, Memory, and Affect

Additional research suggests that perception—conscious and otherwise—impacts both memory and interpretation of affect. Jacoby and Whitehouse (1989) conducted two experiments whose data suggested that memory illusions (that is, falsely remembering the presence of a word on a list) can be produced by unconscious perception. Extending these results to the rhetoric of typography suggests that, if a typeface evokes certain thoughts or emotions that do not match the text it depicts, readers may falsely remember textual material; in other words, their reading comprehension may suffer. Visual tone may mislead readers much as voice tone may mislead listeners.

Goldinger, Kleider, and Shelley (1999) suggest that, rather than attending solely to a speaker’s message, “listeners may primarily attend to tone of voice, dialect, and so forth” (p. 328). They draw a parallel between spoken words and written words, suggesting that both voices (spoken words) and font information (written words) are typically remembered. Their argument that spoken words act both “as perceptual objects (with unique voice characteristics) and as gateways to linguistic representations” (p. 328) also suggests a parallel to

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

typography, which is at once visual and verbal and may thus also act as a “perceptual object.”

Finally, Massaro and Egan (1973) provide data that implicitly connect these two studies, suggesting that individuals evaluate and integrate information from both visual cues (facial expression) and vocal cues (voice quality) to perceive emotion. Their data suggests that the effectiveness of these paralinguistic cues—cues that accompany linguistic information and assist the communication but do not themselves convey linguistic information—depends on context and on level of ambiguity.

The more voice tone is ambiguous, the more we rely on facial expression, and vice versa; reaction time is greater when the stimulus is ambiguous or the cues are contradictory.

Again, a parallel can be drawn to written texts: If the paralinguistic information conveyed by typography is contradictory to the linguistic information conveyed by the text, one would expect reading time to be longer and comprehension degraded.

If the text is ambiguous, one would expect readers to rely more heavily on the document’s design—its visual rhetoric.

These studies emphasize the importance of both linguistic and paralinguistic information in the perception and interpretation of written and oral communication. They suggest again that typography may play a significant role in text perception and processing because it provides both verbal and visual cues.

Typeface Persona in Practice and Research

Interestingly, research in applied psychology that is specific to typography has ignored entirely the issues of paralinguistic information and instead has focused on legibility or readability. A handful of studies have been conducted in other disciplines, and these support the notion that type carries with it a message distinct from that of the verbal text. For example,

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

several researchers have identified personality profiles for specific typefaces (most recently Brumberger 2003a; Bartram 1982; Rowe 1982).

Others have examined the issue of typeface appropriateness (see Brumberger 2003b; Walker, Smith, and Livingston 1986; Haskins 1958; Poffenberger and Franken 1923), determining that readers are aware of mismatches between text and typeface personas. However, none of the research—in technical communication, psychology, graphic design, or other disciplines—has examined the impact of typeface persona on the reading process.

Summary

The existing literature, while rich in its perspectives and empirical approaches, only scratches the surface regarding type’s rhetorical impact. The strands of the literature begin to converge but have not yet reached a clear nexus: The body of empirical work does not, for the most part, appear to draw on rhetorical theory—either visual or verbal; there are few studies that approach type with the purpose of examining

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

its rhetoric or its contribution to the effectiveness of a text; those studies that do examine typeface personality stop short of investigating the impact of that personality on readers’ interactions with the document.

Unfortunately, faced with a lack of empirical guidelines, we typically make design decisions based on personal preference, intuition, or even the fact that “that’s what the company has always used.” The designs of the resulting documents often clash with their purpose, content, and readers, a clash that has the potential to be highly problematic in a society comprised increasingly of viewers.

Research Methodology

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of typeface persona on reading comprehension, on reading time, and on readers’ perceptions of the author’s ethos. The study addressed the following research questions: If a text and typeface are (in)appropriately matched in persona,

• What is the effect on reading time?

• What is the effect on reading comprehension?

• What is the effect on readers’ judgments of the writer’s ethos?

Based on theories of visual rhetoric and on related empirical work, one would expect reading comprehension to be poorer and reading time longer if a typeface and a text are incongruent (not appropriately matched to each other). In addition, the ethos of the writer—or the reader’s perception of the writer’s ethos—should be degraded; that is, the writer should be perceived as less credible or trustworthy.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

Typeface and Text Selection

The typefaces for the study were TrueType fonts selected based on personas identified in a previous study (see Brumberger 2003a). In that study, three distinct categories of typeface persona were identified by participants from the same general subject pool as the participants in the current study; students who participated in the earlier study were not permitted to participate in the current study. The typefaces in the initial study were chosen to represent a range of physical features, and they ranged from the commonly used to the novel. Participants rated each typeface on a series of attributes. The resulting data revealed that the typefaces separated into three distinct persona categories, identified as “elegant,” “direct,” and “friendly.” The persona categories were not determined by physical characteristics of the typefaces (such as the presence or absence of serifs).

The typefaces chosen for the current study were strongly representative of each category. Thus, three typefaces were used in the study: Black Chancery (“elegant”), Arial (“direct”), and Bauhaus Md BT (“friendly”). It is important to emphasize that these typefaces were not selected because they are particularly likely to be used in professional documents; rather, they were selected because they were perceived by participants in the earlier study to have very strong personas.

Text passages were selected similarly. A previous study (see Brumberger 2003a) identified three distinct categories of text persona using the same methodology as that for identifying typeface persona. The categories of text persona that were identified were: “professional,” “violent,” and “friendly.” The texts chosen for the current study were the strongest representatives of each category. Thus, three texts were used in the study: a “professional” text (an excerpt from Anderson’s Cognitive psychology textbook), a “violent” text (an excerpt from the Clancy novel Rainbow six), and a “friendly” text (a passage from a Newsweek article on snowboarding).

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

The combination of three typefaces paired with three texts resulted in nine conditions (see Table 1). Each participant received only three of the nine conditions; the text passages were presented in all possible orders. Thus, this was a counterbalanced between subjects design with two independent variables.

The texts were displayed in 11.5–12 point type to control more closely for the variations in size among the typefaces, which could conceivably affect reading speed. Kerning, tracking, and leading were left at Microsoft Word default values; line spacing was set at 1.5, line length at 6.5 inches.

The Nelson Denny Reading Comprehension Test

Because there may be a correlation between reading ability and the effects of typeface persona on comprehension, reading rate, and perceptions of ethos, I administered part two of the Nelson Denny Reading Test version, Form H) to all participants. The Nelson Denny is a nationally standardized and normed multiple-choice vocabulary and comprehension test. It was designed to evaluate vocabulary development (part 1), and comprehension and reading rate (part 2) for high school students, college students, and adults. Revised periodically, the Nelson-Denny has been widely used for nearly four decades and is considered a valid and reliable measure of reading ability.

Part two, Reading Comprehension and Rate, is a 20-minute test, the first minute of which is used to determine Reading Rate. This section of the Nelson Denny contains seven reading passages and a total of 38 questions, each with five answer choices. The text passages are selected from current, widely used, high school and college texts. The Nelson Denny was administered after the main task of the study to avoid any confusion regarding timing and instructions.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

Reading Comprehension, Reading Rate, and Perception of Ethos

For each text passage, reading comprehension and perception of ethos were measured through a series of 11 multiple choice questions, each with four answer choices. In each series of questions, four items assessed surface feature comprehension (for example, remembering a specific fact stated in the text passage), four assessed inferential comprehension (the ability to make an inference based on the information presented in the text passage), and three assessed perception of ethos.

I tested the reading comprehension questions with 30 participants (15 male, 15 female) before the study to ensure their appropriateness. Accuracy rates on the surface and inference questions averaged 62–75% during piloting.

Reading time during the study was recorded with a stopwatch accurate to one-hundredth of a second; this provided the most accurate measure available without running the study on a computer, which would have introduced an entirely new reading environment. Participants timed themselves on each text passage. Prior to beginning the actual study, participants practiced the timing process with additional text passages.

Predicted Effects

Effects were predicted based on previously obtained appropriateness ratings for the text/typeface pairs (see Brumberger 2003b). The largest effects on comprehension, reading rate, and perception of ethos were expected for the conditions in which the text and typeface persona were seen as most inappropriately matched; the smallest effects were expected for conditions in which the pairing was most

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

appropriate. Thus, the largest effects were expected for the friendly and violent texts presented in the elegant typeface (Black Chancery). The smallest effects were expected for all texts presented in the direct typeface (Arial) and for the friendly text in the friendly typeface (Bauhaus Md BT).

Materials and Procedure

Seventy-two participants (36 male, 36 female) were given two packets: the first included a demographic data form, instructions, three passages of text as described above, and a series of 11 comprehension and judgment questions for each passage. There was only one passage of text per page; the questions for each passage were on the page immediately following (not facing) the text. Participants read each passage, timing themselves with a stopwatch; they then turned the page and responded to the questions without looking back at the text. The instructions for part 1 of the study were typical of a reading comprehension test:

In this booklet are three brief text passages, each followed by eleven questions. Please read each text carefully, timing yourself with the stopwatch provided. Once you have finished reading a text passage, record your reading time in the space provided, then turn the page and answer the questions for that text passage. Please do not look back at the text passage while completing the questions.

Once participants read the instructions, I reiterated the instructions orally, emphasizing that they needed to read carefully enough to be able to answer questions without looking back at the text passages.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

Following completion of this first portion of the study, I administered the Reading Comprehension portion of the Nelson Denny test. The entire study took approximately 45 minutes for each participant to complete and was administered to participant groups of up to four people. All participants were seated at a conference table that allowed ample space while permitting me to monitor each participant, thereby reducing the possibility of anyone following instructions incorrectly.

