Bad type = better analytical thinking

[ldavidson]

I'll give this one more try, since there are people here who could make a real difference in people's lives.

Science is, apparently, breaking new ground in investigating how the type in which text is set can influence not only legibility and readability, but also finding that characteristics of the typeface can have a substantial impact, a significant difference, on the ability of the reader to "get" the content - to understand the meaning, to comprehend the ideas being conveyed – and to remember it.

The science is rough. So far, all that is clear is that significant improvement is possible. The body of knowledge will be refined over time to more specific statements about what characteristics a typeface should have.

This is an opportunity for type designers to "move up the value chain", to use business language: from legibility, readability, and appearance; to include comprehension, understanding, and retention. It is an opportunity that some type designers will not miss. Yet I get the impression here is that people are not interested – to the point of ridiculing the concept.

The question for a designer is, do I commit to create typefaces that promote the ability to learn? Or do I ignore the opportunity (some might say "and responsibility") and do as I please?

[hrant]

Among type designers there's the Art extreme of the spectrum (which tends to ridicule Science) and the Tool extreme (which tends to be too enthusiastic toward Science). This is normal, but what does remain is for scientists to at least not alienate the designers who lean towards the Tool side. Sadly there are few scientists who seem dedicated to understanding typography enough to give us faith.

hhp

[dberlowgone]

Ldavidson: "The science is rough"

There are four things that nearly every reading study has in common: it does not involve actual reading, it tests a single script, the number and diversity of the subjects is challenged, and there is no typographer involved in the composition of the test materials.

How do you define rough?

I think we're, well, most people here, are being kind. And quite a few give generously of their time away from their curves, lines and clients to study and discuss these studies and discussions.

"...there are people here who could make a real difference in people's lives."

Could you elaborate on this, please?

Cheers.

[oldnick]

Sorry, Chris—

I missed your great gag about Taxidermy. That one definitely deserved a rimshot. I wish this place had somewhere to set up a drummer. But, it's the internet…which is good and bad, depending on a lot of things.

I have a great story to tell about my misadventures in and around Annapolis—where mine goodly wife and I went to attend her nephew's wedding—but I will have to save them for another time. There may be some fonts in serious need of identification, and I gotta poke my nose into a whole lot of other stuff before I can actually do anyone else any good.

Yazoo!

[dezcom]

Nick,

If you live in the DC area, perhaps we can do lunch some time?

[oldnick]

Chris,

If you know a joint that would let both of us through the door at the same time, this place HAS GOT TO BE either very dangerous, or full of a lot of really screwy people.

Which some folks might think is just another way of saying the same thing, except for the fact that there REALLY is such a thing as "crazy good"…

I figure you, me, Hrant and a couple of other guys whom I shall not incriminate are on the RIGHT side of the fence.

Otherwise, this crazy idea I just came up with to bust up a certain monopoly by giving stuff away might go untested…at least, in theory. It is simply WAY too crazy to actually work. Unless there REALLY is such a thing as "crazy good"…

I hope that you are comfortable talking in circles, as well…

[quadibloc]

@Old Nick:
Linux. Or, in the other direction, Internet Explorer.

But so many fonts are already free or very cheap that I doubt that any further efforts of that nature in this area would have much effect, even if the idea in general is not crazy.

[oldnick]

John,

What you say is true; HOWEVER, if you HAVE to buy something to GET SOMETHING FREE*;
AND, the free* stuff is REALLY GOOD STUFF;
But you have to BUY SOMETHING to get the free* stuff;
Then, I think I just might be on to something which would make "FREE*" mean precisely the same thing that is does in MOST AMERICAN ADVERTISING—which ACTUALLY means "*free ONLY if you buy something else. And quickly. Limited time offer.§"

But, you're Canadian, so you are probably relatively immune to all this downcountry B.S.

Of course, "unlimited" is completely off the table; nobody really believes that anything like a calling plan that calls itself unlimited COULD BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN unlimited, could they?

