Talk:Typography/discussions on readability

Details on the Usher sample

The Usher sample was made with the Chianti font's kerning table switched on, and I can tell you from having made the sample and examined the kern table inside Chianti, that Word kerned it accurately. It did exactly what the font's instructions told it to do. Certainly InDesign's optical kerning would even out the spacing, but I've finished making samples for this article.

Keep in mind that when we read text, we don't habitually stop mid-sentence to check out the spacing. The Usher sample was rendered as a PDF in Acrobat at 200% view to obtain a reasonable amount of detail in the letterforms. Acrobat's rendering is much less prone than Word to make spacing errors on account of the low resolution of computer GUI's. Looking at it close-up the inconsistent spacing tends to stand out, which may have led you to assess it unrealistically.

Looking at the sample full-size (pixel-for-pixel) on your screen, step back about four feet (more or less, assuming 20:20 vision) and read the text as you normally would—at normal speed. Don't pause to consider the spacing. Put out of your mind all notion that you are assessing a piece of typography—that you are even reading. Just go with the narrator's voice. Do these small spacing inconsistencies detract from the task of reading? If so, you may have developed hyper-awareness of the typography medium, a problem that plagues typographers, whose reading habits and awareness level are not representative of readers'. At the resolution distance and reading speed specified, small spacing inconsistencies are negligible. More to the point, they don't hinder its readability, or affect the tone.

Meaningful assessment of typesetting must ultimately based on how a text reads, not what the letters look like, or what the spacing looks like up close.

There's a school of thought that says typesetting should be absolutely perfect (if for no reason other than because we have the technology to make it perfect), and another school of thought that recognizes humanism in the arts, along with the human elements of readability, reading theory and practice. Old books set with metal type systems have wonky spacing/kerning, yet they're "perfectly" readable. Some inconsistency, noise, or lumpiness of tone in the typeset image makes text more readable by giving the eye/brain reading hardware something to "grip". Typeface design works in a similar way— individual letters need a certain degree of non-uniformity or difference to generate enough shape contrast and detail to be readable at all.

Compared to the inconsistency of color caused by the variation of structure of each letter form, and the differences in stroke density between individual letter forms, the small spacing errors in this sample, noticeable only between "i" and "l", contribute even less affection of typeset color. (I spell "color" that way because that's how it's pronounced).

Technical perfection is one thing, the art of typeface design and letter fit is one thing—reader experience is something else. Technical perfection is a great and noble thing to strive for, but reader experience proves it is neither necessary, nor necessarily conducive to readability. Technical perfection in typography and typesetting matters to typographers, but readers don't care— as long as the text is readable.

An analogy: Make roads too easy to navigate and drivers have more accidents because there isn't enough driving, or interest in driving, to keep them on the ball, their concentration lapses and they make mistakes. It's true, according to an uncle of mine who works in the road safety department of Vicroads here in Melbourne.

The Usher sample set with optical kerning in InDesign would allow a readability comparison test to be included in the article, which would prove a thing or two about readability.
Arbo 12:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC) @[reply]

Role of Orthography

I have been wondering why the comparison with orthography since I first saw this article. I wonder if anyone can relate the two in some way; it doesn't seem obvious to me.—Gniw (Wing) 21:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been puzzling about that too :^) The contributor might have meant the relationship between orthography and typography. I took that paragraph as a starting point and expanded it:

Choosing the right font(s) is a key aspect of typography, strongly influenced by the nature of the subject matter and the tone it conveys. Matching the 'inflection' of a font to the 'voice' of the writing is central to the grammar of typography. Prose fiction, non-fiction, editorial, educational, religious, scientific, spiritual and commercial writing all have differing characteristics and requirements; a well-chosen font verbalizes its subject matter with relevance and cohesion.

Orthography and linguistics also play an integral role, imposing complex dynamics, rhythms and patterns that make up a typeset page, consisting of word structures, word frequencies, morphology, phonetic constructs and linguistic syntax.

Typography is also a potent element of graphic design where there is less concern for legibility and more potential for using type in an artistic manner.

google: "grammar of typography"

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/typography

Typography Minor, Graphic Design Department The student learns the basic visual grammar of typography, incorporating this knowledge into information-based interpretations. Intermediate studies are concerned with the informational and editorial uses of typography, as well as multi-page formats. The advanced level develops a sophisticated expertise in solving complex messages through typographic expression.