Methods of Analysis

I conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine the effects of typeface persona on reading time and comprehension. To measure the effect on reading comprehension, the number of correct responses was tallied for each question category (surface and inference), and the ANOVA was conducted on these totals.

A chi square was used rather than an analysis of variance to determine the effect of typeface on perception of ethos since the responses could not be categorized as “correct” or

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

“incorrect.” There were three ethos questions for each text passage, each with four possible responses. A typical ethos question was as follows:

The author of this selection seems to be a. very knowledgeable b. somewhat knowledgeable c. a little knowledgeable d. not at all knowledgeable

The responses corresponded to four levels of perceived ethos (high to low). Thus, responses to the ethos questions could be sorted into four categories. Because there were no “correct” and “incorrect” responses to the ethos questions, it was not feasible to predict with certainty the distribution of responses. The chi square was deemed the appropriate analysis because it provides an alternate method of determining whether two variables—in this case, typeface and perception of ethos—are independent of one another. It does so by comparing the observed frequency of a response to the expected frequency, the latter being the frequency that would be observed if the two variables were independent of one another.

Thus, if the response to a particular ethos question is not affected by the typeface, then there should be no significant difference between the observed frequency and the expected frequency for that response. The expected frequency is derived mathematically, based on the total number of responses for each item and the overall total number of responses. I tallied the observed frequency of each response to each ethos question. I then calculated the chi square based on the observed and expected frequencies. Finally, I also analyzed the ethos data for effects linked to gender.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

Results

Reading Time

An ANOVA revealed no significant differences in reading time. There were no significant main effects of text or typeface, nor were there text by typeface interactions. In short, dissonance in typeface/text persona did not significantly affect reading time; it did not slow readers down as I had expected. It is possible that differences in reading time would appear with a more precise timing method such as a keystroke on the computer, but, as mentioned previously, use of the computer would introduce a new reading environment.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

Figure 1. Text Interactions (ethos). The lines illustrate patterns of ethos ratings; note the different pattern exhibited by the “professional” text.

Reading Comprehension

Although the text passages were normed for reading difficulty and coherence, an ANOVA still revealed significant differences in reading comprehension between texts (with a statistical significance level of p 0.0001—in other words, there is one chance in 10,000 that the differences in reading comprehension were due to chance). There were significant main effects of text on both surface and inference comprehension questions (at the same level of statistical significance, p 0.0001).

Interestingly, the reading comprehension scores for the study were considerably lower than those obtained when piloting the questions (see Table 2). These lower comprehension scores may be due to participants timing themselves as they read, although the written directions they received explicitly stated that they should read each text passage carefully, and these directions were supplemented by oral instructions to read carefully enough to be able to answer questions about the texts.

None of the significant effects on reading comprehension were due to typeface persona, nor were there any significant typeface by text interactions. Thus, the differences observed in comprehension were due solely to text differences; dissonance in typeface/text persona did not significantly affect reading comprehension.

Perception of Ethos

A chi square revealed a main effect of text (at a statistical significance level of p 0.001), but no main effect of typeface using significance levels of p 0.01. In other words, readers perceived substantial differences in ethos between the three texts, but they did not perceive the different typefaces in and of themselves to convey differing levels of ethos. That is, no one particular typeface consistently improved or lowered text passage ethos.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

However, there was a significant typeface by text interaction (at a statistical significance level of p 0.001), meaning that the persona of the typeface and the persona of the text passage interacted to shape the ethos of the text passage. For the “professional” text (Cognitive psychology), ethos was slightly higher with the “friendly” typeface (Bauhaus Md BT) than with either the “direct” (Arial) or “elegant” (Black Chancery) typeface. Interestingly, the pairing of professional text with friendly typeface is neither strongly appropriate nor strongly inappropriate.

No comparable patterns were observed for either the “violent” or the “friendly” text (see Figure 1), nor did male and female participants differ substantially in their ethos judgments of any of the text/typeface pairs.

Discussion

For the texts, typefaces, and participants in this study, typeface persona did not have a significant impact on reading comprehension or reading time. The data revealed no significant differences in comprehension or reading time resulting from typeface or typeface by text interactions. Although readers do perceive typefaces and texts to have personality attributes, and although they also perceive certain typefaces as (in)appropriate for certain texts, participants’ comprehension of a text was not substantially affected by typeface persona or dissonance in typeface/text persona. The same was true for reading time.

There are several possible explanations for these results. All of the texts in this study exhibited strong personas, which may override the impact of typeface persona. That is, if the verbal persona of a document is very strong, readers may not be influ-

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

enced by its visual persona. It is possible that effects on reading comprehension and reading time may appear in situations in which the text is neutral or ambiguous in persona.

A second possibility is that the dissonance in typeface/ text persona was not pronounced enough to affect comprehension or time. That is, effects may appear only in situations in which there is a dramatic and obvious conflict between the text and typeface persona. The identification of typefaces and texts with strongly opposing personalities would allow further investigation of the impact of dissonance on the reading process.

Yet another possibility is that the text passages were so brief (only 375 words each) that comprehension and reading time were unaffected by typeface/text dissonance; significant differences in comprehension and reading time may be observed with longer and more complex text passages, in more typical reading situations, or with texts on different topics (highly technical material, for example).

A final explanation may lie in the participants themselves. Like many studies in the social sciences, this project relied on students from an introductory psychology course as its participants. Essentially, these students are a “captive audience,” in that they are required to participate in four hours of research to pass the course. Ideological issues aside, this is potentially problematic from a practical standpoint. Some students participate only with great reluctance, and this attitude may well affect their performance on experimental tasks. Participants’ reading comprehension scores and Nelson Denny scores suggest they are weak readers. Whether this is the case or simply a by-product of the situation, it may be that careless readers interact less closely with a text. Thus, a comparable study with readers of different levels may have different results.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

The most interesting finding of the study involved readers’ judgments of the writer’s ethos. The data revealed a significant typeface by text interaction on ethos judgments, suggesting that a reader’s perception of the writer’s ethos may be sensitive to the interactions between verbal and visual rhetoric. This result suggests that typeface and text personas do interact and that readers’ perceptions of a document and author are shaped to some extent by these interactions. The data supports theoretical perspectives that suggest that we cannot separate thinking and seeing—that visual and verbal thinking work together to “shape the rhetoric of the message” (Kostelnick 1990, p. 198).

At the same time, the data clearly counters the idea that we can build and use a selection chart for typefaces based on persona. The findings emphasize the problems inherent in a prescriptive approach that involves making blanket judgments about typeface usage, as there were no significant main effects of typeface, but only significant typeface by text interactions. For example, although Bauhaus Md BT is perceived to be a very “friendly” typeface, it does not follow that using Bauhaus Md BT will encourage the readers to perceive a given document as “friendlier” or that use of Bauhaus Md BT will affect each document in the same way; the impact of the typeface clearly depends on the rhetorical context.

This finding directly contradicts practitioners’ lore, which suggests that a particular typeface will color any document in the same way. Thus, the data reminds us again that practitioners’ lore often falls short of the mark because it typically ignores the interactions between visual and verbal rhetoric.

Finally, it is interesting to note the lack of significant differences between male and female participants. Studies of gender and language suggest that males and females differ in their interpretation of language (see Crawford and Chaffin 1986;

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

Edelsky 1977); however, the results of this study do not support that contention with regard to visual language. This point certainly bears further investigation.

Implications and Conclusions

The results of this study, while far from conclusive, do indicate that typography does play a role in shaping readers’ interactions with a document—a role that extends beyond legibility and readability. In turn, the study provides tangible support for the argument that we must approach technical communication as more than writing and then formatting, that we must make design an integral part of the rhetorical process rather than an afterthought slapped on to dress up the product.

Perhaps more importantly, though, the study foregrounds the importance of abandoning a prescriptive or formulaic approach to teaching and practicing document design. The data emphasizes that typefaces and texts interact during the reading process, countering the notion that a typeface with a particular persona will lend that persona to any document. Although a group of readers may consistently assign particular personality attributes to a particular typeface, that typeface may not consistently color every text they read in the same way. Thus, the project reinforces the notion of technical communication as rhetorical problem solving (Flower 1989), in which context is crucial and each communication situation requires a carefully considered and appropriately tailored solution. The data makes clear that this argument applies not only to verbal rhetoric but also to visual rhetoric.

Finally, this project highlights several connections between technical communication and other related fields, including classical rhetoric, applied psychology, and graphic design, connections that are often overlooked in both the classroom

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

and the workplace. Drawing on these connections can provide us with a cross-disciplinary perspective on technical communication, which is likely to serve us well in our careers, whether as educators or practitioners.

One of the opinions often expressed about technical communication is that it is a field devoid of theoretical foundations. In academe, this translates into the viewpoint that we teach job skills and technical tools, rather than more highly valued intellectual material. Courses in document design, in particular, are typically viewed as “production” courses, even by people within the field of technical communication. Yet, as this article demonstrates, design itself is a discipline rich in theory, as is writing.

Exploring connections between these theoretical perspectives and drawing on empirical work that builds bridges between them can lead to document design courses that focus on the intellectual as well as the pragmatic, that teach the theory and practice of visual communication, not simply software and production skills. And, in turn, this approach may inform the teaching of other courses within technical communication programs.

