Assessing legibility is pretty simple, just look it over and make sure that similar glpyhs have distinct forms. As for readability, just print yourself a sample and start reading.

No matter how legible a typeface is, it's quite easy for a poor typographer to make it unreadable.

Is there something about the instructions that requires speed reading? Conventional typefaces like Times, Minion, Garamond, Charter, Georgia, Dante, Clifford, Hoefler Text, Constantia, Galliard, Electra, Goudy Oldstyle, etc. are all adequate for instructions, tests, forms, etc. as long as they aren't mangled (negative tracking, inadequate linespacing, light inking, artificially condensed). There are better ones and of course much worse ones (Helvetica, Bodoni, display typefaces), but is there some critical reason the typefaces have to have some legibility rating? What kind of texts are you preparing?

I ask because there is no such standard test; it's a huge bugaboo in the type and typography world, and unfortunately it's all decided ad hoc. your best bet right now is actually to make a "safe" or conventional choice and not mess with the type too much; set it well. If you want assistance in choosing highly legible typefaces, be prepared either for a cacophonous disagreement, or else very subjective choices from whoever you ask.

You may have to design the test yourself, if this information is required. Contact me offline for suggestions.

Carl, I for one would love to have a list your personal top 3, 5, or 10 from you if you are willing.

Here, or shall I e-mail you?

Whichever you prefer. Thanks very much!

I know of some bad legibility tests.

I think that type designers typographers and graphic designers should get busy and work on some way of gauging relative legibility & readability before optometrists do it.

I already have to follow guidelines that are set by people who think they know about typography because they can misuse the word Kerning with complete confidence.

-=®=-

I think that type designers typographers and graphic designers should get busy and work on some way of gauging relative legibility & readability before optometrists do it.

You aren't really suggesting that we voluntarily assimilate with the Borg?

Karmina

You aren’t really suggesting that we voluntarily assimilate with the Borg?

No. but, graphic designers may find their hands tied, in signage if not elsewhere by accessibility standards that are set by the typographically ignorant.

What's a Borg? :p

-=®=-

"Borg" is a Star Trek reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)

Nick are you really against developing something to help test this properly? Or do you think it can't be done properly?

Optometrists and reading psychologists have been measuring aspects of reading performance for quite a while. This recent paper by a team of optometrists and reading psychologists uses a variety of methodologies: reading speed, distance threshold, preference, and eye strain reports. In this paper they aren’t testing fonts, only different versions of ClearType rendering:

Sheedy, J., Y.-C. Tai, et al. (2008). "ClearType sub-pixel text rendering: Preference, legibility and reading performance." Displays 29(2): 138-151.

Mary Dyson tells me that she is planning on using this paper in a typeface design seminar at the University of Reading because it is a nice introduction to different testing methods.

While optometrists and reading psychologists come from a different academic background than typographers, I don’t think it’s useful to describe them as the Borg. There is a common goal of providing a good reading experience and everyone stands to gain from cooperation.

Cheers, Kevin

p.s. Since I work for Microsoft I am expecting Borg jokes. I’m ready.

Nick are you really against developing something to help test this properly? Or do you think it can’t be done properly?

I'm against the productization of readability and the hyping of such type products with scientific or statistical terminology.
The effect of this is to derogate the acumen of type designers and typographers, by replacing their subtle creativity and design skills with principles that are simplistic and banal. So the client doesn't defer to the typographer's judgement, but wants hard proof. That would be nice, but typographic design, whether of typefaces or page layouts, doesn't work like that. Typography is design. Glyphs are drawn by hand.

Linotype was the Borg of the newspaper industry in the mid 20th century. The Legibility Series of types it developed played a significant role in making newspaper typography the stagnant backwater of the graphic design world, until the advent of DTP.

**

There's scientific research, which should test how people read. And there's product development, which tests how products perform. The efficacy of a design cannot be determined before it is marketed, and in many cases it creates its own demand (hence innovation and progress).

About a century ago, some clever people began applying scientific principles to advertising (Daniel Starch, for instance, and Claude Hopkins). But the furthest they have ever gotten down that road (apart from the subliminal detour) is market research. For actually coming up with creative, you want Kirk on the job, not One of Nine.

There is a common goal of providing a good reading experience and everyone stands to gain from cooperation.

Some however may resist such platitudes, prefering to be independent and not become assimilated into the optimum reading experience.

Performance principles do have a place in typography (for road signage and special needs accessibility), but typefaces should not be tagged with readability standards, which is where this is leading.

< nerd> not One of Nine < /nerd>

"I’m against the productization of readability and the hyping of such type products with scientific or statistical terminology.
The effect of this is to derogate the acumen of type designers and typographers, by replacing their subtle creativity and design skills with principles that are simplistic and banal. So the client doesn’t defer to the typographer’s judgement, but wants hard proof."

And yet this happens anyway; see Read Regular, Green Font, Tiresias, etc. etc. It's going to happen anyway, without scientific "proof". People still want the proof, even if it can't be had. What to do? I agree that it reduces too much, too simplistically, but it would sometimes be handy to be able to point to something easy for non-specialists to understand. There certainly is no consensus among typographers.

Nick I think you make some great points about the culture of type and business.

Despite that I think it would be great if really useful thorough research was done. It could be useful for Scientists, useful for Users, and useful for font makers. I think all of that & more could definitely be done if there was funds and a will. But I am not holding my breath! I am happy and in a way grateful that there is position at MS for Kevin! Were that there were more!

But the reality is that doing this research isn't a big priority in our Civ. We are very rich civilization and we could be doing much much much more. But we don't. This is party because we already seem to have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to fonts - and it's snowballing! And partly because the purpose of one font vs. the other is, so much of the time that of sensibility & tone served with the usual portion of utility; rather than sheer utility or with utility coming as a first or dominant priority. And because of that I think that the Nick Shinns of the world need not fear too much. Maybe this is a mistaken impression. Maybe there is more pressure as regards utility than I know. Feel free to correct me.

The efficacy of a design cannot be determined before it is marketed

This seems mistaken to me. You can learn things ahead of release of a font about it's utility. What you can't know is how well a face is going to sell. Which thing are you getting at here?

Some however may resist such platitudes, etc...

I agree that being assimilated into "group thought" would be a bad plan. But that isn't science. The conflation of Marketing & Science isn't helpful, even if one thing may trail on shortly after the other. Once Kevin's work published is in a peer reviewed scientific journal it is cooperative. And when MS decides that Kevin is allowed publish MS funded research then; to that extent, they are genuinely cooperating and contributing to the common good. The key word being extent.

Also in fairness to Kevin you can't expect his boss' priorities to be the general welfare of western civ or civ in general much as they might like to spin it that way – and have. If it can't be used for competitive advantage then it might not be worth it for them. They need to justify what they do in service to MS. Maybe there can be a bit of overlap as regards the world but that has to be secondary. By the same token you can't expect Nick to point to a competitor's typeface on Typophile. Obviously sheer scale means that it isn't the same. But I think it's the same kind of thing.

I also think there is also always going to be a cultural/experiential overlay to the results despite even an ideal testing process*. Data collected in OH might be different from NYC might be different from Germany & so on. So it may (or may not be) that you can get solid usable results but the practical application is questionable.

I feel am not contradicting myself here. Or shading things grey. I am just attempting to parcel things out.

For actually coming up with creative...

I think "Creative" isn't for the purposes of this discussion one thing. It is at least two. It is sensibility & tone rather and utility.** Obviously you are right when it comes to selecting for sensibility & tone. But utility is a different animal. It is true that if you can know the purpose a font will be put to, LCD screens or Newsprint or whatever you can use your eyes and go with your educated impression. And that works very well. If it didn't we wouldn't see the advances we have. What I reject in the abstract is the idea that Science can't be effectively added to the team as it were. The "unfair" advantage is simply that MS can afford the services of a scientist. But compared to dropping fonts into the market for free I suspect this is a minor advantage.

hyping of such type products with scientific or statistical terminology

Here I agree. Anybody can come up with a list of the most readable fonts ( or a best font) & then drop a white paper that is supposed to prove it. Okay not anybody. But is done in many industries and constantly. You have to be skeptical. And people are, more & more. But being critical is science. What sucks is when they decide that it's a good plan to pitch science along with it's superficial trappings. Don't conflate scientific process & hype. Hype doesn't have to attend Science. And when it does they can be separated. It isn't fun, but it can be done.

Also from what I can tell people have been less & less inclined to accept hype with re: to fonts. I don't think that the reception given to ClearType has been rapturous. It wasn't as bad as the din about Vista but still...

I agree that it reduces too much, too simplistically, but it would sometimes be handy to be able to point to something easy for non-specialists to understand.

Science is complicated and grey much of the time. It is really really rare and wonderful when real science can be presented as something easy to understand. Like "you need enough vitamin C to avoid Scurvey so get this citrus in your diet". I don't have much hope that this "something" will be produced for use with clients. And I am even less ceratin that they would make good use of it. I am much more hopeful that many small somethings might be available to type designers*** to make use of. And that we could be more effective at marketing.

And yet this happens anyway

"There is one born every Minute" comes to mind. This is why Marketing exists. I agree with Carl. I think you have to shrug it off basically. His "what to do" is certainly more pithy!

* Assuming such a thing could exist which it cannot.
** Maybe you don't mean to include utility but given the context of your use of it it seemed like you did.
*** Or type making companies

For those of you that made it this far - sorry about this overly long post.

Some however may resist such platitudes

The vast majority of reading research is devoted to understanding how people read, and is entirely agnostic to the concerns of typography. There are several conferences and journals devoted to understanding word recognition, reading acquisition, dyslexia, and reading comprehension where type is not considered an interesting variable. The researchers at all of these conferences find it perfectly acceptable to use Courier as their main typeface. That’s what we’ve achieved by resisting cooperation.

Nick: No matter how legible a typeface is, it’s quite easy for a poor typographer to make it unreadable.

A truer thought has not been spoken in years.

One test on readability we use to do for text in the shop was a relatively simple one. After the first repro came out - we turned it upside down. We made sure it had a nice balance of gray, and that there were no rivers. It was truly easier to see this upside down, because "your" proofing eyes did not have to concentrate on the words - typos - and other weird set behavior. (Oh, the days before WYSIWYGs)

The "readability" of *texts* can be measured by the Flesch index. This is, on the face of it, a "common-sense" approach to decoding text. But any count of words per line and characters per word, while appearing to be objective analysis, can be "gamed" by a writer who is trying to increase readability.

Imagine how typographic/marketing/design decisions could be "justified" (no pun intended) by calibrating such seemingly objective features as length of descenders, character count, stroke weight contrast, etc., then tossing in a couple of constants and passing the whole thing off as objective "analysis."

Designers already invoke such visual characteristics as "greater x-height" or "serifs" as primary signifiers of legibility. But, at what point will a further increase in x-height begin to *reduce* legibility? How long can a serif be, before it *interferes* with the reading process? Perhaps the latest fashion trend in fonts (popularity) is a more reliable predictor of legibility than any structural element inherent to the characters themselves; if it is read more often, mustn't it be more legible? Legibility of printed instructions would seem to vary more in direct proportion to time available for reading, as well as the visual acuity and emotional state of the reader, not unlike many other forms of perception.

if it is read more often, mustn’t it be more legible?

No. See Arial. Arial is with us as a result of a business decision and prior cultural history. Ubiquity is not anything like a useful measure.

Perhaps the latest fashion trend in fonts (popularity) is a more reliable predictor of legibility than any structural element inherent to the characters themselves

This is just silly because it mixes impact that voice flavor or style have on popularity with the effects that the sheer utility of the font have. I would be lovely ( in a creepy sort of way ) if the world was so simple but it isn't.

