Know any good legibility tests for typefaces?

[William Berkson]

>I think you you should cut him some slack Bill. He is getting the ideas together.

I'm already a big fan of Peter's ideas, which I think have a good chance of being correct. In this case my criticism of his rhetoric comes from my valuing his ideas. I've never met Peter, but I also admire many of his qualities in our discussions: open-mindedness, independence of thought, hard work, and insight.

>Besides, a lovely lucidly explained mistaken theory is no more accurate for it’s being lucid.

Ah, here you've come to the heart of the matter.

A lucidly explained mistaken theory is just as false as an obscurely explained mistaken theory. There is, however, an all-important difference: the flaws in the lucidly explained are much easier to detect and correct.

In Popper's view the power of scientific method results from scientific theories being formulated in a testable way--they can be checked against observation and experiment. The result is that errors are detected and corrected, and knowledge grows by creative dialog and research informing that dialog.

More generally, any kind of critical discussion, including of politics and art, is furthered by clarity. Clarity enables people to correct and build upon the ideas developed by others. That's why clarity is a fundamental virtue in the critical tradition, a tradition that began with the ancient Greeks.

Popper rarely, and maybe never in print, discussed those he regarded as obscurantists, such as Heidegger. The reason is that he thought they had abandoned the critical tradition--a fundamental betrayal of science and of liberty in his view. He so despised them for the betrayal that he wouldn't honor them by criticizing them, or even mentioning them. I don't think his policy was wise, but I do think he was right about the importance of clarity to the growth of knowledge.

Often obscurity is a shield against criticism, and sometimes it's even a way to bamboozle people into thinking that your ideas are much deeper than they are. --That's what Popper thought about Heidegger. But even in the most innocent case, obscurity deters criticism. And that is not a merit but a liability for the growth of knowledge and the further enlightenment of humanity.

[enne_son]

Here is a general point in relation to the subject of this thread:

A full discussion of readibility and legibility can’t only focus on the parameters of type and writing such as stroke contrast, letterform construction, length of ascenders, leading, size of counters, and how these interact and to what effect. These are items on what might be called the object- or stimulus-side of the equation.

Also such a discussion can’t only focus on speed, comfort and comprehension or what causes them to fluctuate. These are items on the response- or subject-side of the equation, even though they can be relatively effectively operationalized and thereby, in some sense 'measured.'

To make the discussion preductive, we also also need to sort out and talk about the real functional or structural components of the physical act of reading, such as saccade management and the contetious area of ‘holistic processing’ — if that’s a good term —, or ‘rapid, automatic visual word-form resolution’ — if that can be made to be less opaque. Once this is done an understanding of readability that moves beyond the approximations implicit in ordinary usage or the vagaries in it’s sophisticated ‘received’ sense might emerge.

[William Berkson]

Peter, I agree with you that discovery of to what extent 'holistic processing' is happening, and how it happens, would likely be a great help in understanding readability. It will like help both to refine the concept and to test for the different aspects of readability.

I do think, though, that it may be possible to test for readability even before such advances happen. And the results might help point the way for theory.

[enne_son]

Bill, to be perfectly frank, your second statement still raises red flags. But that’s not to say I don't see real value in conducting well-constructed tests of speed, comfort and comprehension. I'm not sure I can be clear about why the flags keep coming up.

Maybe when it comes to the term we need to distinguish between use, meaning and definition. ‘Readability’ has a common use and a widely accepted meaning, but no tightly drawn definition. If it refers to something real, it should. You try to work with it’s widely accepted meaning maybe a bit to long, I try to draw up a tight definition maybe a bit too quickly. The definition has to be cognizant of the widely accepted meaning, or show how it makes sense, and it has to be faithful to the use.

[Nick Shinn]

The reductionists are trying to annex the widely accepted meaning, and marginalize anything which doesn't support their world view and agenda of productization and automation, casting it as obscure epiphenomena, the aesthetic extras that play no part in "real" readability. Don't fall for it Bill and Eben. You're type designers, for goodness sake.

Simple language and behavioral experiments are great for banalizing.