In the workplace, the notion that technical communication is a field without theoretical or intellectual content leads to the idea of the technical communicator as a “manual writer,” or even a glorified typist, with a very narrow field of expertise. It further marginalizes document design, defining it as decoration, as taking a product and making it “pretty.” Although the field has made significant progress in this regard, emphasizing crossdisciplinary theoretical and empirical perspectives like those presented in this article may help to further dispel such misconceptions; it may in turn enable technical communicators to have a greater impact on workplace practices and products.

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos

A Guide to Understanding What Makes a Typeface Accessible

Gareth Ford Williams

From

The Readability Group, Medium, 2020

Typefaces are the foundation of accessible visual reading experiences, so choosing a performant typeface that enhances legibility and readability for people with poor vision, learning disabilities, aphasia, dyslexia or low adult literacy is of paramount importance if you want your written information to be as accessible as possible.

The type design elements in this article form a baseline for accessibility. To be truly accessible type has to be designed in combination with the other best practices but without a good choice of typeface things like colour contrast will have limited impact.

The elements listed below are not the only considerations for typeface accessibility, but they are a foundation to help make informed choices that are based on neuroscience and user data from the formative study. There are some typefaces that claim to be “accessible” for various user groups but are based on little more than hypothesis and anecdote, so check claims before you make a decision.

If learning more about the subject is something you would like to explore further, an extensive list of reliable studies and resources are listed at the end of this article.

BBC Reith and Qalam

When developing and testing BBC Reith and Qalam, the project team included a neuroscientist, Dr Alessia Nicotra MD, PhD Neurology and Neurophysiology, as an expert advisor. This was to help develop an understanding within the team of how different people with different abilities read. This not only informed the approach to developing Reith but it also informed the methodologies used when it came to the various rounds of readability testing.

The user groups in the research included people with moderate to severe vision impairment, dyslexia and people who didn’t identify with any related condition and BBC Reith outperformed the typefaces it was benchmarked against; Helvetica, Ariel, Gill Sans and Tiresias.

Accessibility Features

A byproduct of the research and many rounds of contextual user testing enabled us to identify the following considerations. When these are applied in combination, can inform typeface design or font choices that enable greater legibility, readability and therefore accessibility for people whom either have a learning disability, visual impairment, aphasia or dyslexia, whilst retaining the brand integrity of any organisation’s website or application.

It is worth noting at this point that Dyslexia is not a visual but rather a developmental neurological condition that affects the processing of word sound and comprehension. There are a number of other cognitive traits or conditions such as letter mirroring which affects people without dyslexia too. These include Irlen syndrome or visual discomfort (migraines) that affect a significant percentage of the population including people with dyslexia but not exclusive to the condition. It is also worth noting that the occurrence of dyslexia is significantly impacted by the transparency or opaqueness of language. As a result instances of dyslexia in languages like German or Italian are significantly lower than for English or French.

Some of these traits that are not core to a dyslexia diagnosis are better served through the provision of lower contrast colour schemes or specific colour combinations that support specific visual processing needs.

So here are a few guidelines you

can use:

1. Use a font style that is appropriate to your audience.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Minimise the occurrence of imposter letter shapes that are designed to be very similar to other letter shapes as part of the typeface’s visual style.

Minimise the occurrence of mirroring letter shapes.

Letters should be easily distinguishable from one another.

Humanist typefaces are generally more legible at smaller sizes than grotesque typefaces.

Ensure the typeface has adequate letter spacing.

1. Use a Typeface that is Appropriate to Your Audience and The Organisation’s Brand.

For Children or Adults who are learning to read or have a low reading ability, the less complex shapes of sans serif typefaces can help with character recognition. Serif style typefaces can enable more fluid readability for advanced readers due to the additional disambiguated letter shaping. Serifs form word shapes to enable more fluid readability however sans serif can aid individual character recognition for less advanced readers.

Longer reading experiences can benefit from serifs which enable better saccadic flow of reading, reducing user fatigue and increasing reading speeds and comprehension.

For the youngest readers, adults with low literacy or for people with more profound learning difficulties the single storey ‘a’ (Example in Comic Sans) can be easier to recognise than its double storey variant.

This and the more casual visual style in Comic Sans is popular with organisations that focus on communicating with children or about children. This choice however can undermine an organisation where the tone should be more formal or fashionable, and undermine the organisation’s brand integrity.

For advanced readers a single storey ‘a’ can be a distraction to the smooth reading experience because of its similarity to other letter shapes such as ‘o’ or ‘c’, or ‘d’ even. Once learned, a double storey ‘a’ provides a better differentiation and aids reading flow.

As children develop their reading ability develops. They start by learning the individual character shapes and associated sounds, then they move to recognising groupings, full words and eventually move to reading in saccades. During a saccade the eye/brain fixates on a single character picking up two to three characters to the left and three to four characters to the right, and eventually jumps to the next fixation point, approx. seven characters ahead. Please be mindful of your intended audience as not everyone may have acquired the same proficiency levels of saccadic reading.

In some instances typeface/font accessibility might be treated as an ‘alternative’ the user can switch to or as with BBC Reith, there are additional characters or font variations so the default can be optimised for children or display in difficult contexts such as a condensed version for data tables.

Upper case ‘i’, lower case ‘L’ and 1 in Gill Sans

Upper case ‘i’, lower case ‘L’ and 1 in Verdana

Microsoft

Focus on the spaces between the letters

BBC Reith on the left has unique shapes whilst Public Sans on the right employs mirroring

Sans on the left and Trebuchet on the right

2. Avoid Imposter Letter Shapes that

Designed

be Very Similar to Other Letter Shapes.

Some typefaces have letterform designs that are virtually identical for multiple letters.

The letters “I1l” (upper case ‘i’, the number one and lower case L in Gill Sans) are a good example of this issue.

To avoid this problem choose a typeface or font with distinct features on both the top and/or the bottom of the capital ‘I’ and a short but noticeable arm on the top of the number ‘1’.

3. Ensure there is no Mirroring

All sighted young children horizontally flip letters as part of their early neurological development. At around the age of six years old, however, this neurological trait resolves itself as part of ongoing physiological development, however in some children this development stage doesn’t occur and accordingly letter flipping effect is lifelong. In extremely rare occasions the mirroring effect may also be re-introduced because of brain trauma. As such d and b, or q and p, should be obviously unique in shape and have no ambiguous characteristics.

are

to

4. Letters should be Easily Distinguishable From One Another.

For people with moderate to more severe vision impairment the characters o, c, e or a can be easily confused, which in turn makes words harder to identify.

If the shapes are too closed, or their counters are too small, then they can begin to look very similar. Typefaces with tight apertures can cause the counter to appear fully closed to many readers with moderate to severe vision impairment or lower reading ability. Conversely more open counters within the letterforms themselves can increase legibility by better emphasising the unique shape, and are therefore preferable.

5. Humanist Typefaces are Generally More Legible at Smaller Sizes than Grotesque Typefaces

Humanist typefaces tend to have more varied character widths. This aids with disambiguated letter shaping, and thus aids in particular with quick and accurate letter recognition. Varied character widths aid character recognition for people with all types of eye condition or learning disabilities.

Helvetica Neue on the left and Lucida Sans on the right

Microsoft Sans on the left, Public Sans on the right

6. Ensure The Typeface Has Adequate Letter Spacing

The tighter the letter spacing is the less people with even mild vision impairments are able to identify the individual characters. Letters can become adjoined such as “ol”, “lo” or “vv”, or simply make the individual letter shapes within tight groupings harder to decode. Tight letter spacing is also causes reduced readability for people with good vision and reading proficiency.

In particular people with vision impairment, reading difficulties or cognitive disabilities struggle with tight letter spacing as it creates visual crowding which can make the job of focusing on and recognising an individual character difficult.

7. There Should be a Visible Difference Between Capital Height and Ascenders

Ambiguity can impact character recognition and, accordingly, the quick and correct decoding of characters (legibility). Raising Ascenders above capital heights and other features can greatly improve individual character recognition.

8. Test the Suitability of any Typeface/ Font in Context

When selecting a typeface/font for use in a website or an app, test readability and legibility in comparison with other candidates. The characteristics in recommendations 1 to 7 provide a starting point for discussion and expert review. However these, like all accessibility guidelines, are of technical nature, whereas usability and effectiveness can only be measured by testing with a broad range of people with and without impairments or disabilities. Recommended conditions to be focused on with the user group are people with Dyslexia as well as Moderate to Severe Vision Impairment, Aphasia and Adult Learning Disabilities.

Testing is recommended to be done in isolation as well as in situ to ensure that the combination of typeface/font, along with it’s design application, does not negatively impact your reading audience, and that the choice is based on a performant typeface as well as typography. This can be approached in a number of ways and function should be measured in combination of preference and performance.

The Controversy of Accessible Type

Alex Chen

From Queer Design Club, Medium, 2019

Why Accessibility?

I use the term “disabled people” to embrace disability. You can read more here: I am Disabled: On Identity-First Versus People-First Language. https://thebodyisnotan apology.com/magazine /i-am-disabled-on-iden tity-first-versus-peoplefirst-language/

As you navigate cities, transportation, products, and services, you might notice that most of the built environment has been created by non-disabled people, forming barriers and preventing disabled people1 from participating. Just one common example is how stairs prevent wheelchair users and people who use mobility aids from interacting with physical space, though that only begins to describe the seemingly endless amount of barriers disabled people navigate constantly.

2

1 https://github.com/ thetuttingtutor/ accessibility-disabilityjustice

Accessibility is the process of removing barriers to meet people’s access needs. It goes hand in hand with usability, affordability, availability, and overall good design. To learn more about disability and accessibility, check out this resource list2 I update every couple weeks.