Sorry: I forgot you were still Canadian…

P.S. Chris—I am trying to con Gene Weingarten into our proposed get-together, which would be fun and quite a coup for you: you would—quite possibly but not for sure—be the sanest guy in the bunch. If Gene can con Dave Barry into showing up, you are definitely a shoo-in for the guy with the fewest bricks shy of a load.

Lucky you. Thank God Hrant lives three thousand miles away. I will keep you posted.

[dezcom]

Thanks Nick,
Gene may find me one pun shy of a load but I am game :-)

PS: I used to play drums in a former life so I can supply my own rim-shots ;-)

[HVB]

For NickC:

Rimshot

Note: This replaces the browser window - you'll have to hit the back button

Note to admin: I'll be glad to delete this content if it's inappropriate...

[oldnick]

Chris—

You—but, especially your trap drum—are the answer to my dreams. How often does that happen to YOU, Bub? Unfortunately, I have not heard back from Gene yet, but I feel compelled to drop him ANOTHER line, because his regular piece in the WP Sunday Magazine was SO spot-on, it would be a crime not to praise him unduly. I figure I show up in his inbox on an annoyingly frequent basis, he is going to do ANYTHING to shut me the frock up, even if it means "doing lunch"—the hilarious implications of which are FAR too numerous to mention—with a COUPLE of loony type guys—who are at least partly, if not wholly Greek. Capisce?

BTW, what is the Greek equivalent for "capisce," anyway? I don't want to give all the credit for snappy sayings to the modern-day equivalent of second-rate Greeks. {insert Greek equivalent here}?

Anyhow, on topic—for a change—the only problem with the premise of this post is that it suggests—at least, to me, so you KNOW it is totally nuts—that bad booze may, therefore, be expected to give you a better buzz. A better hangover, maybe—which brings up the paradoxical question: is there any such thing as a good hangover? Other than a dead hangover? Why am I asking you this? I guess, it's better than talking to myself…

For sure…

[HVB]

For NickC:

Rimshot

Note: This replaces the browser window - you'll have to hit the back button

Note to admin: I'll be glad to delete this content if it's inappropriate...

[oldnick]

HVB, if I may be so presumptuous as to call you by your acronym—

Thanks. If there is any possible way to put a shortcut to this file on my Firefox toolbar, I am going to find it.
THAT is how hilarious I find myself from time to time. Frankly, it's a little too often to suit mine goodly wife, if you catch my drift…

[dezcom]

Nick, since it is idiomatic, the translation is not exact but here are a few ways the Greeks had a word for it:

καταλαβαίνis? (or κατανοεί) or: το 'πιασες?

The first one, "καταλαβαίνής? (or κατανοεί)" is literally "do you understand"
The last one, "το 'πιασες?" is perhaps closest to mean "do you catch my drift"

ChrisL

[oldnick]

Chris,

The latter is more my style, since being adrift is more my style. When we actually do the lunch thing, you will need to clue me in on the proper pronunciation: my English is bad enough, having grown up in Texas…το 'πιασες?

[dezcom]

"to piahsses?"

[ldavidson]

@dberlow: "rough" in a couple of ways: in its infancy, with mistakes and gaps and the groping that usually occurs during that stage, and because the relationship is not being directly investigated, to be understood, refined, and used, at least in the few studies I've seen. Gray Courier on white is not where this will lead.

"Make a real difference" because I think the effect they see is real, i.e. there is a significant relationship between a typeface (and its setting, and page composition) and comprehension and retention. And the relationship is not pretty&smooth = better. Given that, people who love type could be:

1) engaging the (few) science-ish people active in this area: providing feedback, exchange of knowledge (I know, there needs to be funding for serious work), in general furthering the science to get beyond the very primitive position of today - like addressing the 4 items you mention.

2) once it's better understood how to support comprehension and retention by type design, embracing those concepts and applying them to at least some typeface designs and promoting their use when appropriate.

I would not be surprised if testing showed a 10-20% improvement in learning, given a design based on a sophisticated understanding of how type influences the mind. There aren't many occupations in the world that can do that much direct good for large numbers of people.

[dberlowgone]

ldavidson: "in its infancy, with mistakes and gaps and the groping that usually occurs during that stage, and..."