[William Berkson]

>The reductionists ...agenda of productization and automation

Nick, in my opinion your fears are quite groundless. Bogus claims, like those for Tiresias, will keep on happening, but they have nothing to do with real scientific advances.

When there are such advances, they don't marginalize creative people but rather empower them--as the computer, a feared advance in science and technology (see '2001'), has opened the path for you to build your successful independent type design business.

Though some scientists are reductionists, explanation doesn't in fact reduce. Reality is still there in all of its richness and most all of its mystery.

Newton, who made the greatest advance ever in the history of science, said he had only discovered a few shells on a vast unknown shore. A few shells in the field of readability will only help designers.

[ebensorkin]

Nick, I am sorry. I don't know what you mean by this image. What is it? What does it mean?

[eliason]

What does it mean?

The filename clued me in. See here.

edit: That page's author linked to it with an explanatory caption that made me chuckle: "Blake's portrait of Newton, concentrating on his geometry while unaware of the heavens above him or his missing pants."

[ebensorkin]

I did laugh. But actually ...it's a poor choice. Newton got pretty far (supposedly minus those pants) as I recall. Thanks for the bigger image!

[Nick Shinn]

What does it mean?

The random, surreal technique Blake used to create the rocks is a metaphor for that which escapes Newton's calculations.

[William Berkson]

I've always been somewhat puzzled by Blake's great picture of Newton. It is supposedly a critique--as the comments point out, the scroll he is measuring comes from his own head, not nature. Yet the initial impression is Heroic, with the great strength and intelligence of the figure. I'd like to know more about Blake's view of it...

The most important anti-scientific Romantic was Goethe in his early years. He not only criticized the 'grey world of Newton', but tried to develop an alternative romantic way of doing science. And in particular he had a new and different theory of color. This in turn inspired the German Naturphilosophen, Fichte, Hegel and Schelling. The most interesting fact about this effort is that it was an abject failure, a failure of romanticism to produce an alternative version of science that actually could have predictive power in observation and experiment. This story, if I remember correctly, is in Emil Meyerson's book De l'Explication dans les Sciences.

In the next generation, the great Helmholtz made important discoveries in the physiology and psychology of vision, including color. Inspired by the discoveries that shadows are actually colored and that the eye sees sharply only at the center of vision, the Impressionists developed their new style of painting.

This kind of healthy interaction between science and art, exemplified by Helmholtz on one side, and Renoir and Degas, and so on on the other, is I think the right model. I expect the same kind of fruitful interaction between advances in the science of reading and type design and graphic design.

[Nick Shinn]

Aren't you rather begging the question of "advances" in the science of reading?

They first have to be winnowed from the chaff.

Newton had a lot of dubious ideas (he was a religious fundamentalist whose biggest interest was mathematically interpreting the Bible), so a lot of his theories are in the dustbin.

He was a powerful man (and presented by Blake as such) who used his power to have his adversaries (counterfieters: his income came from being head of the Royal Mint) hung, drawn, and quartered. He was, like Blake, an intensely religious person, but of a quite different stripe.

Today, "Why most published research findings are false" is an issue.

So I think it's quite reasonable to question the limits of science, as I am doing, without being painted as a romantic, anti-social, anti-rational luddite. I don't have a problem with scientists studying reading, and they can study the occult mysteries of readability if they wish. But IMO it's so much phlogiston.

[William Berkson]

>Aren’t you rather begging the question of “advances” in the science of reading?

No, I'm saying let's go ahead, and I anticipate useful results. I am for trying, but never promised success.

>I think it’s quite reasonable to question the limits of science

So do I, but that's not what you have been doing. You've been writing that we need less science, that science is a threat, and we shouldn't research readability. You put up Blake's picture that is supposed to be anti-Newton and anti-science. Now you've relented a bit and will graciously 'allow' scientists to research. That's an improvement.

Following Blake and the other Romantics' views, Helmholtz would have listened to Goethe, and would have never researched color perception. And the Impressionists wouldn't have happened.

But science and art can have a healthy, productive relationship, as this example shows.