It's cool that you are thinking about it though.

@hellbox
You might like to read Gerard Unger's While You're Reading.

I do think that trying to make a science of legibility is pretty pointless. No doubt someone with a BSc will concoct a grand scientific method. However, I suggest that a better test is the reader's opinion (and your own, if you trust it). Typography is an art, not a science; and I'm much more interested in the opinions of good typographers, than even the most informed opinions of the world's most eminent scientists.

"Typography is an art, not a science; and I’m much more interested in the opinions of good typographers, than even the most informed opinions of the world’s most eminent scientists."

Can I have your baby?

"Sheedy, J., Y.-C. Tai, et al. (2008). "

Where, please? Must keep up to data.

Cheers!

"I do think that trying to make a science of legibility is pretty pointless. No doubt someone with a BSc will concoct a grand scientific method. However, I suggest that a better test is the reader’s opinion (and your own, if you trust it). Typography is an art, not a science; and I’m much more interested in the opinions of good typographers, than even the most informed opinions of the world’s most eminent scientists."

I think the proposition is that "the world's most eminent scientists" would build their tests around.... The Reader's Opinion. Determining which existing typefaces are more legible has less to do with scientists vapidly collecting abstract metrics, and more to do with testing typefaces in use: reading speed, comprehension, comfort over long reading times, eye fatigue. It doesn't presuppose dissecting or destroying anything, and it isn't necessarily divorced from what typographers "know" about type. The trick is to get typographers involved in designing tests. That's what Kevin is on to. One of the most frustrating flaws in research to date is wretchedly bad typeface selection. Courier, Curlz, Arial Condensed, Helveeta, etc. are not appropriate for testing in extended reading.

Eventually, the ergonomic project bogs down in demographics.
You can't design the one-size-fits-all product, you have to target a sector.
That's a distinction you can dispense with if your company owns most of the market.

Carl, great post.

Nick you said. Eventually, the ergonomic project bogs down in demographics.

You are asserting that demographic & regional differences might be significant?

you have to target a sector

What sectors would those be do you suppose?

I agree that this might be so, I would even guess that it is, but I am not aware of anything that shows that it is. It would be all too easy to mistake regional taste for one style or another with an objective test of what they read best. They might overlap in practice - but I think they are not the same thing.

I don't think that reducing things to simply "trust the craftman (or artist)" & waving hands helps us. Sorry, that's probably too much rhetorical flourish - but I hope you see what I mean. Obviously the craft has gotten plenty far already. But being luddite re: Science seem counter productive to me.

Your sense that science is bought off by the big guys and is in their camp; ( unless I have you wrong ) may be so. In fact it seems probable. But I think that is a separate cultural issue and should be dealt with as such. Put another way; intellectually I don't like to see them conflated. And I think it would be disingenuous to deny that science has anything to offer just because I don't stand to benefit from the admission. Or maybe I will... depending on what researchers and their employers ( or universities) decide to do.

I have faith that the best ideas for improving type will come from type makers be they indie or otherwise, and with or without research to inspire or gird their results. Maybe in that sense I agree with you. And maybe if people (type makers and scientists alike) notice useful stuff they will share that useful stuff. I plan to. You have. ( Thanks BTW! ) I think it's very promising.

And lastly I think that Fonts will probably always get their the vast majority of the economic value from their style. The utility differences are a kind of economic sideshow for the most part even if I think that culturally it is important enough to spend time on. Do you agree or not so much?

And lastly I think that Fonts will probably always get their the vast majority of the economic value from their style. The utility differences are a kind of economic sideshow for the most part even if I think that culturally it is important enough to spend time on. Do you agree or not so much?

I agree. The sideshow would include much of the commission work that goes on for sake of utility, often with real economic benefits (agate comes to mind). Meanwhile, brush scripts sell like hotcakes.

Randy would you even agree that text faces are sold on primarily on style too - with utility most assumed? eg It's a newspaper face it's a book face ( as in suitable for novels etc), it's a book face specifically with this flavor or that flavor.

Are Agate's economic benefits to do with space saving or reading utility or both? If both; which do you think was the dominant issue?

You are asserting that demographic & regional differences might be significant?

They are. One font for the lion and ox is oppression.

What sectors would those be do you suppose?

That is determined by the nature of a publication's readership.
So an Index of Typeface Readability that didn't have a demographic breakdown wouldn't be much use.

But being luddite re: Science seem counter productive to me.

Luddite? I'm all for science--in its place. We can investigate how reading works, but readability is not and never will be a scientific concept.

One font for the lion and ox is oppression.
hee hee! That is pretty purple prose but I basically do agree.

So an Index of Typeface Readability that didn’t have a demographic breakdown wouldn’t be much use.
Sounds like a better kind of science to me. You might make a heck of a good advisor to a scientist making a study of readability. ;-)

readability is not and never will be a scientific concept
No more so that love is or even he far simpler "sweet" is. So I agree - but in a specific way. Consider; it is possible to study what happens when people are in love and compare heart rates and variety of other data. It is also possible to see what reactions lead to the perception of "sweet". If you look at the studies and see how the scientists couch their work I doubt that the scientists were claiming to be able to in any way encompass love or to be equivalent to experiencing "sweet" for yourself. So the two are not synonymous exactly. What the scientist would say is that they are making falling in love the subject of their study - as a expedient way of putting it. Or making a study of how we perceive the taste "sweet". And doing so in a specific a specific, probably narrow, and hopefully repeatable way.

I suggest that we could learn things; maybe interesting or important things; or even just useful things, from studies of readability. And I think I can say this without doing any violence to idea of people "falling in love" or experiencing "sweet" or good bad or indifferent "readability".

>readability is not and never will be a scientific concept.

Within 5 years you will be proven wrong, is my bet.

Is that the result of scientific studies of predictability, or just a hunch?

Hunch

You luddite! :-)

Nick: One font for the lion and ox is oppression.

Ironically, almost all modern readers encounter Blake's 'writings' in typeset form, rather than the etched illustrated form that he intended. Doubtless the typeset text is more legible/readable than Blake's deliberately naïve etched writing, but the latter demonstrates nicely the irreducibility of 'a good reading experience' to a set of legibility metrics. This is not to say that the scientific study of reading as phenomena (not phenomenon) is without value, but there is no typography without text and text is anything but uniform.

Randy would you even agree that text faces are sold on primarily on style too - with utility most assumed?
I would guess so, but it will depend on the designer and an the application. A book designer might choose differently than another designer.

Are Agate’s economic benefits to do with space saving or reading utility or both?
There are lots of ways custom (newspaper) type can "save money." I'm sure someone with more experience in custom work can elaborate. Space savings and reading utility yes, but what if the new type allows you to run on cheaper paper? Saves money. What if the new type has all weights based around the same metrics so there is no text reflow for stylistic changes? Saves money. Small type is used in more than the financial section, there's tv listings, sports scores and schedules, weather forecasts, classifieds etc. A typeface tailored for these specific situations could beneficial in many ways. There are brand and sometimes license benefits too. H&FJ printed a booklet on their agate face Retina, that goes into detail about it's benefits. Font Bureau may have something similar for Poynter Agate.

John that is beautiful.

...but typefaces should not be tagged with readability standards, which is where this is leading.

Exactly. The day scientists hijack typography, then all is lost. There is something rather noble sounding in a scientific method for testing type; however, ultimately such a system would only do a disservice to type and to readers. This scene came to me in a dream:

The year is 2025. My client proposes that we go with WhatevernextSuperLegible Sans because it has a 5-star legibility rating. Cut to me, pan right as I slit my throat with a rusty razor blade. The End.

The problem I have with the whole science and type thing is that legibility is just one part of the equation. A good typographer (in fact, even an average one) knows whether a text is legible (and whether the typography is an aid to readability). We don't need science to confirm what we already know. Do we?

I think the proposition is that “the world’s most eminent scientists” would build their tests around.... The Reader’s Opinion.

But that doesn't sound like good science. 10,000 subjective opinions does not sum to universal truth; so, either a falsifiable theory of legibility is proposed; or, we simply do as we have done for the past 500 years.

I'm reminded of those TV commercials for shampoo and skin care treatments: "clinically proven", "scientifically tested", et al. The day a typeface is accompanied by something similar, I'll be reaching for that razor blade.

Right John, text (content) is a variable that influences readability, so add that to demographics (who's doing the reading) and typography (how the typeface is positioned and scaled on the page), as factors that effect readability, as well as typeface.

The effect of text on readability has been measured, as mentioned earlier, in the Flesch index.

I don't think typographers, in designing a page, consider those four in isolation from one another, so my primary objection to readability research is that it does. Kevin is doing the right thing in trying to introduce typeface as a variable in reading theory, but my concern is that an Index of Readability for typefaces that doesn't factor in, especially, typographic variables, will be used by the communications industry as if it does. So the client will tell the designer that they must use the "most readable" typeface. Or will foundries have to apply to a standards body to have their types tested and categorized by readability grade?

Pardon me for dragging this out, I've spent too much time on the 'phile today!

I’m reminded of those TV commercials for shampoo and skin care treatments: “clinically proven”, “scientifically tested”, et al. The day a typeface is accompanied by something similar, I’ll be reaching for that razor blade.

I hate to be an accomplice to your suicide, but Christopher Burke records that this kind of pitch was already being made in 1931 for Futura.

John, Nick, so it sounds like it isn't the science per se. It's the use (or misuse) that it it's put to. Fair enough!

What we might differ over is the inevitability of science being put to misleading and counter productive use.I really doubt that a 'standards body' is going to be set up. Nobody would want to pay for it.

Your previous scenario where only big type houses get the benefit of research seems a bit more likely although maaaaaybe that too can be avoided. I sure hope so. Certainly being interested and encouraging with researchers might help that to happen.

We don’t need science to confirm what we already know. Do we?

If we know it; then no. On the other hand some of what we 'know' is still subject to lively debate. So maybe we don't know it exactly. But even if we do; what could be exciting, and the purpose of science, is to learn something new!

Believe me, I don't think science is the only model of knowing that is worth while. If I did I would be a scientist. I just think it's worthwhile to notice the difference between science as a way of considering something and other quite different things - marketing, PR, hype, client idiocy, simple minded interpretation of science & so on. In fact, if you want to effectively debunk false claims this kind of separation is in my view, a prerequisite!

Craig, nice point!!

On account of my reading of the literature on ‘crowding’ I’ve come to think of affordance as a curve with an initial steep climb, than a wide plateau and eventually a gradual decline. Proposing that affordance is a curve with a distinct shape is more useful than thinking of readability as a simple equation of more versus less. And it is a perspective that has it's source in science.

Where, in terms of type-size the climb begins or the plateau sits; how wide the plateau is are issues involving thresholds and ranges and vary from type to type. I suspect an analysis of variance will show that, for most standard text fonts the thresholds and ranges don't vary dramatically under normal conditions of use or covary linearly. In other words, a change that affects a threshold positively might have a negative effect on where the plateau sits. Perhaps the styles of termination, or types of contrast can be an example. But thresholds and ranges do nevertheless, I think we'll find, interact with the traditional typographical parameters. And I suspect they do so in demonstrably more complicated ways than we have seen codified so far.

Simple affordance has to be balanced with issues of comfort in large texts, with concerns about heirarchical transparency, surveyability and navigability in instructional manuals, and with the cultural-historical positioning or affiliation statements a document has to make. Comfort in large texts, positioning, and the demands for heirarchical transparency, surveyability and navigability can exert countervailing pressures on the choice of type. This makes a decontextualized descision based soley on simple or generic affordance micro-advantages short-sighted.