This article focuses specifically on visual barriers in typography and how to be more accessible to people who have low vision, cognitive disorders, and dyslexia or other learning disabilities. These best practices also benefit everyone!

Image compares characters I, l, 1, b, d, p, q, g, a, o, r, n, m, and the words Illinois, modern, and debatable between the typefaces Comic Sans, Verdana, and Helvetica.

https://www. dyslexicadvantage.org/thebest-fonts-for-dyslexia/

The Controversy! What Makes a Typeface Accessible?

This question actually drove me bonkers for years. I’ve read a lot of conflicting information on how to choose an accessible typeface. Is it better to use serif or sans serif? To clarify the difference, serif has marks at the end of a stroke (like Times New Roman) and sans serif doesn’t (like Helvetica).

The general consensus amongst graphic designers is that sans serif is more accessible because it’s more clean and less distracting. However, dyslexic people still experience barriers reading sans serif text. So what does that mean?

With the creation of dyslexia-centric fonts such as Dyslexie, researchers have done studies to determine what fonts are more accessible to dyslexic people — with mixed results.

1. 2.

https://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007/s11881-0170154-6#Sec11

For example, this study3 says Dyslexie, Open Dyslexic, and Comic Sans are the clear winners. However, this study4 says there was no marked preference or improved performance between Dyslexie, Times New Roman, and Arial.

Given all this conflicting information, what are we supposed to do? The overarching message in accessibility is: listen to disabled people. Many people in the disability community prefer fonts like Comic Sans. Despite it being the bane of practically every designer’s existence, it’s very accessible. Why? According to Critical Axis, Comic Sans is more legible because it has bulbous curves and disproportionate lines. All these characteristics help people differentiate letters more when they read.

Image compares characters I, l, 1, b, d, p, q, g, a, o, r, n, m, and the words Illinois, modern, and debatable between the typefaces Arbutus Slab, IBM Plex Sans, and Arial Black.

https://bdatech.org/whattechnology/typefaces-fordyslexia/

This article [from the British Dyslexia Association]5 surveyed dyslexic people for their preferences and they found a list of things to look for in an accessible typeface:

1. 2. 3.

Is there a difference between capital I, lowercase l, and the number 1?

Compare letters b and d, p and q — are they mirror images or distinguished?

Compare letters g, a, and o — are they distinguished? Do the letters rn look like the letter m?

Once you compare the letters, it’s pretty clear that Comic Sans wins. The asymmetrical strokes that give it (in my opinion) a childish look also make it easier to read. While people might be more used to clean, modern fonts like Helvetica, many of the letters are too symmetrical or identical. For example, the capital I and lowercase l look exactly the same, making words like “Illinois” difficult to read. So if the question is do we use serif or sans serif?, my answer is actually neither. After understanding the access needs of dyslexic people, my personal preference is for something in between serif and sans serif that balances a clean look with the need for distinguishing letter forms. (Wow, I guess I’m nonbinary in every way).

This means I usually go for a contemporary or slab serif, where the additional strokes are more geometric and clean. For the pocket guide zine, I used Arbutus Slab for headers and IBM

Left-aligned vs. justified text

Big vs. small text

Plex Sans for body text. I use the latter as my general type of choice (it feels cute and nerdy, like me!). I also like humanist and grotesque sans serifs; I don’t think they’re as accessible as slab serifs but they pop and still have pretty well-defined letters. I use Archivo Black for headers on my personal site. Obviously, accessibility is an entire, holistic experience with a lot more considerations than a singular typeface. Whether you end up using Verdana or Helvetica, it probably won’t make or break it. But it is an important detail to keep in mind.

At the very least, maybe it’s time to retire the Comic Sans jokes.

Pocket guide for accessible typography

Expanding on the typeface debate, these are general guidelines and best practices for how to make your typography accessible.

Alignment

Align text to one direction (left, right, or center) to make it easier to read.

The fully justified text, while it creates a clean overall text block, creates uneven “rivers of white” spacing that makes it difficult to read.

Font Size

Use large font sizes instead of tiny text. It’s best practice for body text to be at least 16px for web. I personally prefer 18–20px.

People should also be able to zoom in up to 200% without losing information or structure.

White space vs. little space

High contrast vs. low contrast

Weights and styles

Use different weights and styles sparingly to make text simple and clean.

Use sentence case, not all caps

Don’t combine bold and italics

Don’t create blocks of text with italics

Typeface

Use a typeface with clean, distinguishable letters instead of cursive, themed, and handwritten styles.

Spacing

Use accessible spacing to differentiate lines of text and make reading easier. Best practices are:

1.5x font size for line spacing

2x font size for paragraph spacing

Contrast

Use high contrast to make text stand out. The text on the left is easy to read because:

1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 1. 2. 3.

It uses regular instead of light weight

It’s at 100% instead of 30% opacity

It’s at 21:1 contrast (aim for at least 7:1)

You might notice that reading Medium articles feels really nice. That’s because Medium follows several of the guidelines mentioned above: notably high contrast, large font size (21px body text), and accessible spacing (1.58 line height). Most blogs, even design blogs, end up straining my eyes because they miss these details.

Screenshot of an article in the Washington Post. The actual story (highlighted in pink) takes about 25% of the screen. The advertising, related stories, and other navigational elements (highlighted in blue) take about 75% of the screen.

Note: I don’t identify as disabled, but I’ve worn prescription glasses since I was 9. I regularly have trouble seeing and reading things, even with my contacts or glasses on. About 75% Americans have some sort of vision correction and therefore a similar experience, so we all benefit from these practices!

Medium also has one column of text with plenty of white space on either side. That’s because we don’t want to multi-task as we read, we just want to read. We don’t want distracting elements like moving ads, banners, and related stories on the side, as most news sites throw in. These days, anywhere from 30–70% of the screen is literally covered in moving ads. It’s a disgrace.

Can “Bad” Type Design Help Readers Absorb and Remember Information?

Angela Riechers

From AIGA Eye on Design, 2018

At first glance, the typeface Sans Forgetica looks like an alphabet that’s forgotten how to behave. Letterforms take familiar shapes, then truncate abruptly—as if the capital M accidentally left behind its lower point, or the lowercase h just can’t quite recall how its curved form ends. The italics remember to slant, but they go the wrong way. The typical conventions of type design that ensure legibility are just barely there; Sans Forgetica is legible, but words take a bit longer to figure out. It’s almost like you’re relearning how to read.

The gap-ridden, left-leaning typeface, billed as a new “memory-boosting” font, was created by a type designer and a team of behavioral scientists at Australia’s Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT). In the first two weeks after its release at the beginning of October, Sans Forgetica and its claim to “help you remember your study notes” was covered everywhere from The Washington Post to the CNN to The Guardian, and the font was downloaded over 200,000 times. Based on the sans serif Albion and informed by well-established principles of cognitive psychology and behavioral science, the typeface purposely discards almost all established type design rules. Sans Forgetica’s novel appearance requires readers to pay more attention, which in turn aids retention and recall..

To design the typeface, Stephen Banham, RMIT lecturer in typography, joined forces with behavioral economist Dr. Jo Peryman and lecturer Dr. Janneke Blijlevens, both of the RMIT Behavioral Business Lab. The team started with one of the simplest principles of type design: when roman text switches to bold, italic, or all caps, this is essentially a cue to read and understand these words in a different way from those surrounding them. Sans Forgetica’s quirks prompt the brain to do something similar. The unpredictable breaks in the letterforms coupled with their lack of a discernible visual rhythm require the reader to slow down and

Sans Forgetica character set.

puzzle through the text more carefully. Meanwhile, the letters’ eight degree leftward slant (a typographic convention typically used by cartographers to indicate the names of rivers) focuses attention in the same way. All of these elements help deploy deeper levels of information processing based on the principle known as “desirable difficulty,” a term attributed to Stanford University professor Robert A. Bjork, which asserts that by making something harder to take in, the reader is forced to spend more time with it.

“We rely on perceptual processing of information by the brain,” says Blijlevens. “The brain categorizes what it sees to understand how to react. When we see an oddly shaped horse, we’re like, ‘What is that? Should I run away? What should I do?’ When we make something unfamiliar or a bit different from what we are used to, our brain needs to put more effort in to process it and because of that, the memory trace becomes stronger."

Research on the relationship between fonts and memory hit an inflection point in 2010 with a Princeton University paper that suggests that hard-to-read or “disfluent” fonts aid the process of recall. Daniel Oppenheimer, now a professor of psychology at Carnegie Mellon and co-author of the 2010 study, laid the theoretical groundwork for a memory-enhancing font, but his team never took the next step of actually creating one.

Our brains automatically associate perceptual fluency, or ease of storage, with retrieval fluency, ease of recall. By spending more time to absorb the information, the theory goes, it will stick with you longer, making the information easier to remember down the line. In essence, Sans Forgetica aids

recall by slowing down the process of reading. And it seems to be working: In tests on about 300 students, the participants retained information at a rate of 57% when it was typeset in Sans Forgetica. When the same information was presented in Arial, the retention rate dropped to 50%.

In this particular undertaking, typical typeface design criteria such as aesthetics and legibility take a back seat to science. Naturally this represented a design quandary for Banham, who says, “Sans Forgetica is probably the most counterintuitive project I’ve ever worked on; it forced me to completely reconsider all the things I’ve been doing as a type designer for the past 30 years. I’m so used to working toward clarity and legibility—elements that, to be honest, didn’t play a part in this.”