Oh, I thought it's been going on for 125 years or so.

..."because the relationship is not being directly investigated, to be understood, refined, and used, at least in the few studies I've seen."

As I pointed out in a long-ago thread, directly investigation via strict scientific method is impossible. To summarize — if only one variable can change per read of the the same text by the same subject, then either the font can't change, or the reader must read the same thing twice. And then, comes the testing of comprehension and retention. No one has a study, or will. That's why it's the all-time typophile subject.

"And the relationship is not pretty&smooth = better."

What's pretty? where's smooth? who said it was = to better? and what's one study against 400 years of organic humano-typographic evolution?

"There aren't many occupations in the world that can do that much direct good for large numbers of people."

Oh I agree but I'd "ain't" instead of aren't. By-and-large, these issues started popping up in the realm of normal-people-reading screen fonts, screen legibility, screen readability and screen resolution — upon windows. What's been done there is a tragedy, as one former MS employee has clearly stated, and the type design community has spent millions of dollars helping windows users to, not comprehension and retention, but less gag reflex if they must read, and hopefully less printing of email.

In general, outside of the windows or any other resolution/politics-based tragedy, I'm pretty sure comprehension and retention is 00.01% a type design issue and 99.99% an issue of type selection and type composition. And I think those latter two activities just need smarter fonts and smarter apps, and not smarter studies, and certainly not smarter users.

[hrant]

But type selection cannot be done well enough yet, because type design isn't there yet.

hhp

[russellm]

... Bad type in place of good information design is what I think is being discussed.

[dezcom]

There has never been a scientific study that indicated that "type design isn't there yet". Studies compare existing faces by "attempting [badly] " to isolate variables. Since science has never had a typeface that is the "dog-gonned best possible ever" to use as a benchmark for all the others, there is no way to know that the types we have available now are not good enough to read well. I think the best tests to do would be those that compared READERS to each-other instead of typefaces. Why do some people read so much better than others? If we could isolate the perception and comprehension variables that make people read better, then we might have a clue as to how type must be designed better for reading [if need be]. In medical science, we compare well rats with sick rats to see what makes them resist a sickness. Then, the knowledge gained is used to develop cures or vaccines. We don't compare collections of mixed diseases to see which is the least harmful to a given organism.
Other than dyslexia and other physical/neurological conditions, we really have done little to differentiate between perception/interpretation conditions that may exist in what we might call normal spectrum reading sample populations.

[oldnick]

Yo, Chris—

Thanks for the lame attempt: no matter what, it's better than ANYTHING that I could have done.

Anyhow, bad design sometimes SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK. Like, the other day, when I am doing the crossword puzzle, whose clues are in a condensed sans-serif type. Which is a little too small.

I READ the clue as "Mail tenant," which makes no sense—even to me. However, later on, when I really need the right answer to finish up, it STILL makes no sense UNTIL I READ "Mall tenant"—which DOES make sense, and S-T-O-R-E makes PERFECT sense, and I finish up 1-2-3, and I am outta here.

So, screw what the studies say: sometimes, poor design simply does not help. Or, a better choice of typefaces—like a nice serif which disambiguates a bit better—would solve this stupid, unnecessary annoyance.

IMHO…

[Nick Shinn]

Scientists and their adherents have a naïve view of typography if they think that psychological testing can be used to improve it.

It’s one thing to explore the physiological process of reading, quite another to attempt to optimize reading by applying scientific theory.

[hrant]

But designers who are predisposed to rejecting Science even when there's a glimmer of merit aren't really designers at all.

hhp

[John Hudson]

On the other hand, Nick, insights from the exploration of the physiological process of reading can suggest typographic experiments, i.e. not applying scientific theory to optimisation of reading, but applying new typographic hypotheses to design. And because design is not science in the modern methodological sense -- although, in the mediaeval sense, inter scientias non minima est typographica --, the experimental strictures are looser (hopefully tighter, though, than those of the 'experimental typography' of the mid-90s, which mostly lacked even hypotheses, let alone observation or conclusion).