Many clients groups are aware of these subtlities in how affordance works and of countervailing pressures. Many others willingly learn. What seems to count is explicit evidence of well-motivated and knowledge-based decision-making.

Nice see your ideas again Peter!

Would you expand on & give some context for this phrase?
In other words, a change that affects a threshold positively might have a negative effect on where the plateau sits.

What is affordance? Surveyability and navigability would have to do with layout rather than anything to do with font choice - yes? I am guessing thats right except in as much as they relate to having Italics or Small caps or Weights as options.

What seems to count is explicit evidence of well-motivated and knowledge-based decision-making. That has been my experience as well.

Having said all this though; you would not I suspect say that generic affordance micro-advantages are not worth thinking about. Just that they have to be seen in a broader context. And this was Nick's point as well.

If those doing the research don't refer to and include other relevant specializationst, it all can get to be a bit like those blind sages trying to describe an elephant (It's like a tree. No, it's like a snake...) (Why didn't they just ask the mahout?)

It might be difficult to design a font that is completely illegible and still include identifiable letters, and it's true, the most legible font in the world can be mangled by bad typography. The fact there is bad typography though, suggests that starting with a highly legible typeface should mitigate the awfulness somewhat. But, what's a legible typeface 'sposed to look like?

The rules of what make a legible typeface are in my opinion are quite simple and straightforward and allow for a great deal of flexibility. I don't think is is even possible to design a definitively "most legible" typeface. I think in any fare test of comparable fonts, you'll find that differences in performance can be so slight as not to matter.

I really don't think legibility standards need to be anything to get knickers in a twist about. It's mostly common sense to anyone with some expertise in typography. I think where that kind of standardization would apply would be on wayfinding signage, medicine bottles, captioning on TV, operating instructions that come with power tools and the TV guide in the newspaper. (OK that last one is personal, but Really! Would it be possible to make it worse?) and things like government and public transit websites and other printed materials, where accessibility is a right that these organization should make honest efforts to honour.

This sort of graphic work seldom actually gets designed in any real way. The objective in producing a set of instructions may turn out to be "How many tiny black words can I fit onto this tiny piece of paper that will be packaged with these potentially deadly drugs" instead of what percentage of people who should read these instructions will not be able to?". Even if the designer conscientiously designed this sheet to be as readable as possible, he or she would have no way of telling you what percent of people could read it. That should be something that could be determined. At the very least, there should be some set of guidelines that can be referred to, that are a bit more sophisticated than, "use Arial and make it big" (the real purpose of such a spec is to keep people who know less than the spec writer from using some crazy Spenserian script, and Arial is a font they can name.)

Taking the example of Erik Spiekermann's work for the Financial times, where he improved the legibility of their typeface by cleaning up the shapes somewhat, increasing tracking and leading and (counter intuitively to most) slightly decreasing the font size.

I think that the form such "standards" might take need not be unreasonably restricting at all and would have no impact on what the vast majority of designers do.

Hellbox, email me (russ.mcg at gmail.com), and I'll tell some of what I've done to test legibility. It was for signage, but some of it might apply to what you are doing.

-=®=-

Eben, I felt the need to say something in this thread, but this reply will have to suffice for the time being.

[Affordance] (I explained it elswhere some time ago on typophile — I think it was the rule or law thread — affordance is the relationship between an object or artifact and what we choose to do with it or use it for): legible writing affords or promotes or lends itself to effective perceptual processing in reading, so ease of reading is an affordance of legible writing or its typographical correlatives or surrogates.

[Expanding / giving some context] I'll have to ask you to think about how styles of termination, or the presence or abscence of contrast, or wider spacing, or the sizes of counters affect performance at thresholds of size or distance, versus how they effect performance at normal type sizes and distances where reading speed and comfort are at a plateau.

Arguing against studying readability scientifically is to me like arguing against studying disease scientifically. You can make the same arguments, and they will be just as wrong-headed and against the progress of humanity.

For example, the issue of text size has an obvious and measurable affect on readability. You can make text small enough that people can't read it. And you can measure how small that is, how it varies with age and acuity, and so on. There is no reason to think that less obvious things can't be studied also, with sufficient imagination in theorizing and sufficient cleverness in experimentation.

That doesn't mean that everything to do with readability, particularly the aesthetic side, is likely to be measured soon or ever. But to just wave aside scientific study is highly misguided.

As Peter explains, a successful science of readability is likely to come up with theories that are as complex and subtle as we know reading to be. And such insights may well help us to improve reading on screens, to help those with limited vision, with forms of dyslexia, and so on.

Bill, reading is not an ailment.
I'm wary of analogies used in discussing type and reading, because there's nothing quite like it.
(I'm sure I use analogies though from time to time, it's hard to avoid.)
So I won't develop your health analogy by going into the perils of big pharma.

And you can measure how small that is, how it varies with age and acuity, and so on.

You can measure text size, but not as a scientific absolute, in the way that an object's dimensions or mass may be determined.
Size is a nominal value, determined by the foundry.
Don't you recall the thread here last year on the definition of the em square?!

A typeface does not have size.
A scientific parallel would be fractals, as in "how long is the perimeter of the Jenson "a"?
It would depend on which particular "a" one chose to measure, the resolution of the medium in which it's set, and the resolution of the measuring device.

Of course, it's possible to take a particular setting of a particular typeface, vary its size, and see how the variations perform with different age groups.

Whatever knowledge this reveals, as Peter says, "a decontextualized descision based soley on simple or generic affordance micro-advantages [is] short-sighted."

Consider these specimens from The Designer's Guide to Text Type (King and Esposito, Van Nostrand Rheinhold).


I put it to you that the readability of Janson and Kennerley will vary against one another according to leading, amongst other factors.
Also consider paper stock and, of course, tracking (this book was published in 1980, and man, is that 8 pt. type tight!)
Then there is line length and paragraph length. And might not one type perform better for rag right setting, the other for justified? And how would they fare when one varies the Flesch index? Would Janson's readability index be better for longer words?

All in all, for an index of typeface readability to be meaningful and useful, a standards manual would have to be published in the form of a type specimen, showing the exact setting which had been tested. For online use, the monitor and operating system would have to be specified, as well as pixel-height and application or file format (hinting varies).

However, AFAIK, reading tests in laboratories are not conducted using "real" text. For instance, the Moving Window technique restricts the amount of text that is visible to a certain number of letter around a fixation point, and replaces all of the other letters on the page with the letter x.

I don't believe there would be anything particularly scientific about indexing the readability of typefaces. It would be a simple form of market research. Investigating how reading works is one thing, and of course I support it, but applying readability standards to typefaces (the subject of this thread) is something else.

Neural networks may be developed to simulate a reader, in which case a piece of text in a particular setting might be run through a software application to measure its readability.

Compare with recent developments in the shampoo industry. It so happens that CGI has become so proficient at rendering the effect of moving hair (thanks to Hollywood money)--at a microscopic resolution--that it is now possible for chemists to apply a virtual shampooing of a chemical formula to a virtual hair type, and see how it will effect body and lustre.

Ultimately, this kind of virtuality will be great for product development (laboratory animals especially), but would be problematic if an "independent" organization used software to grade products by chemical formula. IMO, that's a bit too virtual, but I guess it's coming.

Nick,

Your comments are confusing, to put it mildly. What comes thru is your irrational fear of science, or maybe laboratories, or possibly shampoo.

Previous testing has indeed been less than satisfactory; often irrelevant and misleading. It does not follow that all testing forevermore has to be similarly flawed. We're already at the stage of discussing designs for tests that intentionally account for the variables you, and others have named. In fact, you list some techniques or features of such tests that would be useful. We know the problem is that typographers have been left out of such testing. So, here we are.....

Ryan asked for tests to assess the legibility of typefaces. This does not presuppose excluding, ranking, or naming names. I think Ryan should reappear and clarify, and maybe comment on the discussion. I think mention of ranking, rating, or establishing specific, literal metrics that define readability are all figments of paranoia.

Carl, I don't worry about shampoo anymore.

I think mention of ranking, rating, or establishing specific, literal metrics that define readability are all figments of paranoia.

The people who post questions like Ryan's at Typophile aren't paranoid, they want numbers that can be used to reassure clients (or themselves) about typeface choices.

Here's the plan:
We all contribute a paragraph of gobbledygook type-speak strung together into nearly incomprehensible sentences that we can then index into a master "Use this to convince your client about your choice of typeface" book.

Why not? There are scads and scads of books on color combinations with explanations that designers can thumb through. Why not a book about "What typeface and Why, and How to effectively convince your client"?

Best seller, I tell ya.

"We all contribute a paragraph of gobbledygook type-speak strung together into nearly incomprehensible sentences"

See above.

"The people who post questions like Ryan’s at Typophile aren’t paranoid, they want numbers that can be used to reassure clients (or themselves) about typeface choices."

Now we're in upside-down land. You're reiterating what I said days ago. WTF? I'm not talking about Ryan.

You are the one who is presupposing all kinds of unrealistic, irrelevant and detached scientific processes in the discussion, which was originally about assessing the legibility of a typeface or some typefaces, and not, as you say above, about applying readability standards to typefaces, or measuring random micro features of letters, or isolating single words in artificial reading scenarios, or giving all typefaces ratings or rankings of some kind. Seeing all that as inevitable, as you seem to, is what I'm calling paranoid. You seem to be saying that the testing done to date proves that there is nothing useful to be learned by additional testing, because it also seems that you're saying that there is no possibility that there will ever be tests that account for the variables that we've all identified...... Even though we're here virtually designing just such tests.

Seeing all that as inevitable, as you seem to, is what I’m calling paranoid.

If I'm paranoid, you're naive.

it also seems that you’re saying that there is no possibility that there will ever be tests that account for the variables that we’ve all identified...... Even though we’re here virtually designing just such tests.

Who's this "we"? I'm not designing tests. Are you working on any such projects as a typographic consultant, or are any other typographers?

No, I don't believe that it's possible to account for all, or even very many of the variables; typographic, demographic, and textual.

I agree with you that it is better to at least have some typographic intelligence in reading research, but that's not my bone of contention. It's the absurd notion that readability is an inherent quality of typefaces, which can be measured. IMO, readability does not begin to exist until the graphic designer, art director or typographer begins to work on a layout. For analogy (this is for William and Eben), as Maria Muldaur once put it, "It ain't the meat it's the motion".

Nick, in fairness I think you have climbed down slightly from your original doom and gloom outlook on all science/font nexus'.

I’m not designing tests

Not designing them soup to nuts - no. But you have begun to state what might start to look like a reasonable set of parameters to be considered if you were attempting to examine one face vs another. You wroteAll in all, for an index of typeface readability to be meaningful and useful, a standards manual would have to be published in the form of a type specimen, showing the exact setting which had been tested.

When you say No, I don’t believe that it’s possible to account for all, or even very many of the variables; typographic, demographic, and textual. I can help but think that okay not at once... but in small steps, bit by bit a picture might emerge of what is going on & eventually testing methodologies can get better & better, and meaningfully include more & more variables ( typographic, demographic, and textual and others too perhaps). This might sound like I am building to the dramatic "all" of your statement but I am not. Instead it's the bit by bit aspect of building an increasingly cogent but always incomplete view over time that matters. That is why an absolute/authoritative list can't really be drawn up by scientists or anyone. Opinions we can always have though! And how much better to have them be increasingly informed opinions?