Working with about 100 students, the team tested three preliminary typeface versions in varying degrees of difficulty, starting with one that simply featured backslant, one that used backslant plus gaps in the letters, and a third that added asymmetry to the mix. The tests involved a distraction task, an exercise in which students had to learn word pairs in a certain time frame, and a test in which students were given one word of the pair and had to recall the word that went along with it. “We found that the pairs presented in Sans Forgetica were remembered 69% of the time, and 61% each time for both the not-so-difficult version and the most difficult one, so it was clear that we had found the sweet spot,” says Blijlevens.

Industrial design god Raymond Loewy’s MAYA (Most Advanced Yet Acceptable) principle played a part in the look of Sans Forgetica as well. Loewy strove to provide users with the most advanced designs, but not more advanced than what they were able to comfortably accept and embrace. “With this

project, we hoped to hit the intersection of ‘difficult, yet acceptable’, similar to ‘advanced, yet acceptable,’” Blijlevens says.

Yet a typeface that relies on novelty to jolt the brain into absorption and retention also runs a fairly significant risk: What happens when the reader gets used to Sans Forgetica? The Mere Exposure effect is a psychological phenomenon whereby people express a preference for things simply because they are familiar. As readers become accustomed to Sans Forgetica’s initially odd appearance, grow more comfortable with it, and start reading it faster, will the retention rate of information decline? Will their brains simply adapt to the difficulties posed by the typeface in such a way as to eliminate the benefits?

Further long-term studies are the only way to determine whether this is likely. For now, the early results are encouraging, based as they are on solid principles of cognitive neuroscience. But while an increase of 7% in memory retention is measurable and real, it also doesn’t leave much room for decline within those results over time; in other words, if readers start to lose even 1% of retention every few months as they become accustomed to Sans Forgetica, soon the advantage is lost.

There are physical changes in the brain related to long term memory—a quantifiable difference between learning something quickly forgotten (like a phone number) and learning something that endures (like multiplication tables). A study investigating whether these brain changes actually take place after exposure to Sans Forgetica could shed additional light on the typeface’s effectiveness.

The Hyperlegible Typeface Changing How We See Print

Callie Budrick

From Print Magazine, 2020

The coronavirus pandemic is clearly at the forefront of all of our minds—but there are countless other healthcare puzzles going on at any given time around the world. One is the low-vision paradox: Despite a decrease in blindness worldwide, people are now living long enough to lose their vision.

So what does that mean for printed materials—and how can designers create fonts that are easily read by the growing population of low-vision consumers?

Enter Atkinson Hyperlegible.

Applied Design Works in New York City partnered up with the Braille Institute to develop this easy-to-read typeface named after the institute’s founder, Robert J. Atkinson.

“People may be surprised that the vast majority of the students who come to Braille Institute have some degree of vision,” Sandy Shin, the institute’s vice president for marketing and communications, told All About Vision. “They're not 100% blind.” Meaning a majority of Braille Institute clients also don’t rely on the dot-based language.

For years now, it seemed the only solution for low-vision clients and printed materials was magnification. But with its careful design, Atkinson Hyperlegible is making a major impact.

According to the Braille Institute’s website, “For low-vision readers, certain letters and numbers can be hard to distinguish from one another. … Atkinson Hyperlegible differentiates common misinterpreted letters and numbers using various design techniques.” By way of recognizable footprints and exaggerated forms, this new typeface is already making a difference and bringing home accolades, including Fast Company’s Innovation by Design Award.

The face—a traditional grotesque sans serif at its core—is free to download and comes with four fonts in two weights, accents supporting 27 languages, and 1,340 glyphs.

Focus Ex is a Digital Reading Aid for People with ADHD

Jennifer Hahn

From Dezeen, 2021

Hungarian designer Vatány Szabolcs has created a font and browser extension to make it easier for people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, to concentrate when reading online content.

The Focus Ex extension, which works on desktop and mobile, allows users to change entire paragraphs on a web page into a different typeface, called Focus Sans.

Focus Sans has generous proportions for better legibility, while crucial parameters such as the space between the lines and letters as well as the weight, width and focus of the letterforms can be personalised according to the reader's individual needs.

Compared to a regular typeface, which comes in set sizes and styles like bold or italic, a variable font like Focus Sans allows these features to be adjusted on a sliding scale to create a vast number of variations.

The result is entirely responsive and unique to the user – whether they prefer extra thick but narrow letters, wide and thin ones or anything in between.

According to Szabolcs, this kind of personalisation is especially important for people with ADHD, who can often struggle with focusing and processing written information.

The Focus Ex extension is available on mobile

The weight, width and focus of Focus Sans can be adapted for better legibility

According to Szabolcs, this kind of personalisation is especially important for people with ADHD, who can often struggle with focusing and processing written information.

"I consulted with psychology and neurology researchers from Budapest and I sent a questionnaire to fluent readers living with ADHD, to collect some data about their reading habits and potential needs," he told Dezeen.

"One of my conclusion was that different people just have different needs, even in reading."

Graphic designers have been experimenting with variable fonts for a number of years, giving them much larger freedom and control over the final outcome.

But Szabolcs's project is an experiment in applying this technology not just for aesthetic but for functional purposes and, crucially, he is actually placing the power in the hands of the final user, to adjust and re-adjust the design as they see fit.

"The most exciting situation is when the input data is dynamic and constantly changing because in that case, the visual result is like a living organism," he said.

The Focus Ex extension also features an interactive Focus Mode, which allows individual words to be seen as if through a magnifying glass by hovering over them with the cursor.

This enables users to actively engage with a text and tackle it one word at a time, with the aim of improving text comprehension and recollection.

Other functions designed to enhance the reading experience include a status bar that visualises the user's progress, a timer for setting goals and a filter that hides distracting images.

Focus Ex is currently still in the prototyping phase and was developed by Szabolcs as part of his master's degree at the Moholy-Nagy University of Art and Design (MOME) in Budapest.

A number of other designers have set their sights on making typography more inclusive and accessible, with Christian Boer creating a typeface for people with dyslexia and Applied Design Works developing "hyperlegible", exaggerated letterforms for the visually impaired, which were shortlisted in the graphic design category at last year's Dezeen Awards.

The letterforms can range from thin and narrow to thick and wide

Focus Ex is a Digital Reading Aid for People with ADHD

Why Designers Need to Consider Accessibility in Type

Molly Long

From Design Week, 2021

“It’s like an optical illusion, where you start to doubt your own brain,” says Christian Boer.

Graphic designer Boer was diagnosed with dyslexia as a child. He explains the condition made school, and later university, a near-impossible challenge. “I could stare at the same two pages for hours – and when I did read, it was wrong,” he says.

When the time came to develop a final project at university, spurred on by his struggles, Boer designed the prototype version of Dyslexie – a typeface designed for dyslexic people which aims to make reading easier.

In the years since his final project, Boer has worked to hone Dyslexie, and expand its use and capabilities. He now has a team, and together they work on things like developing Google Chrome extensions and WordPress Plugins and

“I never set out to create something beautiful”

Dyslexie Office, which aims to be a “fully replaceable” software alternative to Google Docs or Microsoft Office.

While those in the dyslexic community have largely welcomed and embraced Boer’s typeface in the years since its launch, Boer says the reception hasn’t always been a warm one. He recalls with a smile Dyslexie’s detractors. “I had teachers during my final project, and a few afterwards, who said the typeface broke too many rules and looked a mess,” he says.

“I have always reminded those who call Dyslexie ugly that I never set out to create something beautiful – I wanted to design something readable for me and others like me,” Boer continues. “I’m not trying to make pretty postcards with it.”

That said, there is a certain intrigue to the letterforms that make up the Dyslexie alphabet. The typeface uses a mix of heavier baselines, different letter shapes and longer ascenders. These elements all serve to make reading as a dyslexic easier, according to Boer.

The process of developing the typeface was quite a cathartic one, Boer says. “I used my struggles to help me create it and it was really one of the first times I actually visualised what was happening to me as I tried to read,” he explains.

Boer references issues like mirroring, turning and flipping – as people with dyslexia read, they often find letters move in these ways, making words and sentences almost impossible to read. By differentiating each letterform in different ways, this helps stop letter movement from happening, he explains.

Research conducted over the years by various universities suggests nearly three quarters of dyslexic readers can read faster when the font is used and that they make fewer mistakes.

Dyslexie is a typeface that has been specifically designed with accessibility for dyslexic people in mind. But as typographer Bruno Maag’s work and research explores, typefaces don’t necessarily need to be purpose-built to be accessible, and dyslexia isn’t the only condition that can be addressed.

In 2019, Maag launched The Readability Group alongside design director David Bailey, web designer Michael Matthews and Gareth Ford Williams, the founder of the BBC’s Digital Accessibility team and UX Design Research team.

“I used my struggles to help me create”

“A short-term and close-minded approach”

The group was founded with the mission of helping companies navigate accessibility. Maag says some companies in the US get sued as often as every two years for not investing in the accessibility of their brand. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of a blind man who claimed the Domino’s website was inaccessible to those with disabilities. It was one of 2,200 similar suits filed the previous year. “They’ll often factor the payoffs associated with the lawsuit into their budgets, rather than actually making a change to become more accessible,” he explains. “It’s a short-term and close-minded approach”.

The Emotional-Functional-Technical Triangle

“The Readability Group is dedicated to helping businesses test their typographic decisions before rolling them out completely,” Maag says. The group’s advice is informed by data. Earlier this year, it put out an online survey which ended up providing “around 400,000 data points” for the project, Maag says. “It’s like a four-dimensional database,” he says.

Certain typefaces performed better than others – and even some usually lauded for their accessibility like Comic Sans and certain “dyslexia fonts” did worse than expected.