James 15:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is much clearer :-) But isn't book typography often quite concerned with legibility, too (whereas in advertising typography "there is less concern for legibility and more potential for using type in an artistic manner")?—Gniw (Wing) 15:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Legibility, but most important, readability. The best book typography is simple & easy to read. Clarity is the hoily grail of book typogrphers. Beatrice Ward's essay The Crystal Goblet is the much-vaunted dialog on that subject. The orthography part mainly applies to display typography, and a bit less to editorial work like magazines, and 'info-mational' systems, environmental and wayfinding signage, maps and guides, menus etc.

For people to whom typography means books its a minor issue.

But lay people don't realise how ubiquitous type is. Display typography is under-percieved, belying* its supreme effectiveness. On an average day we're exposed to thousands of words in display form—"type is all around us". *(spelt wrong?)

Digitzation & democratization of type has elevated the status of orthography; people are more apt to spell how they want to on account of their lovely keyboard or (mobile phone) and this internet thingy and its time-skewering effects. Q. Why do people screw up capitalization in title case? A. Because they've been empowered beyond their typographic education. Some people are educated beyond their intelligence too. James 16:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, but hasn't readability more (or at least equally) to do with the quality of the writing than with typography of the piece? Good typography is there to make sure that the piece, already in readable form, is not impeded by bad typography (or, borrowing from “Iron Chef” talk, good typography can “accentuate” or “bring out” existing good readability), but good typography cannot improve on the (lack of) readability of an already-unreadable piece..—Gniw (Wing) 23:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha. This is best addressed by the numbers:

> hasn't readability more (or at least equally) to do with the quality of the writing than with typography of the piece?

Debatable. Depends on POV and your knowledge of word-smithing (writing), typesetting and typography. This Typography article must deal with readability as affected by typography, so, assuming a basic, competent standard of word-smithing...certain research on this subject indicates the relationship is not cut and dried.

For example, a study of the interaction between the style/quality of word-smithing and graphic readability/legibility by J.M. Smith and E. Combes, "The Graphics of Prose," Visible Language 4 (1971) pp 365–369, compared:

"...a news story in four versions: 1) long sentences and few paragraphs; 2) long sentences and frequent paragraphs; 3) short sentences and few paragraphs; 4) short sentences and frequent paragraphs. The intent was to show that readability through application of short sentences supported by frequent paragraphs (which increased the white space within columns) improves the legibility of the news story. Tests supported the hypothesis. It was also demonstrated that white space around or within the text block had a higher impact than readability improvements; that is, writing style. A moderate indentation at the beginning of a paragraph improves reading speed by about 7 percent."

That study confirms what typographers and book publishers in the 15th century already knew and applied liberally: pages set with generous margins, generous leading and expanded tracking are the easiest to read—irrespective of the written material. I recently posted a dissertation dealing with the values of renaissance typography v.s. the tight-set junk that prevails in our time, at Typographica: http://typographi.com/001042.php#comments

The Smith & Combes study validates reading experience so there is no reason to reject it. There is just one detail in the way they present their findings I wish western scientists would pay more attention to and avoid doing:

"...The intent was to show...short sentences supported by frequent paragraphs...improves legibility" [they mean readability]

Happily that premise did not bias the experiment and amounts to only a semantic conceit. Still, a good scientist does not start out with an intent to show a particular result or view of phenomena, to show that the mechanism behind a phenomenon behaves the way they believe it does. If you look for what you want to see desperately enuff you may end up seeing something that isn't there, like N-rays. Arbo 16:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

> (or, borrowing from Iron Chef talk, good typography can accentuate or bring out existing good readability)

Yes, that's what typography does. Have you read Ward's Crystal Goblet essay? Arbo 16:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. But I may eventually some day. However, being an amateur, I can only justify spending so much time reading on typography.—Gniw (Wing) 17:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

> but good typography cannot improve on the (lack of) readability of an already-unreadable piece.

Spot-on.

Let us say that optimal text typography can at best provide a clear vessel to drink knowledge from, but if the wine is terrible, even the most transparent wineglass cannot redeem it. On the other side of the wind, a fancy pewter chalice encrusted with jewels taints the bad wine, making it even less palatable and icky-tasting, and the jewels tend to distract the imaginative cognition of the drinker from the wine itself. Fancy and bad typography can have an adverse effect on good writing too, biasing the presentation.

This article's "objective" is stipulated by TPOV—the typographic point of view---separate writing from typography---they're not the same thing. Readability is a major area of typography and type design in and of itself, independent of writing but never irrespective or exclusive of it. Arbo 16:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think if digitization has improved orthography, it has done the opposite to good typography. I don't know what art schools teach today, but 10–15 years ago it seemed that good, traditional typography was not emphasized. Chinese typographic standards (including arguably borderline things like proper punctuation) have gone downhill due to the influence of Western-centric computer systems, and the same, to a lesser extent, can be said of English.—Gniw (Wing) 23:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Western-centric computers and the internet do appear to be sucking up everything in their path in typically indiscriminate fashion, without regard for the integrity of non-western cultures.