I don't think that anybody would disagree with your notion that type outside of the context of use cannot be considered fully/properly. That said I don't think that you have to test the full battery of possible uses & possible demographics etc ( which is infinite ) to notice meaningful things. If you did you could never do meaningful research.

So instead of saying "readability is an inherent quality of typefaces" which is a bit too 2-d for reality (I agree) you might well do better to admit "readability is a potential quality of typefaces which could be described albeit imperfectly with some decent scientific tests". No?

Dan you wrote “What typeface and Why, and How to effectively convince your client” Would you make the book you describe given a 1k advance? 5k? 10k? In other words; "what price self respect?". ;-)

Carl, I don’t worry about shampoo anymore.

Priceless :)

I think mention of ranking, rating, or establishing specific, literal metrics that define readability are all figments of paranoia.

But how else would this 'science' be used?

@Eben
"Would you make the book you describe given a 1k advance? 5k? 10k? In other words; “what price self respect?”. ;-)"

Dude, sign me up. I have school debt I need to kill.

dberlow wrote:
> Sheedy, J., Y.-C. Tai, et al. (2008). “
>
> Where, please? Must keep up to data.

Visit http://www.sciencedirect.com and search for author:sheedy :-)

--
Regards,
Dave

Eben: “readability is a potential quality of typefaces which could be described albeit imperfectly with some decent scientific tests”. No?

Either you can measure something or you can't, so 'describing something imperfectly' isn't really science, although it may be anecdotally useful (and the plural of anecdote is data). I think legibility is probably an inherent quality of a typeface, determined by the legibility of individual glyphs, as individual forms and as distinct from each other. But readability is a measure of a document: we read typesetting, not typefaces. Choice of typeface is one variable in the readability of a document. If one were able to isolate and make equivalent all the other variables, then perhaps one could measure the degree to which the typeface contributes to the overall readability of the document. But this would still be something other than a readability index for the typeface, because I'm pretty sure that if the other variables were different, even though equal for the purposes of comparison, the contribution of the typeface to readability would also vary. For example, typeface X might be determined to be more readable than typeface Y in a document set in 12pt, but typeface Y might be determined to be more readable than typeface X in a document set at 8pt. Isolating the other variables in a single document only indicates which typeface is more readable in the context of those variables, not which typeface is inherently more readable.

"Visit http://www.sciencedirect.com and search for author:sheedy :-)"
Thanks!

"Within 5 years you will be proven wrong, is my bet."
How much is the bet?

Cheers!

Either you can measure something or you can’t, so ’describing something imperfectly’ isn’t really science

Seems to me like Eben's talking about a kind of "proxy" measurement. For example, there's no clear way to measure the effectiveness of my teaching directly, but one could make inferences about it from evaluating student evaluations of it. The assumption is that there is some reasonable (albeit "imperfect") correlation between the student evaluations and my unmeasurable (but not ipso facto nonexistent) teaching effectiveness.

Describing something incompletely is might be said to be imperfect. Incompletely & precisely are not at odds. For instance I can measure very precisely the lumens a light bulb gives off. This doesn't mean I have perfectly described the light bulb. Or even the light. So how about "readability is a potential quality of typefaces which could be described albeit incompletely with some decent scientific tests”?

Isolating the other variables in a single document only indicates which typeface is more readable in the context of those variables, not which typeface is inherently more readable.

Yes. Absolutely. But, what if you do a wide range of tests? You could see trends. Or maybe not I suppose depending on the shape of reality. But I bet you would; and it would be the shape of those trends across a wide enough range of variables that would start to show what works better & in what contexts. Sort of like digital photo is made up of layers of RGB or CMYK color. One dot is pretty meaningless. 12 megapixels may not be.

So while I agree it is stupid or perhaps more charitably overly simple to say in a blanket way one face has better potential readability than the other, it would not be nearly so silly to describe a pattern of relatively greater or lesser success in a series of specific contexts and then interpret the data to help choose a type face for some project or purpose ( say way finding signage or a novel ) or to take conclusions away in order to try to design a better font for contexts tested.

John your post suggest that you doubt that data you would get back could be meaningfully interpreted. Is that correct? Also, is this formulation at odds with your legibility/readability distinction? I don't think it is but I am interested to hear what you would say.

If you can test cars & cameras and draw meaningful but specific conclusions you can take things a few steps further and test a typeface.

Eben: So while I agree it is stupid or perhaps more charitably overly simple to say in a blanket way one face has better potential readability than the other, it would not be nearly so silly to describe a pattern of relatively greater or lesser success in a series of specific contexts and then interpret the data to help choose a type face for some project or purpose ( say way finding signage or a novel ) or to take conclusions away in order to try to design a better font for contexts tested.

But this is what we've been doing for five hundred years, only we called it typography, not reading science. We have been building the data set, and we have these meat machines call typographers who interpret the data and develop new hypotheses and experiments based on that interpretation.

John, of course I agree. :-)

We have to trust ourselves; especially as we start out with a new design.

On the other hand, I think it's not a bad idea to see what other meat machines say about comfort - especially if they will actually be using our design. That could be anecdotal or scientifically measured. A spirit of service need not belittle ourselves. Agreed?

Also, what do you make of my point about many small specific tests potentially building up an incomplete but maybe still very useful picture of a font's potential performance?

That could be anecdotal or scientifically measured.

Practically, I think the science, at least what I have seen to date, is itself anecdotal. That is, the only way to relate the science to design is to treat it as further anecdotal data, to combine with existing practices. It is, perhaps, a matter of how we interpret the data: in a hermeneutic of continuity, in which scientific knowledge of reading is interpreted in combination with typographic experience and practice, or in a hermeneutic of rupture, in which scientific knowledge of reading is interpreted as overthrowing and replacing typographic experience and practice.

Peter Enneson's comments in the legibility and comfort thread are worth reading again. Peter has probably read more of the actual science than the rest of us, with the exception of Kevin, and I think he has a good handle on the limitations of generalising from the data.

Also, what do you make of my point about many small specific tests potentially building up an incomplete but maybe still very useful picture of a font’s potential performance?

I think that's what typography is. If you can quantify the data, I suppose you have a mechanism to help non-typographers do typography or, rather, to do a kind of typography minus inspiration. That's not a bad thing, because a lot of text is being produced by non-typographers these days, and if it can be made more pleasant to read with some help from data collection and quantification that's welcome. But that's not the same thing as turning a non-typographer into a typographer.

Also, what do you make of my point about many small specific tests potentially building up an incomplete but maybe still very useful picture of a font’s potential performance?

Yes, I have no problems with tests, whatever their form, whatever their foundation; what troubles me is how the results of those tests will be misused and misapplied. Attach 'scientific' to anything and it all too quickly evolves into that ugliest of beasts, dogma. However, I do think there's something in John's comment,

...because a lot of text is being produced by non-typographers these days, and if it can be made more pleasant to read with some help from data collection and quantification that’s welcome.

That sounds reasonable to me--tempered by the above caveat.

But that’s not the same thing as turning a non-typographer into a typographer. Agreed. Let alone a designer of type... But you seem to be saying that a built up picture made from many tests cannot help a font designer. Am I reading into what you are saying accurately? I think I am but I would like to be clear about it.

Practically, I think the science, at least what I have seen to date, is itself anecdotal. Would you expand on this? There are waaay too many ways of reading this. When you say I think that’s what typography is. it does make me laugh a bit because of course yes on some level that's right. We try things. We observe the result. We keep going. We gain experience. We start to generalize & so on. This has some properties in common with science to be sure. But saying that they are much of a muchness is simply not accurate. There are important differences. These differences are both limitations & strengths.

I think he has a good handle on the limitations of generalising from the data. Very probably yes. I don't feel qualified to say despite my respect. But that is maybe a side issue because it's today's data. We are talking about what might happen in the future. What might be possible.

John B, you said, Attach ’scientific’ to anything and it all to quickly evolves into that ugliest of beasts, dogma.

Must it? Is in inevitable? I don't think so at all. Maybe with people who don't know what Science is. But those people will do that with anything. Arts, Etiquette, Politics, Religion and yes, Science. It's that is the fault of rigid and small minds. It's not the fault of Science per se. It seems like you have a small axe to grid here. What's it all about?

Dogma is best avoided. That we agree on.

Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
-- Bertrand Russell

Not sure where that leaves us, but it seems apropos...

Eben
No, no axe to grind. I had a feeling that this thread would come to this: science vs whatever. Science is not the problem; attempting to scientize typography is the problem. Therefore, the only axe I'm grinding is the one that defends art from science. If 99% of all texts produced in the past 500 years were unreadable and illegible, then yes, bring on the scientists, but...

So, to reiterate, I am most certainly not anti-science; I just don't like this obsession with attempting to codify and rationalise and pigeon-hole everything--just employ a good typographer.

Must it? Is in inevitable? I don’t think so at all. Maybe with people who don’t know what Science is.

As the majority know little or nothing about science and its methods, then I fear that it is indeed inevitable; men in white coats selling shampoo and diet pills comes to mind yet again.

By all means test away, but doesn't science best begin with a theory--a testable falsifiable theory? It's the theory that you need to concentrate on; not the testing (that's step 2).

The fact is, science can study anything and produce useful results, because science does not start with a capital S. It is nothing more than observing cause and effect, and trying to make a clear distinction between the two.

Employing the scientific method isn't the opposite of fine craftsmanship. In fact, it might be an inherent, if seldom recognized or acknowledged quality of a good craftsman.
Whether or not Big Science, PhD can publish an article about readability and legibility has no impact on the careful observations of centuries of typographers.

And vice-versa.

Eben: But you seem to be saying that a built up picture made from many tests cannot help a font designer. Am I reading into what you are saying accurately?

No, I don't think I every said that. What I'm saying is that this gradually built, imperfect, incomplete picture, insofar as it is useful in making decisions about type design, has to be made up of a lot more than what specifically scientific methodologies provide. This is what I mean when I say that at the point of usefulness scientific data and other kinds of information are basically at par, i.e. I think it would be a mistake to privilege new scientific data in the context of a humanistic craft with a developed wisdom of several hundred years. Instead, one would need to interpret that data within a hermeneutic of continuity with that wisdom, which means putting the scientific data and anecdotal data and experience and inspiration -- and everything else that makes up typographic wisdom -- into the same bucket and giving it a good stir to see what floats to the top.

We are talking about what might happen in the future. What might be possible..

We are? I'm not big on speculation, so I'd rather look at where we are now and consider what might be likely, not what might be only possible. Of course, I'm always ready to revise my analysis....

The way I see it now: reading science is providing some good insight into how we read, but I'm looking for a lot more, especially with regard to readerability, i.e. insight into why we're so darned good at reading such a diversity of systems, styles, etc. and what the tolerances or limits are. I don't yet see a complete description of how we read, and that makes me very wary about trying to draw practical conclusions in terms of 'doing things differently' in type design, which is what we're all concerned about isn't it? If the science ends up confirming everything that we're already doing, that's interesting and reassuring, but it doesn't have a positive impact on the development of new type design. The tantalising notion is that the science might one day give us a clue how to make type better, and that's what makes it sexy or scary depending on one's proclivities. At the moment, I don't see anything in the science that is being done that suggests I should be doing anything different. Put another way, if you put today's science into the bucket with accumulated typographic wisdom it just gets absorbed: it isn't significant enough to contribute to the mix.

There are narrowly defined areas in which scientific study is presently useful, e.g. reading at low resolution, but the same limitations that make scientific study useful make type design correspondingly less significant. The science is more useful for rendering engine developers, screen manufacturers and document creators than for type designers.