A typeface doing badly in the survey isn’t a reason to shun it completely though, Maag says. Rather, the results of the survey offer suggestions, or a “push in the right direction”. In all cases, he encourages brands and designers to really assess who their audience is.

All typographic decisions, he says, fall somewhere within an emotional-technical-functional triangle. “Emotional refers to how you react to something, functional is how well you can read it, and technical is how it has been built for purpose,” ex-

plains Maag. Depending on who you’re designing for, the project could be closer or further towards one point than others.

“Depending on your brand, you might want to sacrifice some of the function to ensure more emotion and thus personality for example,” Maag says. “But if you’re looking to create something with wide appeal, you need to consider the whole triangle in unison.”

Considering your audience is also a lesson that Monotype type director Phil Garnham stresses. Garnham gives Fontsmith’s work with learning disability charity Mencap as an example (Fontsmith was acquired by Monotype in early 2020). “In that project we undertook lots of research to be able to find the right typographic approach for Mencap’s audience, which is vast,” says Garnham.

This research required analysis of different fonts, sizes, colours and spacing. The result was FS Me, which the foundry says is a “benchmark in accessible typeface design”. But Garnham also highlights that branding with an accessible typeface doesn’t necessarily have to be as huge an undertaking – and that thinking this way is often a barrier to brands embracing accessibility.

He gives the example of Monotype’s recent work with mental health charity Mind, which featured an altered version of FS Meridian. Together with the DesignStudio team, who led the rebrand, Monotype analysed the letter shapes and spaces and made subtle changes such as narrowing proportions, opening character spacing and increasing ascenders.

Why Designers Need to Consider

“We can still do amazing things when working with an existing font”

“I think a lot of brands think they need to invest in a bespoke typeface in order to be accessible, when the reality is we can do amazing things when we’re working with an existing font,” he says. Garnham adds that bespoke touches can still be added this way – for Mind, the team created a suite of hand drawn punctuation marks, which he says are easier to see while also adding personality.

“It’s a balancing act”

Garnham says this point is one of many that can put brands off of typographic accessibility. Another is that there is no real standard for accessibility in the UK. “The government simply recommends Arial in 12pt, but we know that isn’t good at all,” he says. The discrepancy in personal opinion doesn’t help either.

“As a designer, we bring a lot of ourselves into the creative process and what is readable to me isn’t necessarily the same for everyone else,” Garnham explains. “It’s a balancing act, when it comes to branding.”

Maag concurs: “There’s no such thing as a truly accessible typeface, but that doesn’t mean you can’t work to make sure your brand is as readable as it can be.”

“In my experience I’ve found that most people aren’t demanding you make changes for them to make things accessible, they’re simply asking you to stop creating more barriers.”

Can Fonts Really Help Those With Dyslexia?

Madeleine Morley

From AIGA Eye on Design, 2018

As a child, a cat always became a bat. My name was not Maddy but Mubby. Stranger still, a dog would often take the shape of a bog.

My German mother would sit me at the kitchen table and tell me to read aloud from a German book; although I was fluent in the language and loved stories, the exercise was painfully boring and difficult. I was frustrated; she was frustrated. One day at school, I was caught reading a book upside down. Finally, at age eight, an empathetic teacher suggested that I might be dyslexic, which a test soon confirmed.

Then began the long, laborious task of memorizing words. While other children seemed to remember the spelling of a word shortly after they’d been taught it, I required far more time-consuming strategies.

A specialist teacher gave me a deck of cards that I went through every day with my parents, and I’d add a new card to it every week. This went on for years. To learn how to spell “said” for example, we wrote the sentence “Silly Alice Is Dead” onto one card and I sketched a gruesome picture of a gravestone beneath it. To remember “beauty” and “beautiful” (the sounding out of “e-a-u” never made sense to me), I wrote “Big Eyes And Unusual Teeth + Y or I F U L” onto another card, and then drew a picture of a monster. When I spell a word on the computer today, those sentences sometimes ring out in my head—as do the pictures I drew to recall how its letters fit together. I don’t rely on them like I once did, but every so often their singsong rhythms come back to me like muscle memory.

Today, those struggling with dyslexia will discover proposed solutions not just from specialist educators, but from designers who are approaching the learning disability through type. In both the design press and in major news outlets,

I regularly come across articles lauding a new “dyslexicfriendly” font, which is always enthusiastically endorsed by designers. Other projects attempt to design better reading experiences for dyslexics through the use of clever plug-ins or colored backgrounds.

These projects are easy to celebrate as they reinforce a popular narrative in the design world: that design has the power to be transformative and to make the world a better, more accessible place. And indeed, for a dyslexic, the promise is an enticing one: could I have saved all of that time and energy coming up with strategies and word games as a kid simply by switching typefaces?

The core idea behind dyslexic friendly fonts is that each letter is designed so that it’s easier for a dyslexic individual to distinguish them, thus reducing errors and reading effort. The designers behind these projects suggest that the bottom heaviness of their new typefaces prevent them from turning

Image by Tala Safié

upside down for dyslexic readers. Letters with sticks and tails—like b, d, p and q—vary in length so that readers don’t confuse them. Many of the fonts’ websites, though not all of them, emphasize that these designs are “not a cure for dyslexia” but instead a “reading aid.”

While these projects often garner many positive reviews and testimonials, there’s little peer-reviewed scientific evidence backing the designs. This is concerning because, just like any other medical or technological advancement, fonts that claim to help a learning disability like dyslexia need to be tested and verified by the scientific community. When a design becomes widely popularized before it’s been properly studied—when we pat ourselves on the back before all the evidence is in—it can do more to hurt than to actually aid dyslexic individuals.

To see how valuable these fonts truly are as a reading aid, I reached out to Christian Boer, whose Dyslexie font has been lauded by the BBC, The Guardian, Scientific America, CBS News, USA Today, and Dezeen. It’s been highlighted at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London and the Istanbul Design Biennale, and Boer has done Ted Talks about the font and received numerous awards.

Boer’s personal story is an all too familiar one: when he first began having difficulty learning to read and write, his parents couldn’t understand why, especially since his two older siblings had found it so simple. “I saw that everyone at school was faster than me,” Boer says. “I thought, ‘I’m too tired today’, or ‘I’m not in the mood,’ or ‘I can’t focus.’ After two years of this, during which the gap between me and the others grew bigger and bigger, I ran out of excuses.” Boer was tested by a specialist and diagnosed.

Without a strong support system during his education, Boer developed his own techniques and strategies for coping. As

a bachelor student at the University of the Arts Utrecht, he created Dyslexie—the font he wished he’d had as a child. Boer had always had issues recognizing uppercase, for example, so Dylexie used bolded capitals. While traditional fonts mirror the d and the b, and the q and the p, Boer’s typeface distorts each letter to distinguish them. It slants the extenders and descenders, enlarging the openings to make each letter uniquely stand out. The valleys of v, w, and y are given different heights and levels so that their proportions are obviously different. The c is open in a way that makes distinct from the rounded shape of an o.

“After I designed it, I was overwhelmed by how many people reached out to me and wanted to use it too,” says Boer, though he’s quick to emphasize that the font is not a cure for dyslexia.

Since Dyslexie has been turned into a business, Boer receives testimonials via email and social media that exuberantly thank him for his invention. There’s also a section on the website entitled ‘Research’ with a couple of PDFs of masters’ theses, a bachelor thesis, and a handful of surveys. From this research, the website claims: “About 84.3% of the dyslexics would recommend using Dyslexie font to others.”

Parents recount stories of how their child nearly dropped out of school but was then re-energized by the font, and even continued on to higher education. There are countless other sincere, genuine reviews: “By the time I got to ‘w’ I was silently crying,” reads one. Another: “Once I saw [the font], I was completely free. It was like a breath of fresh air that had been let loose.”

I don’t personally find Dyslexie useful or different, but I also know what works for some won’t necessarily work for others. I do find the testimonials touching. As someone who initially found it impossible to read, but now finds reading and writing

not only pleasurable, but has built a life and career from them, the stories are exciting and invigorating.

Dyslexie is similar to other dyslexic-friendly fonts like the open-source OpenDyslexic and Lexie Readable, which also claim to address the problems of mirroring, turning, swapping, and crowding. With these fonts, key differences in characters are emphasized to mitigate confusion. They are predicated on the belief that dyslexia is characterized by letter reversals.

However, decades of scientific research on dyslexia suggests otherwise. When I contacted Dr. Guinevere Eden, a professor in the Department of Paediatrics at Georgetown University and director of their Center for the Study of Learning (CSL), she told me that reading difficulties actually stem from deficiencies in phonological coding, rather than visual or syntactic sources.

In the late 19th Century, when doctors first used the term “word blindness” to describe dyslexia, it falsely linked the learning difficulty with the idea of visual distortion—a misconception that remains to this day. But medical research since has proven that dyslexia is not actually a visual impairment. Take the example of a dyslexic child who is shown how to spell “c-a-t” over and over again for hours, only for them to not recognize the word the next time they see it. It’s not because they literally can’t observe the shape of the letters. It’s because they’re having problems matching each letter to a sound.

The way our visual system works is that if we see an image in any direction, we still recognize it as the same object. Eden gives me the example of a chair: you know it’s a chair whether you’re standing behind it, in front of it, or to its side. That’s why when children learn to read, sometimes they’ll reverse letters that look the same. To override this function, they have to use the oral language structures of the brain when looking at words—what we commonly refer to as “sounding

OpenDyslexic Font

out” a word in order to remember it. Typically, once a child has sounded out the word a few times, she moves on to a stage where she begins to recognize the word as an object rather than a series of letters.