Critics say personal computers have put laypersons in control of a complex art/craft they do not understand and lack the necessary skills to articulate---turning lay folk into babes in toyland. Further, digitization and hypertext have ecyclopedestrianized written communication, turning it into repurposable content, dislocating subject from context and narrative from author, atomizing knowledge & communication.

The major pitfall involves getting lost in the "matrix" of "cyberspace".

Popular discourse is predisposed to focus on the so-dubbed third paradigm of digital publishing and the gee-whiz aspect (newness for its own sake), forgetting that moveable type atomized knowledge and communication 450+ years ago----Marshall McLuhan's scribal man. Hypermedia brings a few additional axes to the renaissance model, and it seems we are only just learning how to grapple with this enriched universe. Arbo 16:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree with this view.—Gniw (Wing) 17:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I . It isn't (neccessarily) my view, just the popular view Arbo 18:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many marginally-typographic conventions (punctuation, for example) are taught in schools, some in what we here call grade school. However, when PC's first came, it was impossible to do the right things on the computer, and people started to get used more and more to doing the wrong thing. In the end, the wrong thing seems right because people have been doing the wrong thing for more than 10, maybe more than 20, years.

Then the right thing becomes doable on the PC (after all those years). People aren't going to switch back.

(The reverse is also seen: Some things can only be done right in a typographic context and was always wrong in plain text (without any typographic contrast). But people are used to seeing the typographic thing so often that they begin adopting the typographic convention in an inappropriate medium.)

This is worse for Chinese typography. Even in proper typesetting software (e.g., Adobe Illustrator, InDesign, etc.) sometimes the right things still cannot be done.—Gniw (Wing) 17:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you're saying and think the views we're putting down here are compatible. I don't think they contradict each other. Perhaps my terminology is putting you off. I meant "matrix" and "cyberspace" in a cynical way because those terms are used so indiscriminately, loosely. Meanwhile millions of people continue to use the so-called single quote mark, which is really an apostrophe, for single quotes as well as apostrophes, foot marks and a few other things. What used to be the inch mark is used for double quotes, etc.

The ASCII character set and PC keyboards are responsible for some of the typographic confusion and malpractice. But the bulk of bad typography being done now by graphic designers in the graphic design field seems due to a lack of training, education and discipline. Typography is a discipline that takes half a lifetime of study and practice to master. Arbo 18:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am not too old-fashioned, but IMHO the apostrophe (typographically speaking) should be the same as the closing quotation mark and not straight, but people nowadays say the straight mark is the apostrophe, which at least was not true, AFAIK.

A genuine closing quote mark is angled the same way as an apostrophe, but the design of each glyph is different. ASCII gave us the vertical "apostrophe", which used to be known as an inch mark. Arbo 09:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original PC character set is only partly to blame; equally to blame are the recent hypercorrecters who use modern standards to interpret those old character sets.

Yes. Arbo 09:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When the ASCII character set was prevalent, several code points have ambiguous meanings. For example, the straight "apostrophe" mark was also used for the closing quotation mark, and what people nowadays insist is the acute accent can be used as an opening quotation mark. Such usages were not wrong. However, people nowadays impose Windows-1252 semantics into ASCII and ISO 8859 for whatever reason—I don't know whether they do it to make Unicode look good or whether they do it really out of sheet ignorance, but their insistence is unjustified. Instead of going one way that would produce better results, people choose to make the old standards (which is still being used) really bad. Intent is not valued in the modern society; people poke into the standards/laws to impose their historically-unjustified POV, not only in real law, but also in things like computer character sets. I think this is really sad.

Sure, but post-WWII cultural momentum (the 1950's youth culture, the counterculture "revolution" etc) is founded on liberalism & individualism that encourages people to do as they please and to live as they want, and I guess there isn't much we can do about that except write good Wikipedia articles on typography and humanism that include historical corrections, pointing out where things ran off the rails. Arbo 09:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the bulk of bad typography being done now by designers is due to a lack of training, education, and discipline. Shortly after I started learning it as an amateur, my brother went to art school for formal training as a graphic designer; back then, I was shocked to find that he was taught about these practices less than I managed to glean just from reading books. (Obviously he knows more than I do now :-)—Gniw (Wing) 22:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm enjoying this conversation :^) but its killing too much time. I think we're done with the role of orthography. Let's concentrate on writing the Typography article and getting it into shape. Arbo 09:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]