John H,

I think you have sunmed up the state of affairs extremely well. And Maybe now your Paragraph should be read & re-read as well. Specifically:

At the moment, I don’t see anything in the science that is being done that suggests I should be doing anything different. I haven't followed the science closely enough to suggest otherwise. And certainly I am not suggesting that you should.

which means putting the scientific data and anecdotal data and experience and inspiration — and everything else that makes up typographic wisdom — into the same bucket and giving it a good stir to see what floats to the top. Yes. Absolutely.

The science is more useful for rendering engine developers, screen manufacturers and document creators than for type designers. And maybe given time they can be useful to Typographers and type designers as well. We shall see.

Craig,

If what you mean by your quote is that we should remain curious then I certainly agree.

John B,

I agree that there is a part of our culture that would just assume as you put it attempt to codify and rationalise and pigeon-hole everything that is certainly anti-craft, anti-art and incidentally; anti-science. You cannot defend art from science because art does not need defending - from science. It needs defending from that culture of pigeon holes. And incidentally science needs protection from them too. And as a side note i am not sure typography, font making or even letter making is just an art. I think you are still so to speak setting aside intellectual homelands. This canton for Typographers that one for Scientists... Is that correct? If it is, I can't think that's healthy. Different ways of looking at things is a bit like different tools; my saw should have no cause to envy my hammer even if they both work on wood.

As the majority know little or nothing about science and its methods, then I fear that it is indeed inevitable; men in white coats selling shampoo and diet pills comes to mind yet again. It's time for you to stop holding the wrong party accountable. This is marketing.

It’s the theory that you need to concentrate on; I am busy working on this now. And I am keen on it's being tested in the fullness of time. And in the meantime if the culture of type wants to bury it's head in sand that won't help one bit.

the past 500 years Or even longer; 5000 years or more if you care to admit scribes and stone carvers to the group!

Dan,

It is nothing more I think it's a little more...

Whether or not Big Science, PhD can publish an article about readability and legibility has no impact on the careful observations of centuries of typographers. If by this you mean that science must remain irrelevant then I cannot agree. If you mean that science is not a threat but merely adds it's offering to their observations then I agree.

”…has no impact…”?

Science does more than measure. In my reading I encounter terms like “salience,” “response bias,” and “cue value,” and because I am unhappy with the cognitive processing connotations of the term “word recognition” I propose “visual wordform resolution” to describe the perceptual processing component in reading.

My aim in doing this is to give type designers new and useful ways of seeing what they are doing when they manipulate proportions, contrast, weight and construction. That is, I want to expand the repertoire of constructs by which we channel our actions, or according to which we make our assessments. What I think we are doing (when we say we are improving legibility or enhancing readability) is manipulating cue-values, strengthening response bias, managing salience, improving perceptual discrimination affordances in such a way that the ease and automaticity of visual wordform resolution is enhanced. I want to expand — or diversify beyond the conventional, rather contentious ones we use — the repertoire of personal constructs we use to channel are actions or make our assessments. Metanoia

(I am also interest in “crowding” and “interfacilitation” because they seem to hold a key, but that’s anther story.)

I think of type design as both a fine art and an exact science. It is an exact science because, beyond the simple requirement of making a recognizable letter ”m,” manipulating salience and cue values is a game of tiny incremental adjustments in conformity with the laws of gestalt vision. The fine art is in knowing where to make the adjustments.

I'm back, so some responses:

>Bill, reading is not an ailment.

I didn't say it was. That's a red herring. But there are indeed reading ailments, known as dyslexia. Your view here seems to be that scientists should not research reading, because their work is never going to be of help. And that I think that any restriction on scientific research--except for ethical issues of ill treatment of human research subjects, etc.--is a bad idea. It is opposed to the growth of knowledge, which can help us all.

>How much is the bet?

David, I would say a good 'stakes' would be a good lunch for all the participants of this thread at a type conference five years from now. And say Eben could be the referee on whether there has been any significant advance on readability.

I personally doubt that future discoveries in reading are going to discover that classic type faces, printed on paper at the usual sizes, have something fundamentally wrong with them. However, I do think that the progress will be able to tell us more about the limits of readable type: what screen resolution is needed, what spacing becomes dysfunctional, and so on. So I do think they will be able to guide the creation of new type faces, though more than readability will always be involved.

>manipulating salience and cue values is a game of tiny incremental adjustments in conformity with the laws of gestalt vision.

I very much like Peter's phrase here "the laws of gestalt vision". We are able to "resolve", as he puts it, marks on paper into meaningful words, and I am sure there is law-like process in our brain that good theory can describe and good testing reveal in the future. My bet, as I said is five years. We'll see.

Your view here seems to be that scientists should not research reading, because their work is never going to be of help.

I'm all for the science of reading, and for incorporating typographic expertise into that research.
But I don't believe that readability is a scientific concept.
It's too soft. Which is to say that there are too many cultural variables: typographic, environmental, demographic and textual.
There is also the issue of what yardstick to use: speed is too trite, while comprehension and retention of anything other than simple grammar and facts is the preserve of the humanities, is it not?

Scientizing typography will do more harm than good: it's a job for designers, not technicians.

But I don’t believe that readability is a scientific concept.

I don't believe that concepts are there to be balkanized; in other words they don't necessarily belong exclusively to one area of information or study rather than another.

I am unclear on what you mean by Scientizing but it does sound catastrophic. Even without know yet I suspect that scientizing typography isn't going to happen. I am fairly certain that's a straw dog.

Instead; if we are lucky we typographers & type makers might have a situation a bit more like another deeply human and sensorially rich activity: cooking. For the cook there are nutrtionists, agonomists, biologists, and culinary anthopologists. None of which stop me from cooking any way I like. On the other hand I do draw on their observations from time to time. How is food any less complex than Typography? Moreover there is no rush to displace cooks from their jobs by the dreaded white coats...

As you know I don't think that Science is all good all the time. It can be used for "bad stuff" the same way Typography can. So I am happy to point out the obvious counter-argument of all the heavily processed food made with the help of "food scientists". It's a hell of an counter example. Maybe this is the kind of thing you mean when you say Scientizing.

But the counter-counter argument might be increasing use of composting and also the food experiments of Ferran Adrià. Having eaten at the restaurant of one of his proteges, Jordi Butrón's Espai Sucre in Barcelona I can say that I was definitely getting the sense that in this case science was being used to enhance the humanities.

>Which is to say that there are too many cultural variables: typographic, environmental, demographic and textual.

Um, we are talking about type here. Yes, one can write unreadable prose, but we are talking about the contribution of type. Good experimentation separates the influence of different variables. The idea you seem to be assuming--that in principle the influence of different variables can't be separated--is just wrong. It isn't easy, but it it is done all the time in science. If you couldn't separate the influence of different variables there would be no successful scientific research, which is clearly not the case.

>while comprehension and retention of anything other than simple grammar and facts is the preserve of the humanities, is it not?

No, it's not, in so far as typography is also an influence. You can have a text book on a difficult subject, and a good typeface and good typography can help make it more readable. Of course, how well the writer writes is critical.

Eben's analogy to the influence of science on cooking is superb: science helps the cook, but isn't going to make a mediocre home cook a great chef. It can help both, though. For example, Julia Child turned to food scientist Shirley Corriher. And I cook a little better because of her science-based advice also.

Same with advances in readability of type and typography. It would help the amateur and the expert, but not turn one into the other, because so much more is involved.

Bill: "David, I would say a good ’stakes’ would be a good lunch for all the participants of this thread at a type conference five years from now. "

I'm much more interested in targeted cash, and not at all in a bunch of freeloaders getting in on my winnings.
You wanna put your money where my mouth is, that's fine, the rest can make their own bets.

Peter: "The fine art is in knowing where to make the adjustments."
I agree, with the even finer art knowing where not to make the adjustments. ;)

John: "I don’t yet see a complete description of how we read, and that makes me very wary about trying to draw practical conclusions in terms of ’doing things differently’ in type design, which is what we’re all concerned about isn’t it"

It's already been done. The renderings of the OS all went to doing things differently without letting the type or the designers 'at it' properly. A year ago you were in utter denial, now... crappy 'variations' will be brought to us by.... 'filtering expertz'.

Cheers!

I don’t believe that concepts are there to be balkanized; in other words they don’t necessarily belong exclusively to one area of information or study rather than another.

Phrenology, graphology, the ego and the id have been banished from the scientific sphere, as has the study of race and intelligence.

By the same token, realism lost its credibility in art long ago. Art students don't study life drawing any more, or even drawing. Representation is the preserve of photography.

scientizing typography isn’t going to happen. I am fairly certain that’s a straw dog.

OK, how do you implement a disability policy that provides access for the reading challenged to important documents? Do you pass a Legibility Act that stipulates only certified typographic practitioners may produce such reading material, or one that stipulates certain physical criteria for typography?

The latter is what's happening, and, as has already been pointed out, scientific claims have been made in the marketing pitch for faces such as Read Right and Tiresias, which do not stand close scrutiny.

With regard to the food analogy, this is something I've considered, but I wish you guys would stop making analogies, there's nothing like type!

Good experimentation separates the influence of different variables. The idea you seem to be assuming—that in principle the influence of different variables can’t be separated—is just wrong.

You're assuming I'm assuming. What I actually said was there are too many variables. As Peter put it "...a decontextualized descision based soley on simple or generic affordance micro-advantages [is] short-sighted."

And again, I would ask you to make the distinction between studying reading, and studying readability.
Certainly, the variables can be limited in tests that are designed to address particular aspects of the reading process.
However, the putative study of typeface readability is impossible, because there are too many extraneous factors which skew the results.

OK, here comes an analogy: manners.
Science can study manners--anthropology or sociology --but it's not its job to offer etiquette tips.
Readability is like manners, typographers use certain types and "style sheets" for different kinds of publication.
If the wrong typespec is used, readability will tank.
How can science assign a particular typeface a readability quotient when it is good manners to use it in one kind of periodical, but a faux pas in another? Sure, you isolate the variable and say, THIS quotient IF these circumstances. And so on, as you take account of all the variables--the reader's education and eyesight, where they're reading, what the writing is, and so on, not to mention the typographic variables of size, leading, line length, and paper stock. Do you really believe that the appropriateness of typefaces doesn't vary drastically against one another as such circumstances change?

>too many variables

Nick, that amounts to the same thing. The point is that with good experimentation you can get the influence of one variable. Blood is incredibly complex--probably as complex as reading--but medical testing regularly isolates different components to detect and diagnose illness.

>OK, here comes an analogy: manners.
Science can study manners—anthropology or sociology —but it’s not its job to offer etiquette tips.

It may not be its job, but it can help those who want to be polite or to offer etiquette tips. For example, the book Questions and Politeness points out that there is a conflict between being clear, as is a priority in debate for the growth of knowledge, and politeness. The goal in politeness is avoid embarrassment to anybody in the conversation. For that reason vague, open-ended questions, such as 'How do you do', are standard polite questions. Pointed, personal, close-ended questions, like "How much money did you make last month?" and "When did you have last have sex with your wife?" are rude.

I think the lessons for etiquette tips are pretty obvious. As is the challenge of trying to have a debate for the sake of better understanding--such as this one--while maintaining politeness.

As Kant said "There is nothing so practical as a good theory." A good theory is true, and therefore has practical applications. I have no doubt the same would be true for advances in the scientific study of readability.

It’s already been done. Phooey. Not the same thing at all. Letting technical folk try to solve something outside of their base of knowledge is not the same thing as having something studied from a new angle or better put : using a different process; ideally with some input from Typographers. Being technical is not the same as being scientific, even if science is used for creating technology. But your point about it being a mistake to not let "designers ’at it’ properly" is a solid one.