[ebensorkin]

Nick, on some level all of his theories are in the 'dustbin' in the sense that Physics has moved past a Newtonian model. So now you can say "Take that Newton!*"

But doing that shows the weakness of your argument so far. You are making a false claim that science is about capital T, Truth in some kind of absolute sense. This is a mistake. So there you are with your straw man of science - This time it's Newton - beating it down. Saying "here is your favorite son, and look how many mistakes he made!" It may make you feel better to celebrate the Humanities by burning a Guy Fawkesian style effigy of Science but it doesn't advance the conversation. And I don't think it bolsters the Humanities either.

* My understanding is that nobody did more in that period to advance our understanding of physics, light, and chemistry and more, than Newton. We don't need to bow down to him to appreciate that.

Bill, you have a pretty sweet argument going just now. Nice! Or I guess you could say it appeals to me. On the other hand I guess all this stuff about waiting till Typecon to explain how it is... is off. ;-)

IMO the biggest weakness in the arguments being advanced at this point is the failure of either side to agree on semantics. So Bill, you have your idea about what "readability" is & Nick, you have yours and as a result you are never going to get down to brass tacks. This is why Peter has been semantically inventive. Maybe too inventive for your liking - but his doing it was not without reason. So I suggest that you break things down a bit, name the bits, and go from there. Or learn about Peter's bits and use them.

[Nick Shinn]

You’ve been writing that we need less science, that science is a threat, and we shouldn’t research readability.

Correct.

So there you are with your straw man of science - This time it’s Newton -

Bill played the Newton card.
I replied with the Blake card.
One cliché deserves another.

Following Blake and the other Romantics’ views, Helmholtz would have listened to Goethe, and would have never researched color perception. And the Impressionists wouldn’t have happened.

Impressionism would have been different, that's all.
These broad analogies have very little relevance to typography and reading.

This is why Peter has been semantically inventive.

As I understand him, he also thinks scientific research of readability is a waste of time, because there's more to it than speed, comfort and comprehension.

[Scalfin]

So should we just assume that a type is more legible because god destined it to be so?

[ebensorkin]

As I understand him, he also thinks scientific research of readability is a waste of time, because there’s more to it than speed, comfort and comprehension.

Exactly. Now (maybe) we can get back on the semantically oriented path!

I have been meaning to ask David more about what meant when he said I only have issues with the tests and the results Eben. David, will you elaborate?

I am also still interested in exploring Bill's idea that you could do some testing - not of readability perhaps - but of specific things ( speed etc) by making variations of specific features of a font. What if anything might be worth testing & why. In our rush to defend or rebuke each other's notions of "readability" we have yet to consider these possibilities.

[enne_son]

To some extent trying to construct a science of readability might be like calling physics the science of the fall-down-ability of falling objects, rather than thinking of physics as the study of the physical forces that play a role in this. In some sense it might be possible to say that physics is that science, but it doesn't get you very far. Does a MacIntosh apple have a better fall-down-ability score than a cherry tomato? Well, if it reaches the ground faster, maybe it does.

[William Berkson]

>he also thinks scientific research of readability is a waste of time, because there’s more to it than speed, comfort and comprehension.

Nick, I don't think that's Peter's view, but he can speak for himself.

Since you seem so hung up on the word 'readability', let me avoid the word, ask about the substance of the research I am advocating.

Why is it a waste of time to do scientific research into the affects of type design and layout on the ease, speed and comprehension of reading?

Suppose researchers could ascertain that people can read 10% faster with the same comprehension on a 200 ppi screen, other things being equal, than on a 96 ppi screen. Would such a result be a waste of time?

Eben, I am glad that you like my idea of testing the effects of type on speed, comfort and comprehension, but am baffled why you this has nothing to do with readability.

[William Berkson]

>To some extent trying to construct a science of readability might be like calling physics the science of the fall-down-ability of falling objects, rather than thinking of physics as the study of the physical forces that play a role in this.

I am not proposing to study only readability, or the 'essence of readability', or saying that everything to do with reading must be studied through readability. When did I ever say anything like these?

If that's your view I what I have been proposing, I can understand your problem with it, but I've never proposed anything like that.