A dyslexic child, however, experiences a neurological processing problem that makes it harder to decode a word into separate sounds. Therefore, it’s more difficult for them to move to that stage of reading and writing automatically, where a word is recognized by sight. Individual sounds of language become “sticky,” and they’re not able to be broken apart with ease.

What does all this mean for dyslexic-friendly fonts? Writing for an online resource supporting parents of children with learning difficulties, Eden puts it this way: It’s unlikely these types of fonts “will help people with dyslexia a great deal,” she writes. “That’s because the fundamental problem of dyslexia is mapping the shapes of the letters to the right sound units.” The fact that letters are muddled and mirrored is an effect of dyslexia; it’s not what’s causing the reading difficulty.

Eden tells me that it’s imperative that these new fonts are tested in controlled, randomized studies, and that several of these studies are then published in peer-reviewed journals, before we can say for certain whether switching fonts can actually help dyslexics learn to read.

“The motivation behind these fonts is well intentioned. But what current research has shown is that there’s no relationship between preference and reading rate,” she says. “You might like the font better, but that does not mean you are reading faster. It’s just an impression. In the end, you have to go with the data.

Most of the recently released projects around dyslexic friendly fonts have been tested, just not to the degree that Eden suggests. One peer-reviewed study from 2016, for example, explores the

Can Fonts Really Help Those With Dyslexia?

effects of OpenDyslexic on reading rate and accuracy. Designed by Abelardo Gonzalez, the font is open source and available as a choice on Wikipedia and Amazon’s Kindle.

The paper, which compared OpenDyslexic with Arial and Times New Roman, found no improvement in reading rate or accuracy for students with dyslexia, or in readers without dyslexia. A recent 2018 peer-reviewed report found that the Dyslexie font did not result in faster reading or accuracy whatsoever. Font preference was compared to reading performance, and the paper concluded that preference is not related to accuracy or reading speed.

“We have to remember that there is such a thing as the placebo effect,” says Eden. “Research does suggest that there is a preference for certain fonts, like Arial, where there is less distraction. When my students make slides, I often tell them to use simpler fonts. It’s more appealing, a better look—it’s a preference.”

Learning that you or your child has dyslexia can be frustrating. It feels like a setback. It’s a realization that you’re going to have to put in a lot of extra work and time, which you might not have. “The reality is that children with dyslexia need to be taught how to decode and memorize words, and that happens with hours of work with a professional instructor,” says Eden. “That’s a lot more effort than simply changing the font on a computer.”

One recent peer-reviewed study suggested that the letter spacing of fonts like Dyslexie might affect reading performance. It concludes that Dyslexie is not helpful because of its specially designed letter shapes, but because of its particular spacing settings. Peer-reviewed research has also shown a relationship for all readers between reading speed and the spacing of letters. For dyslexics that have difficulty

with “crowding”—how the presence of some objects (for example, letters) interferes with the ability to see aspects of what is being viewed—reading text with greater spacing between letters might be of some help.

Does this mean that designers should go about tweaking letter spacing to create a dyslexic-friendly experience? I ask Eden. “There needs to be more research first,” she says. “Repetition and replication is important in research."

Reading the testimonials of multiple dyslexic-friendly fonts, one might wonder, what’s the harm in trying them? While more research still needs to be done, at the very least, good can certainly come from the placebo effect.

I remember once babysitting a young dyslexic girl when I was a student; she’d been given colorful transparent paper to help her read. (The use of colorful lenses is another disputed technique in research on dyslexia.) She turned to me as we were reading and said she found that with orange, the words felt “less scary.”

Maybe these fonts, which are so agile and playful to look at, communicate an atmosphere of ease and kindness to a struggling reader, making the activity feel less severe and frightening. The fonts might not be actively helping someone read quicker or with greater ease, but they could help lessen feelings of fear and stress associated with the activity. They are a “preference,” but a preference with emotional and psychological implications.

We need to see dyslexic friendly fonts for what they are: a font change that shifts the personality of the letters, but doesn’t necessarily affect reading performance. The personal benefits of possible placebo effects need to be weighed against bigger

concerns, though. As Eden says: “The potential of these fonts as highlighted by the press is misleading, and it takes away from the graveness of the situation.”

The idea that dyslexia might be helped, even minutely, with a quick font-change, detracts from the severity and seriousness of a diagnoses, and the fact that parents and schools must dedicate extra time and effort for improvement.

This is not to discourage people to continue designing for disability and access. Rather, it’s a call for more rigorous testing for these fonts, on par with the peer review studies that any other research around learning disabilities would go through. Testing pushes research into new corners, sets higher standards, and encourages interest and funding in the field.

Otherwise, what are we doing as an industry when we give out awards before having proof of concept? When we write articles because its a good story, without knowing if the story holds? The process is one that might actually harm those that a design claims to help—ultimately making the world a little less accessible in turn.

Can Fonts Really Help Those With Dyslexia?

Beyond Braille: A Look at 3 New Typographic Systems for Blind People

Angela Riechers

From AIGA Eye on Design, 2018

Typeface designers seeking to be truly inclusive in their work are accepting the challenge of creating new tactile typefaces for the visually-impaired. Previously, these typefaces were limited to braille and a few other, more obscure reading systems such as Moon Type, Boston Line Type, and New York Point, all of which came into being during the early 19th century. While it may seem incredible that so few explorations into other typographic systems for the blind have been considered in the 200 years since, there is a lingering debate about whether fresh systems are truly needed—or if instead the blind should be encouraged to learn braille, the standard by default.

Braille uses a simple, logical grid of six raised dots to shape each letter, and has the advantage of being relatively compact on the page, which increases reading speeds. However, since standard braille is always the same size (each character measures 1/8 inch wide by 1/4 inch high) it can be difficult for people with motor impairments or limited tactile sensitivity to read. The characters are also not scalable, something we take for granted with letterforms (imagine being confined to using only 12 point type for the rest of your design career). Crucially, only about 1% of the blind are vision-impaired since birth; the majority (an estimated 8.4 million Americans) lose their sight later in life after they’ve learned to read and write. For these people, learning braille poses the challenge of becoming adept at an entirely new reading system that’s not based on the familiar shapes of Latin letterforms.

William Moon’s book Light for the Blind, London: Longmans & Co., 1877. [Image: Wiki Commons]

Beyond Braille: A Look at 3 New Typographic Systems for Blind People

The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) estimates that fewer than 10% of blind people can read braille, and the number who choose to learn it has been declining as textto-speech applications and audiobooks take up a bigger role in providing content for the blind. Both within the blind community and within the design industry, this fact has brought up an interesting question: should some elements of braille’s six dot grid merge with Latin letterforms to create a better typeface for these readers? This would make the alphabet usable by the sighted as well as the blind, and provide the ease of learning an alphabetic system that feels familiar from the get-go.

On the other hand, designing a “new braille” that merges elements of braille and Latin type can feel like a Frankenstein-y attempt to force a square peg into a round hole. Perhaps an entirely new system for the blind is in order. We wondered, who are the designers already tackling this problem? And which solution do they prefer?

Barcelona-based designer Núria López undertook a typographic exploration called Blind Words in 2016 as her senior project at the Art School of Jerez, creating a modular font that incorporates typographic strokes with braille’s raised dots. She questioned whether letterforms resulting from the intersection of two alphabets that were never meant to overlap could maintain their traditional, formal graphic qualities, all while functioning as components for socially responsible, inclusive design. “For such typography to work, it is important to integrate the standard measurements of the braille alphabet well into the visual typographic patterns,” López says. One of her goals? To help the sighted understand what the braille alphabet both looks and feels like.

Beyond Braille: A Look at 3 New Typographic Systems for Blind People

Courtesy Núria López

Courtesy Núria López

The letterforms that make up Blind Words are somewhat awkwardly shaped; forced to compress curves and straight lines within braille’s narrow tall grid (and this would hold true for any typeface attempting to impose those exact proportions upon Latin characters), they straddle the visual frontier between Art Deco and alien. They never settle easily into an alphabet that meets the usual performance and aesthetic criteria for a typeface in terms of consistency of form—the

O feels very wide and square, the X feels oddly narrow by comparison—or legibility. Moreover, while Blind Words brings an understanding of braille to those who can see—by mapping out braille onto Latin letterforms—it doesn’t work in the opposite direction. The blind are only able to feel the fonts, but not view the strokes of the characters. Theoretically, the advantage of Blind Words is that the sighted can learn braille by associating its dots with the letterforms learned in first grade, but there are no user studies as yet to see if this hypothesis holds true.

Braille Neue, introduced in 2018 by Japanese designer Kosuke Takahashi, takes a similar tactic to Blind Words, overlaying letterform strokes onto a grid of raised braille dots. His hope is that the typeface will allow braille to be included in signage for public spaces, and dreams of it in use at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics. The designer’s mission statement reads in part, “This typeface communicates to both sighted and blind people in the same space, and is easy to implement into the existing infrastructure. We aim for an inclusive society where using braille becomes commonplace."

Takahashi drew inspiration for the letterforms from Helvetica Neue, but not many designers would recognize that typeface in this one; it’s been bastardized, resulting in some odd

Courtesy Kosuke Takahashi

Courtesy Kosuke Takahashi

Latinesque letterforms. There’s a weirdly wide serif on the T, a hooked serif on the I, and mismatched curves on the S, again the result of trying to adapt and overlay characters onto the braille grid. (It’s worth pointing out that Helvetica Neue has no serifs in the first place.) Braille Neue’s most significant achievement is that its outline version incorporates the correct braille dots for both the Latin alphabet and Japanese characters, essentially creating a bridge for readers of these languages that includes the blind for the first time.