The latter is what’s happening, and, as has already been pointed out, scientific claims have been made in the marketing pitch for faces such as Read Right and Tiresias, which do not stand close scrutiny.And what close scrutiny will show is that it was faux science if it is*. And actually, that will be more useful to say than simply "this is the realm of the humanities"! So if you had more scientists involved the faux science would be easier to debunk.

....the study of race and intelligence All of these turned out to be mistaken theories. "Race" for example turns out to be construct that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It was just an over-fixation on one variable:skin. Instead; now a more complex reality emerges. So looking at genetics, environment, nutrition, behavior and abilities etc. hasn't stopped. If Readability turns out to be a flawed theory maybe the same thing will happen with type - a more complex reality can emerge.

* I admit that that I haven't spent time looking at either fonts of the marketing associated with them. Perhaps I will this week.

Eben, here is the definition:

Scientism: The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.

So phooey to you, because "technical folk out of their depth" are the very people most apt to be scientistic.

>I’m much more interested in targeted cash, and not at all in a bunch of freeloaders getting in on my winnings. You wanna put your money where my mouth is, that’s fine, the rest can make their own bets.

But you're going to lose :)

In any case lunch will be a pleasure, whether I pay or you do, so that's fine with me.

The problem is finding the referee who's going to decide whether there was significant progress on 'readability'.

>the distinction between studying reading, and studying readability.

If you can study reading, I don't see why you can't study readability. As I said, you aren't going to capture everything, particularly in the beginning, but I don't see why you can't identify factors that contribute to or hurt the ease of reading, which is what readability is. I expect that researchers will be able to identify thresholds where bad leading and spacing start to significantly hurt ease of reading, and these will be quite objective.

Perhaps a better way to describe what we should oppose is the illusory belief or expectation that adequate or fitting decisions about the right or best course of action can or should be based principally or exclusively on naked evidential knowledge of cause and effect.

…ease…

The problem with studying readability under your definition is, the researcher has to propose an understanding of ease in order to isolate and investigate. Is ease to be thought of as the sustainability of immersion with comprehension over large periods of time, or is it to be thought of in terms of the lightness of the computational load in neurological processing terms, or is it to be thought of in terms of the rapidness or automaticity of visual wordform resolution, or is it to be thought of in terms of perceptual attentional demands, or is it to be thought of in terms of the abscence of physiological stress.

All these are somewhat more tractable than ease, and probably related, but none of them really covers all we mean in ordinary, everyday terms, by ease, so a result derived from only one of it's more quantifiable dimensions can't bring us to where we want to be. And there is a naturally tendency for that to happen.

[added “with studying readability under your definition” at the begining later]

The definition I am using is the one from my late Uncle J. Ben Lieberman's book ‘Types of Typefaces,’ from 1967:

“'Legibility' is based on the ease with which one letter can be told from the other. 'Readability' is the ease with which the eye can absorb the message and move along the line."

Generally as there is progress in science, there is refinement in the meaning of terms, such as the distinction between 'mass' and 'weight' that came in with Newtonian physics. So I'm sure there will be further clarification and refinement in the meaning of 'readability' as more is understood of the reading process. What I am claiming is that there is more to readability than the ease of distinguishing one letter from another. These additional aspects of readability is what I hope and expect there will be progress on.

Any of the alternative description you put forward may win out, but they will all be about 'readability' in the sense that they involve more than ease of individual letter identification.

David: It’s already been done. The renderings of the OS all went to doing things differently without letting the type or the designers ’at it’ properly. A year ago you were in utter denial, now... crappy ’variations’ will be brought to us by.... ’filtering expertz’.

I was talking about me doing things differently, not rendering engines. What a rendering engine does might force me to do some things differently, but that's different from reading science directly influencing design decisions. A rendering engine can make my life difficult whether it is based on reading science, focus group response, unfounded optimism about gains in screen resolution, or voodoo.

Is what the rendering engines do, in fact, based on reading science? I don't think it is. Retroactively, some reading science is being applied to figure out whether particular rendering models have advantages over others, and that may affect the future development of those models, but I think the decisions to ship ClearType, CoolType or Quartz, were as anecdotally driven as they come: they made it, they liked the way it looked, they shipped it.

Denial? I'm just a bit slow: slow enough to spend 18 months designing a typeface to address a conflicting set of requirements without really understanding how they are conflicting.

Nonetheless, it must have been quite a ride.
But what I really want to know is, what's the scoop on Jelle Bosma's Greek and Cyrillic?
Did they fail the readability test?

Nick, under your definition of Scientism it appears that you might be as "guilty" as I of this "ism" because you appear to appreciate Peter's work -as do I. This is in part because as provided the definition itself is more charged than clear.

Certainly if by Scientism you mean that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are to be considered not merely potentially applicable; but further that they are priviliged; then I am am as ready as you are to condemn Scientism. Usually an "ism" supposes a privileged position for the thing being mentioned before the "ism". "Ism"s are just dogma, not theory; and they offer false certainty and stunt curiosity.

This is ( I think what peter is talking about when he says Perhaps a better way to describe what we should oppose is the illusory belief or expectation that adequate or fitting decisions about the right or best course of action can or should be based principally or exclusively on naked evidential knowledge of cause and effect.. Peter please disabuse me if I am wrong.

What worries me almost as much as Scientism though; is is reactionary Anti-scientism. It's no better.

Although I am no doubt flogging a dead horse by now I will say again: It isn't necessary that "the investigative methods of the physical sciences" be either subservient, equal or superior. What needed is mutual respect, curiosity and interest among the various "modes of inquiry" as they used to say back at my college during the 80's. All this bristling and fuming at "Science"* in the thread does nothing to help that along. Still from what I have read I wonder if we don't agree agree on far more than we disagree on. We both have significant respect for the caprices of the eye when making fonts for instance.

Perhaps what is left is mostly a question of how relatively worried or unworried we are about threats from faux-science being wielded by marketing.

* I am using quotes here because as often as not it wasn't Science per se but the claim that it was.

John, Bill & Peter thanks for your interesting posts!

[reacting to Bill’s] "Any of the alternative description you put forward may win out…"

I don't see them as alternative descriptions but functional-specification proposals. And the issue for me isn’t which wins out but what gets looked at, and how what gets looked at is named. They all need to acknowledged for what they are, and explored for how they function. My prefered genral category to describe the domain I’m in is perceptual processing in reading.

The danger with designating a science of legibility or readability as the research goal is the danger, in the case of readability, of turning a value into a number, and in the case of legibility, af creating a reliance on threshold statistics (in the domain of perceptual discrimination affordance) for relevant information about functionality at a plateau (in the domain of visual wordform resolution).

That being said, I'm all for constructing legibility quotients and readability profiles. I'm just sensitive to how they are constructed and used. If concerns for readability and legibility are included in the brief, these shouldn't be a threat. And they shouldn't be all there is to consider.

"Phooey."?
I was at an early publication of the latest mass discontinuity between test type and user: first the dreamer gave his ideas, then the scientist gave his scientifically studied presentation, then the type designer showed how simple it was going to be to make fonts, and then the typographer showed beautiful stuff a bit too far away to see. Kevin, before he was Kevlar, gave the scientific explaination for reading, which he still believes and which still inspires this CT effort, I think. It revolves around letters, not sylables, words, or lines — people read letters. I got close to him at Typecon, not just because I like him, but also to make sure he would say it three times while I was right there. "Chinese?" "No," "the word 'a'?", "NO," "youth vs expertise?" "Noooooo, people read letters one saccade at a time!

So, unless 'Ready Rendering Skills' lead science to bad reading science, and influenced type design decisions, an unthinkable thing, then Science did it. ;) By, ready rendering skills, in this case I mean the ability, for better or for worse, to cleave the resolution into components, not triple the resolution, as is so often claimed. Read the MS 'white paper' on anti-aliasing type, which 'scientifically' led this off. It measures, prods and pokes around the solution without ever mentioning type, or typography. This last study, if Sheedy only lets MS change the filter, (and not the oil or driver;), it is not going to change the fundamentally saccade-hiccupic nature in low resolution text across the Windows universe. This is not my fault, who ever let that French guy name this bluddy eye movement? it's their fault.

" I’m just a bit slow:"
Me too, has something to do in my case, with having to ceaselessly pry into the seemingly endless 'overlays' upon the concept of text for readability. I'd give up, but that each overlay leaves such fertile ground for custom work...I'm just a busy bunch of monkeys in the orchestra of type.

"...is what the rendering engines do, in fact, based on reading science? I don’t think it is."
I great question, No, in the strictest sense rendering engines do not do anything based on reading science, they are non-sentient e-world objects. But, who, or what, are these scientific studies of CT done for, if not for the engineering staff(s) who render rendering engines? Kevlar just said, 5 filterings were tested in their scientific study, and 2 filterings were released to the developing public. Maybe he knows then? Is what the rendering engines do, in fact, based on reading science? Or, are the renderings which are released, released based on reading science?

Cheers!

What worries me almost as much as Scientism though; is is reactionary Anti-scientism. It’s no better.

I am not a reactionary, I am progressive, and that has nothing to do with science. I just think we should move forward and leave a lot of past garbage behind (suitably recycled).

I am not anti-science, I am "anti-scientism", because I dislike all forms of totalitarian-ism.

which he still believes and which still inspires this CT effort, I think.

Well, if the folks in the Microsoft typography department want to stay busy and keep their jobs, they have to have something to develop. The boss will fund projects with measurable results; he is an engineer and runs a large-volume, small margin business, so that's understandable. Having a scientific readability component in a type-development project, one that is able to produce a result such as "5% faster", does the trick. This much I gleaned from the CT documentary video that MS published.

So although the people involved may be variously inspired, the CT project itself exists as a condition of the way the business works.

So I am happy to point out the obvious counter-argument of all the heavily processed food made with the help of “food scientists”. It’s a hell of an counter example.

There was an interesting show on public radio this morning about how food science (and marketing, and journalism) encourage people to eat much less healthfully. I know this seems off-topic, but I think the analogy might have some legs, and indeed Michael Pollan (the author who was the guest on the radio show) seems to be identifying similar dynamics in the food supply world that Nick is calling out in the type world.

Francis Bacon said: "Knowledge is power." Scientific knowledge is power that can be used for good or ill. It is up to us to use it wisely.

The romantic reactionary view of science always points to the misuse of science to oppose or limit science. Science is misused, but I don't think that's an argument against scientific research, unless humanity is hopeless at managing the added power that comes with science, and science-based technology. It is a serious question whether we can manage scientific knowledge for the good, but I don't see a lot of volunteers to become subsistence farmers.

I would like to see an effort to use science responsibly rather than abandon research.

Incidentally 'scientistic' according to the wikipedia article can mean pseudo-science or the misuse of science, and it can also mean the view that the methods of the physical science apply elsewhere, such as in the social sciences.

How far the methods of the physical sciences can be applied beyond their origins is an interesting question*, but in the case of cognition and perception I think the evidence is clear that it is possible to develop testable theories and test them.

*You can access my article on the subject here if you are interested.

The romantic reactionary view of science

It is a serious question whether we can manage scientific knowledge for the good, but I don’t see a lot of volunteers to become subsistence farmers.

Enough already with the false dilemmas!
I'm not a romantic reactionary--I'm making a distinction between reading research: good, and readability research: impossible.

And you don't have to be a subsitence farmer to question the agri-business complex.