Taking your analogy, what I would be saying is that it is worth studying gravity. And Nick would be saying that you can't study gravity because there are other forces too. But in fact Newton studied gravity first, and understanding of electricity and magnetism came more than a century later.

To solve problems you need to break them down into parts. To study everything at once is a prescription for getting stuck on any investigation of anything.

I am saying that you don't have to understand everything about reading to study something about the affects of type and layout on speed, comprehension and comfort.

Is that clear, or is tomorrow groundhog day again?

[Nick Shinn]

So should we just assume that a type is more legible because god destined it to be so?

Legibility is not the issue, it's readability.
IMO, readability is something which science is unable to address -- "that's not even a question".
We're talking about the readability of a holistic design--a page at the least--and seeing if we can pre-determine its readability based on data about its components. Or vice versa--seeing if we can predict the readability of a type design independent of the layout, or of the layout independent of the type design. Science can't do that, there are too many inter-related variables that will interfer with the predictable readability of anything but the most standard, clichéd formats.
It would be like trying to determine the liveability of a building or the driveability of a car, just from knowledge of the components.

So agnosticism would be the correct approach, not blind faith that the behavioralist method can be applied to any kind of human activity with favorable results.

Types and layouts evolve, which is why periodicals redesign. The readability quotient needs an upgrade.

Since you seem so hung up on the word ’readability’, let me avoid the word ... but am baffled why you [think] this has nothing to do with readability.

That was a brief respite!

[Nick Shinn]

And Nick would be saying that you can’t study gravity because there are other forces too.

If you can isolate the variables, go ahead.

To solve problems you need to break them down into parts.

And put them together intuitively. That's design, and it shouldn't be reduced to a formula.

[enne_son]

Nick, I said above that Bill’s statement put up red flags. But I feel as well that your negations are too strong. I can in fact predict that a page of text will be unreadable if the size of type is such that the counters are too small for my aging eyes to resolve them into distinct shapes. I make this prediction based on craft knowledge, and I test it by putting together a test setting. Experimenters might be able to confirm where my threshold is relative to a particular font.

Of course there’s more to readability than that.

[enne_son]

Bill, I'm completely with you when you say that “you don’t have to understand everything about reading to study something about the affects of type and layout on speed, comprehension and comfort.”

Nick, in saying that your negations are too strong, I’m not saying that there isn’t something to much of what you say.

[William Berkson]

>And put them together intuitively. That’s design, and it shouldn’t be reduced to a formula.

Yes, that's design, but its not science. Both can be wonderful in their own way. I think this gap between our views is because you are applying standards of art to science, and so finding science wanting--for the wrong reasons.

As Peter says, there is a core of truth in what you are thinking, but my view is that your application of that truth is misdirected.

Art is interested in the whole experience. If a novel reads like a clinical study of a mental problem, it is a failure. The goal of literary works is to convey a whole way of looking at experience, not to analyze particular problems in a way you can act on. Science, by contrast, is focused on specific truths. If these truths cover a wider range of phenomena, all the better, but it's not necessary. The main thing is that you can measure and test empirically whatever you assert.

Similarly to art, a good design needs to work holistically, and it's not important to identify or even understand all the ingredients that go into that experience. Much of the creative process is unconscious and intuitive, as you say--and almost all of the reader's. The important thing is the whole experience of the reader. And I agree that it is not a realistic goal for science to understand that whole experience, at least for a very long time to come.

It is not that either the artistic or the scientific approach is flawed, but rather that each has its strengths and limitations. And as I said, they can learn from each other. I already gave the example of Helmholtz and the Impressionists. But it also goes the other way around. Dostoevsky's novels portrayed emotionally distressed people as thinking in black and white: I am a hero, or no, maybe a villain. I am magnificant, or no, maybe a worm. You are my best friend, or no, my worst enemy. This pattern was picked up by psychologists Freud and Adler, and it seems to have survived into today's cognitive clinical psychology as a marker of distressed thinking.

So we can honor and learn from both approaches without seeing one as a threat to the other. Yes Newton analyzed gravity, but that doesn't stop people from dancing.