ELIA Frames takes a different approach to a tactile language system closely tied to Latin letterforms, by not referencing or incorporating the braille alphabet at all. Frames, the brainchild of Andrew Chepaitis, founder of ELIA (Education, Literacy, and Independence for All) Life Technology, is the product of 17 years of research and development, including user testing on a group of 175,00 participants. It relies on a system of frames evocative of the shapes of the Latin characters they represent, plus a variety of graphic elements (including dots unrelated to the braille six dot grid) positioned in and around them. The raised letterforms come in three shapes: some are circular, others squared, and the rest resemble Monopoly houses, allowing for quick distinction among letterforms. Letter shapes are intuitive; for example, O is a circle and the Q is a circle with a small tick mark at 4 o’clock.

Frames can be scaled up or down just like any other typeface, providing versatility for different uses, and can be placed tightly together on a page to help increase reading speed and fluency. Chepaitis says that while braille can take up to 10 months to master, readers can learn Frames at a basic level in about three hours. From a design point of view, what’s notable about the typeface is the way the character set hangs together; the letterforms bear just enough visual reference to their Latin alphabet counterparts to look familiar, yet make up a system of

Beyond Braille: A Look at 3 New Typographic Systems for Blind People

Courtesy ELIA Life Technology

unique symbols that respects typography’s need for continuity, consistency, and pleasing aesthetics. Rather than giving off the uneasy aura of being neither fish nor fowl, the tactile alphabet appears to live very much in its own coherent world.

In addition to pursuing the noble effort of creating inclusive designs for the visually impaired, these three type designers and their typefaces also demonstrate what a complicated, daunting task that is. It may be simpler for a blind person to listen to an audiobook or use a text to speech application, but typefaces that further the independent ability to read (and make it easy to learn to do so) are design goals worth undertaking.

Courtesy ELIA Life Technology

Bibliography

Pages 11-17

Wheeler, H. E. (1928). Suggestions for Research on the Typography of School Text books. The Elementary School Journal Vol. 29, No. 1, 27-31. https://www. jstor.org/stable/995354

Pages 19-30

Paterson, D. G., & Tinker, M. A. (1947). The Effect of Typography upon the Percep tual Span in Reading. The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 60, No. 3, 388-396. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1416919

Pages 33-37

Stratton, B. L. (1948). Good Typography Lures the Learner. The Journal of Education Vol. 131, No. 2, 56-58. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42799602

Pages 39-66

Brumberger, E. (2004). The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos. Technical Communi cation Vol. 51, No. 1, 13-24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43089069

Pages 69-78

Williams, G. F. (2020). A Guide to Understanding What Makes a Typeface Accessi ble. Medium, The Readability Group. https://medium.com/the-readabilitygroup/a-guide-to- Understanding-what-makes-a-typeface-acessible-andhow-to-make-informed-decisions-9e5c0b9040a0

Pages 81-91

Chen, A. (2019). The controversy of accessible type. Medium, Queer Design Club. https://medium.com/queer-design-club/the-controversy-of-accessi ble-type-8def04eb8808

Pages 93-97

Riechers, A. (2018). Can “Bad” Type Design Help Readers Absorb and Remember Information? AIGA Eye on Design. https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/sans-for getica-a-typeface-to-remember/

Pages 99-101

Budrick, C. (2020). The Hyperlegible Typeface Changing How We See Print. Print Magazine. https://www.printmag.com/design-inspiration/the-hyperlegi ble-typeface-changing-how-e-see-print/

Pages 103-107

Hahn, J. (2021). Focus Ex is a digital reading aid for people with ADHD. Dezeen. https://www.dezeen.com/2021/02/03/focus-ex-vatany-szabolcs-font-ex tension-graphic-design/

Pages 109-115

Long, M. (2021). Why designers need to consider accessibility in type. Design Week. https://www.designweek.co.uk/issues/7-13-june-2021/typograph ic-accessibility/

Pages 117-125

Morley, M. (2018). Can Fonts Really Help Those With Dyslexia? AIGA Eye on Design. https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/can-fonts-really-help-those-withdyslexia/

Pages 129-137

Riechers, A. (2018). Beyond Braille: A Look at 3 New Typographic Systems for Blind People. AIGA Eye on Design. https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/beyondbraille-a-look-at-new-typographic-systems-for-the-blind/

Image Sources

Page 4

Shanley, C. (2021). Testing fonts for accessibility. Medium, UX Collective. https:// uxdesign.cc/testing-fonts-for-accessibility-817f47011078

Page 6

Pettengill, B. (2017). Vision Changes: Typography for Aging Audiences. Marketing Partners. https://www.marketing-partners.com/conversations2/ vision-changes-typography-for-aging-audiences

Page 8

de Rozario, S. (2016). How to measure typographic accessibility: Infographic. FontSmith. https://www.fontsmith.com/blog/2016/10/05/how-to-meas ure-typographic-accessibility-infographic

Page 10

Johnson, B. (2019). A Legacy of Love for Books. Arts and Crafts Collector. https:// artsandcraftscollector.com/journey-article/a-legacy-of-love-for-books/

Page 14

Dreier, R. M. (n.d.). 1924 HC Wheeler’s Literary Readers with Interpretations - Sixth Reader Crane and Wheeler. RMDreirBookaneer, Etsy. https://www.etsy.com/listing/817696221/1924-hc-wheelers-literary-read ers-with?click_key=ec97184092a758aa070ac20ae64098debacd c228%3A817696221&click_sum=84e70edb&ref=rv_more-1-23&frs=1

Page 18

Zihl, J. (n.d.). Fig 1. ResearchGate.https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schemat ic-illustration-of-the-visual-field-and-perceptual-span-for-text-processingin_fig1_40219636

Pages 22, 24, 26

Paterson, D. G., & Tinker, M. A. (1947). The Effect of Typography upon the Percep tual Span in Reading. The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 60, No. 3, 388-396. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1416919 (Redesigned by Sarah Olick)

Page 32

Deron. (n.d.). Modern Life Speller, Vintage 1940s Children’s School Book, Eighth Grade, Hardcover, 1941. TheVintageRead, Etsy. https://www. etsy.com/listing/1042048513/modern-life-speller-vintage-1940s?click_ key=5cd333256d4a4b0da1d0746f03f4b33494d5074b%3A1042048513& click_sum=93a008b6&ref=rv_more-1-17&pro=1

Page 34

June and Sam. (n.d.). Set of 3 Antique Reading Textbooks. PinkNoseVintageLtd, Etsy. https://www.etsy.com/listing/1084346166/ set-of-3-antique-reading-textbooks?click_key=a5356a29d62095e f6a12766bfd14c2e3bb86b3fd%3A1084346166&click_sum=a501bd 6c&ref=rv_more-1-3&pro=1

Page 36

Koski, C. (n.d.). The Berlitz Self-Teacher: FRENCH by the Staff of The Berlitz Schools of Languages / ©1949, Grosset & Dunlap / Excellent Vintage Condition!. GrittyCity, Etsy. https://www.etsy.com/listing/1115102858/theberlitz-self-teacher-french-by-the?click_key=470191f24ddfc5418b55678d c206ad7ce007960a%3A1115102858&click_sum=4a47fba8&ref=rv_more-15&frs=1

Pages 38, 52, 58, 60

Brumberger, E. (2004). The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos. Technical Communi cation Vol. 51, No. 1, 13-24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43089069 (Redesigned by Sarah Olick)

Pages 68, 70, 74, 76

Williams, G. F. (2020). A Guide to Understanding What Makes a Typeface Accessi ble. Medium, The Readability Group. https://medium.com/the-readabilitygroup/a-guide-to- Understanding-what-makes-a-typeface-acessible-andhow-to-make-informed-decisions-9e5c0b9040a0

Pages 80, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90

Chen, A. (2019). The controversy of accessible type. Medium, Queer Design Club. https://medium.com/queer-design-club/the-controversy-of-accessi ble-type-8def04eb8808

Page 92

Alison. (2018). Mind the Ga p: Sans Forgetica. The Leiden University Centre for Digital Humanities, Digital Media, Society, and Culture. https://digmedia. lucdh.nl/2018/11/10/sans-2/

Page 94

Riechers, A. (2018). Can “Bad” Type Design Help Readers Absorb and Remember Information? AIGA Eye on Design. https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/sans-for getica-a-typeface-to-remember/

Pages 98, 100

Budrick, C. (2020). The Hyperlegible Typeface Changing How We See Print. Print Magazine. https://www.printmag.com/design-inspiration/the-hyperlegi ble-typeface-changing-how-e-see-print/

Page 108 dyslexiefont.com. (n.d.). Typeface. dyslexiefont.com. https://www.dyslexiefont. com/en/typeface/

Pages 109, 110

Long, M. (2021). Why designers need to consider accessibility in type. Design Week. https://www.designweek.co.uk/issues/7-13-june-2021/typograph ic-accessibility/

Page 114

Shallow, P. (2014). The font that could help dyslexics read better. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-font-that-helps-dyslexics-read-better/

Pages 116, 118, 122, 126

Morley, M. (2018). Can Fonts Really Help Those With Dyslexia? AIGA Eye on Design. https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/can-fonts-really-help-those-withdyslexia/

Pages 128, 130, 132, 134, 136, 137

Riechers, A. (2018). Beyond Braille: A Look at 3 New Typographic Systems for Blind People. AIGA Eye on Design. https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/beyondbraille-a-look-at-new-typographic-systems-for-the-blind/