David wrote: Kevlar just said, 5 filterings were tested in their scientific study, and 2 filterings were released to the developing public. Maybe he knows then? Is what the rendering engines do, in fact, based on reading science? Or, are the renderings which are released, released based on reading science?

The five filtering are all options that have been available in MS Reader for many years. Only the three most popular were made options in WPF, though I would have preferred all five been made available as options. The ClearType filtering option that was used in WinXP was selected by our typographers.

Our team now consists of two typographers, three engineers, and one scientist. We now have the ability to collect data from readers, which we use as an additional source of data for making decisions. As I wrote in the engineering magazine IEEE Spectrum, each of the three branches of our team plays an important role in improving the reading experience. There isn’t a fight between science and typography.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/print/5049

Cheers, Kevin

>readability research: impossible

As I have already explained, your argument against readability research doesn't hold water. 'Too many variables' is not a good argument against further research into a problem because it can always be said, including about problems where it has already been proven wrong by successful solutions.

When there are new insights in theory, and new experimental designs, then important variables are identified, and their influence tested for.

William, you can generalize till the cows come home, but it won't get you very far.

Do you really believe that it is possible to test enough of the variables involved in reading to create an index of readability for typefaces, which has any practical value?

The same is true for any of the variables.

Is 9 pt more readable than 10 pt?
--By people aged 16 or 60?
--With high or low IQ?
--For serif or sans faces?

Is 10 pt leading more readable than 12 pt leading?
--With old style or modern faces?
--With 8 picas line length or 28 picas?
--Ragged or justified?

Is Perpetua more readable than Times?
--On the bus to work, in bed, or in a reading lab?
--In bright daylight or poor artificial light?
--On newsprint or coated stock?

Is sans more readable than serif?
--for a novel or a technical manual?
--for paper or lcd monitor (and at what setting)?
--for short or long paragraphs?

And so on.

>index of readability

Nick, I never mentioned anything about an index of readability. You are arguing against a straw man.

I argued that there would be scientific progress in understanding readability.

Your options are so primitive that you must think scientists are required to be stupid, which is not the case. You might just as well argue that we can't prescribe corrective lenses because there are so many different ways we can see badly, and so many causes of bad vision. But they do measure these many variables, and prescribe successfully.

As any one who studies typography at all knows, the different factors of type face, leading, spacing etc. interact to produce a product which is more or less readable.

Scientists can test for a combinations of these variables, or for other variables which they might be able to isolate.

For example Bill Hill of Microsoft mentioned at TypeCon that the reason for the 65 character line width of a single book column being ideal, and more than 75 a problem is that at normal reading distances we have to turn our heads, and not just our eyes for longer measures. I believe the argument was that we are less efficient at moving along the line or to the next line, This is a kind of thing you can actually check by seeing how the readers' eyes move, and their change in reading speed.

I don't know whether this has been tested, but according to you it would be pointless and worthless, I gather, because it is 'readability research'--it tests how measure affects readability.

To shift the debate into what I would guess might be more useful territory let me ask: What specifically would you be interested in having studied? Serif shapes? Contrast? Rendering schemes? What ( if any) studies if any have been most influential on you?

And to move away from dubious gladiatorial battles between fonts that we all seem to agree are not to the point - let me see if we agree instead to something else: That if something about type is to studied via a scientific process that the best idea is to take a single typeface as a control and then make a specific micro typographic adjustments to a version of it. A study could be serif oriented, or contrast or a whole variety of things. This would be a way of reducing variables massively but obviously not completely. But most important it would be a way of doing science useful to typographers. And not coincidentally it paralelels the way a type designer works. Of course it would be prudent/useful not note the variables you think are still in play as well, demographics for instance.

In a way I was a little hesitant to even mention the idea -it is no doubt the obvious thing. In fact I can well imagine Peter or Kevin rolling their eyes. Still, I am interested to hear if you do or don't agree.

Personally I would be interested in seeing individual examples contextual alternatives tested in this way because I am guessing that holds special promise to increase comfort. What do you think?

Your options are so primitive that you must think scientists are required to be stupid,

What's your point, Bill? ;-)

And to move away from dubious gladiatorial battles between fonts that we all seem to agree are not to the point

Sorry Eben, that is the point.
Bill says we're not talking about the scientific production of an index of readability for typefaces.
But please explain how measuring the "whatever-ability" of a group of items does NOT result in an index/table of their relative merit?

Eben, the test you are suggesting is, as you say, appropriate for font development, where the variable is a feature of a particular typeface. If you varied the typeface, how would you know what realm of difference you were measuring? If typeface A has bigger serifs than typeface B, how do you know it is serif size and not some other difference you are measuring? If all that's different is one article of vocabulary, such as serif style, it's the same typeface.

I'd say you need at least two or three co-variant themes of a typeface to be different from one type to another, for it to be considered an original design.

To shift the debate into what I would guess might be more useful territory let me ask: What specifically would you be interested in having studied?

Reading is a human activity carried out every day by millions of people who speak and think in many hundreds of languages and who read and write in dozens of different writing systems. This suggests to me that any understanding of the mechanics of reading that does not involve empirical data from multiple scripts and languages is not really an understanding of reading per se, it is only an understanding of reading a particular script (and most likely a particular language written in that script, given the limitations of most studies). So what I would like to see is studies that are designed to produce comparable data for reading in multiple writing systems.

I have an hypothesis, which is that word or phrase recognition is built up from recognition of the base distinct 'atoms' of any given writing system, with the latter recognition involving sub-atomic role architecture and/or molecular (multi-atom) compounds as needed by the individual reader encountering a given text.

The interesting aspects of this hypothesis, I think, is that for some writing systems I don't think we know yet what constitutes an atom. For the typical typographic Latin script I'm pretty sure the atom is the letter, and studies seem to confirm this. But what is the atom in Chinese? The ideograph or the radical? What is the atom in Hindi? The letter or the syllable? What is the atom in Arabic? The letter or the segment? And, for that matter, does the atom of the Latin script change depending on whether one is reading disconnected typographic letters or connected script?

I have another, contradictory hypothesis, which is that there are no atoms, there are only waves, and what we make use of in reading varies all the time depending on a large variety of in-textual and extra-textual factors.

But please explain how measuring the “whatever-ability” of a group of items does NOT result in an index/table of their relative merit? This is pretty vague.

If typeface A has bigger serifs than typeface B, how do you know it is serif size and not some other difference you are measuring? Serifs are particularly complicated. I won't say they can't be studied though. There are lots of aspects to break down if you were so inclined.

If all that’s different is one article of vocabulary, such as serif style, it’s the same typeface. Not the same. Very closely related.

I’d say you need at least two or three co-variant themes of a typeface to be different from one type to another, for it to be considered an original design. Ah yes. But that isn't how you build up a strong case for something scientifically. Science would be better off not making a new design - that's your job. Instead science must take little baby steps. And at last with many many tests perhaps enough data is collected & interpreted so as to be useful to you. Maybe a whole matrix of these co-variant themes could be built up...

Sorry Eben, that is the point. I think it isn't so much the point so much as it's your favorite bugbear. Maybe after I read more about scientistic typefaces & the marketing of them I will get more worried. But even if I do it won't make me think you can always save people or committees from seeking false security in scientism. You can try. But it isn't going to work every time. I will also doubt that can you always save them from marketing hype. And even if you could; neither goal is advanced by demonizing science's potential participation in type. Instead it is the thinness of the claims that is to be pointed out, and counter examples offered and criticisms made - ideally both humanities and science based.

I am interested not in listing the hot type for a all purposes but in understanding how to design better fonts for a particular purpose, in a particular environment for a given group of folks etc. But I think that willfully leaving the potential benefit/information that science might offer out my bag of tricks is simply nutty. There are aspects of type design that I would just assume not even ask a scientist about because my sense is they are not interesting questions. On the other hand I bet there are some aspects of type that have eluded the best efforts of the humanities to grip that might be better plumbed using scientific techniques. To reiterate; I am not proposing that we worship science in our design process', and nobody here is that I can tell. But I do think there is room for them to help or collaborate with us.

Thanks John!

What an interesting discussion to have walked into. It seems to me that—as is almost always where matters of aesthetics are involved—is finding some kind of ideal balance between the objective and the subjective. And I just don’t know that there’ll ever be a solution that works for all. Does make me want to re-read Colin Wheildon’s Type and Layout: Are you communicating or just making pretty shapes, however.

This discussion also makes me realize how easy it is to become lost in the trees, when there’s a forest all around that bears dealing with somehow. I’m glad I’m mostly busy enough making books to have time to consider this to the degree I might if I had more time.

I envy you folks your self-discipline, being able to take part in this running conversation and then move on to your work. I’m going to have to force myself to clean up and get ready for work this morning, instead of re-reading the whole discussion very slowly.

>But please explain how measuring the “whatever-ability” of a group of items does NOT result in an index/table of their relative merit?

Since multiple factors are involved in readability, I would not expect a single index that applies to all situations. But I would expect an indication of what is more readable in specific conditions when other variables are controlled.

For example, I would not expect differences to show between headlines of a few words in serif vs sans serif, when there is similar x-height, stem weight, width and spacing. However, a common view is that sans work less well for extended reading at text sizes, and specifically they require more leading to work decently. So if you control for x height and weight, I expect that serif type will be more readable at normal text sizes with tight leading. When we have good measures of readability this kind of difference will be detectable. One simple test will be whether the eye loses the line more often with tight leading in a sans that is otherwise similar to a serif. Also I have already suggested that testing the decline of comprehension of extended text, with time, might be another way to get at it. Another is to test for people's ability to catch errors in proof reading.

Also legibility is one factor in readability. I think that the tests of Clearview did show that they were more legible and more readable at distances under night conditions, particularly for older drivers. It doesn't mean they will be more readable in extended text at small sizes.

>What’s your point, Bill?
My point is that scientists will control for some variables to test others. In your post, you seemed to overlook that this possibility, a standard thing to do in scientific testing. The ability to control for some and detect others requires creativity. You assume or assert that scientific method is helpless in such situations, and as I repeatedly have pointed out, it's not.

What this discussion — to my mind — shows, is that we need a broader, more incisively denominated and diversified approach to functionality and value than the blunt instruments of ‘readability’ and ‘legibility’ provide. Considerations of ‘readability’ and ‘legibility’ can get us started, but a table of comparative measures can’t be where we end up.

John, I have a similar understanding as your wave and particle theories.

I would also compare the past to non-latin scripts, although we can't go back and test how we used to read.

I think it isn’t so much the point so much as it’s your favorite bugbear.

I thought bashing bundling and Helvetica were supposed to be my "favorite bugbears".

[Nick]: If all that’s different is one article of vocabulary, such as serif style, it’s the same typeface. [Eben]: Not the same. Very closely related.

If it's not the same typeface, but as close as that, someone's plagiarising (or there's a "revival" going on).

But I think that willfully leaving the potential benefit/information that science might offer out my bag of tricks is simply nutty.

As I've repeatedly said, I'm not proposing ceasing readability research, and behavioral testing may be very useful in product development. But I don't believe that performance rankings of the factors involved in typography will ever be any use to graphic designers and typographers.

You assume or assert that scientific method is helpless in such situations, and as I repeatedly have pointed out, it’s not.

I've given many examples of such situations and asked how the variables would be separated. You've beaten about the bush, generalized and analogized, and stated that scientists would use creative test-building. That's wishful thinking.

Let's return to Eben's example of making a study serif-oriented, and my rebutal. I do not consider it possible to isolate the variable of "serifness" from that of "typeface".

It would be possible to vary the serif of a typeface (Penumbra comes to mind) and test that, but testing, for instance, the "readability" of slab serifs versus bracketed serifs by testing Clarendon against Times makes no sense, as the test may be measuring the performance of angle of stress, or degree of stroke contrast, or something else, or combination thereof.

I doubt that a definition of slab serif is even possible, as may be infered from looking at the FontBook.

Another variable that effects the quality of serifness is inking/gain/raster mode. So for instance, you decide to test serifness against ink gain, varying Didot serif thickness (or length?) at 9 pt, on a particular stock, printed on a particular press, varying gain. With a certain class of readers, and a certain kind of text content. Let's assume you do this by modifying Bauer Bodoni. Well, I doubt the result would even hold for Berthold Bodoni. And what use would such information be to a designer, when all the variables of a particular job are different from those that weren't varied in the test scenario? Isn't there a scientific principle related to the "isolatability" of multi-variant phenomena? What do meteorological theorists call it? The science is getting soft, so rather than hard outcomes, probabilities.

I suspect that if the massive task of testing all the variables of reading against one another, for individual typefaces, were done, the best that may be said would be that there is a 30% probability that ITC Garamond is more readable than Adobe Garamond.

Nick: I would also compare the past to non-latin scripts, although we can’t go back and test how we used to read.

Robert Bringhurst wonders if people read differently when all literate people were writers as well as readers, i.e. if the manual familiarity with the making of letters, in a pre-typographic environment, affected reading.

William St Clair, in his Reading Nation, recounts how restrictive trade practices in England in the 18th and early 19th century made books too expensive for most people, and how it was quite common for readers to circulate "pirated" versions of works (especially narrative verse poems) in handwritten form.

Nick I am glad to see your argument is starting firm up. I am also struck at, and also unsurprised by your ability to imagine testing scenarios - which is great. There is something to the idea that you could as both a scientist and a typographer talk about types in a soft way or perhaps in an informed manner ( informed differently ) rather than a stiff, absolute, list oriented manner. If the reality is complex this is the only accurate way to talk about them. This doesn't preclude having meaningful things to say. It's just that these things will be rich/complex. This, as opposed to, and in a sense as a substitute for what hellbox was originally after.

It may be that you have acquired a 3rd bugbear. If 2, why not 3? I am with you for all 3 as far as I can see. I just don't stamp my foot as hard, and in the case of the most recent one I have a substitute in mind. It is starting to look as if you might too.

Peter, Thanks. I agree that "a table of comparative measures can’t be where we end up" is right. For one thing that simply isn't how the science would be done. Each experiment will have multiple ways in which it is out of sync with others. But what you can say is that if a variety of scientists run a variety of tests geared to a given hypothesis what you would be looking for is for the series to begin to accumulate support for or begin to undermine that hypothesis. This is a simple scenario. More complicated ones exist! You would be hoping to be able to say this hypothesis seems to hold some water or it doesn't. Sometime the hypothesis itself or the methodology was ill conceived and you don't get to say either thing. And there is room to disagree about these things. So the reason you cannot have a list is that Science ( and most fields of inquiry) is more complicated than a list or matrix can describe. Peter, Kevin, is this sort of fair so far?

But if you have successful experiments for a given question and you go on to do another series and another after a long building on those experiments that seem to actually show something useful you can begin to have a picture emerge of what seems to be going on. Do enough of this and a theory can start to look pretty solid. A theory like evolution for instance.

It will be a very very long time before all the variables of reading have hypothesis' and have been tested out meaningfully. And before you can attempt that you have to have a theory about what those might be etc. So at our current rate of burn the mere possibility of doing a meaningful ITC Garamond vs. Adobe Garamond "readability" test must be 1000s of years away. It's an awful lot of work for a pretty banal question. That's why I think that targeted testing of what seems like an interesting or useful variable that is hard to crack by other humanistic means has to be where it's at.

That is why I would agree that isolating the variable of “serifness” is probably not that interesting or useful. On the other hand I do think it would be interesting to craft experiments towards a better understanding of what is going on with serifs and different serif designs and so on. There are many ways of looking at that.

John, I think Robert is probably correct.

Eben, I completely agree with your assessment:

But what you can say is that if a variety of scientists run a variety of tests geared to a given hypothesis what you would be looking for is for the series to begin to accumulate support for or begin to undermine that hypothesis. This is a simple scenario. More complicated ones exist! You would be hoping to be able to say this hypothesis seems to hold some water or it doesn’t. Sometime the hypothesis itself or the methodology was ill conceived and you don’t get to say either thing.

Science is not a complete collection of facts, but a fluid process for learning about a topic. It requires creativity and a deep understanding of the topic. A study or piece of data is not the final product; It is the starting point for learning and developing more accurate theories.

>You’ve beaten about the bush, generalized and analogized, and stated that scientists would use creative test-building. That’s wishful thinking.

I am not doing wishful thinking. My point, which you have not responded to, it that your 'too many variables' argument has been refuted so many times in history that it's not credible.

Over and over in history it turned out to be foolish to say 'science can't study this' about any phenomenon. Maybe I am misreading you, but when it comes to readability I am very surprised that you appear to be taking the position of the medieval church on Galileo.

Contrary to what you say, I have also been specific on testing readability. I have proposed two ways to test for the readability of serif vs sans serif text size types in extended text with tight leading--using a decline in comprehension with time and a decline in quality of proof-reading as measures. I don't know if either of these measures will turn out to be good, though I think they have a shot. Can you explain to me why in principle these and every other measure will fail?

Maybe I am misreading you, but when it comes to readability I am very surprised that you appear to be taking the position of the medieval church on Galileo.

To clarify, what was that position? I ask because a lot of people think they know what the issue was about, but most of them have not read the trial transcript. You might have, Bill, and you might be ascribing to Nick a position that is more subtle than people might assume by the mention of Galileo.

Bill your first test tells us how the sustainability of immersion with comprehension is modulated (if at all) in tightly line-spaced settings by the presence or abscence of serifs of a certain dimension at the terminations of strokes.

I like information about how sustainability of immersion with comprehension is modulated by type-related parametric change. What this does is pin-point something quite specific. What I think it tells me is that type-related parametric change has a “perceptual processing in reading” effect.

My question than is: what, in perceptual processing terms, do serifs really do. Saying they make a thing more readable doesn’t tell me about what I think I want to know. Do they increase the distinctive cue-value of the features they are part of? Do they make counters and the spaces between letters more tractible and riveting for the eye by encapsulating them more fully so that they acquire a cue value of their own? Do they blur the letter-assignments of individual letter parts so that the bouma-integrity of the word as a whole asserts itself more strongly than each letter by itself? Do they mask variations in interletter spacing so that these variations don't become disruptive to the kind of perceptual processing that needs to happen?

I think this kind of progressive and highly instructive interrogation is pre-empted by moving quickly to the conclusion that one thing is more readable than the other, and that this can be known by applying your test, meanwhile leaving behind a more specific awareness of what we have come to know. Having discovered what I have come to see, I don't any longer have any great urge to generalize this into a statement about the broad experintial reality we've come to call readability.

If I were asked to comment about readability, my strategy might be to answer indirectly and state in specific terms a few of the things I've found. All I'd really want to say is: serifs, depending on their prominence and extent can have a very beneficially value, and without them, the pressure on interline and interletter spacing for acheiving satisfactory perceptual processing results is greater.

Stated this way, does my resistance to the heavy reliance on the rhetoric of legibility and readability in type-analytic contexts make any sense to you at all?

I am very surprised that you appear to be taking the position of the medieval church on Galileo.

Well, that's one way to discredit my argument.
I guess I should never have mentioned the Borg :-)

John, on Galileo, I wasn't thinking of the trial, and the philosophical position of the Cardinal Bellarmine, but of the priests who allegedly refused to look through Galileo's telescope and see the moons of Jupiter. They just didn't want to see scientific research happen. I am shocked that this seems to be Nick's position on research into readability.

Yes, there are a lot of bogus claims about readability, but I don't think that is a reason to stop research; I think it is rather a reason to try to get it done right.

>Stated this way, does my resistance to the heavy reliance on the rhetoric of legibility and readability in type-analytic contexts make any sense to you at all?

Well I agree with you--and Nick--that there won't be a general single measure of readability for all contexts. But I think that the concept of 'readability' is useful. The point of introducing the distinction, I am guessing was to say that there is more to readability than just how clearly the individual letters may be distinguished (legibility). Within the general concept, I'm sure a lot of further nuances can and will be distinguished as research progresses.

They just didn’t want to see scientific research happen. I am shocked that this seems to be Nick’s position on research into readability.

Bill, your rhetoric is fallacious.
Those priests were opposed to scientific research in principle. I'm not, I just think testing readability is poor science.

Bill, as accessible and ready-to-hand labels for broad experiential categories of affordance the terms readability and legibility have a relatively transparent, legitimate, even important, and stable use. As sharp and focused denominators of or designations for discrete and incisively differentiated areas of functionality the terms fall short. They lack specificity and bite.

Science by plotting thresholds and ranges of affordance in actual conditions of use, or looking closely at cognitively isolated dimensions of perceptual processing in reading does a service. It broadens and deepens this experiential knowldge of affordance with diverse and specific knowledge of actual functioning.

I think we all want to avoid the insidious typographic equivalent of racial profiling, thinking perhaps it might be evidence based. Nick is right in insisting it isn't warranted, either on humanitarian or on scientific grounds.

Saying I just think testing readability is poor science. could mean any number of things.

You might mean that science & type can't mix on a sort of all or nothing, oil & water / science vs. humanities model. Hopefully not.

Maybe you mean that saying that Science has not unlocked the question of readability. And that claims to the contrary are bogus. You might even say that Science alone isn't enough to do so*. All of that that I could agree with!

* Or even that it can't on purely Semantic grounds. Peter's point that Science isn't going to concern itself with the concept of Readability per se because as a concept is too imprecise, that is to say insufficiently atomized to match phenomena is also great point. Maybe that's what you are referring to.

But what I haven't heard you say yet is that Scientific study of reading; using the terms and conceptual frameworks appropriate, might over time contribute to our understanding reading. And that this work might contribute to font design. That it might inform the way we look at Readability in the humanities. These are not contradictory or clever dodges. The opposite is also true, insight from the humanities will necessarily be applied in Scientific theories.

Does anybody have a problem with this framework?

>insidious typographic equivalent of racial profiling

I agree with you generally, but this phrase is a little bizarre. There is bogus use of science and bad science. But if you're saying type that has feelings and rights, I'm not quite enough of a fanatic yet to agree :)

>Does anybody have a problem with this framework?

Sounds good to me.

insidious: "operating or proceeding inconspicuously, but with grave effect"

It's not that type has rights, but that profiling has consequences.

Maybe my “the ” in "the insidious typographic equivalent " should have been an “an”

Science isn’t going to concern itself with the concept of Readability per se because as a concept is too imprecise, that is to say insufficiently atomized to match phenomena is also great point. Maybe that’s what you are referring to.

That's what I've been saying all along. "Too many (unrelated) variables".

this work might contribute to font design.

It's all grist for the mill.
Samuel Coleridge used to attend Humphrey Davey's lectures "to replenish [his] stock of metaphors".

Take a look at the effect of scientific knowledge of the reading process so far, on type design.
To begin with, the very short descenders of Cheltenham (because the top part of letters were discovered to be more significant in the reading process).

Century Schoolbook was supposedly developed using reading research data, but I've never come across anything further about this. It certainly looks like an easy to read face, and has been much used in childrens' literature (the name helps!); but so has Garamond; both were favorites of Theodore Giesel (Dr. Seuss).

Lintotype's "Legibility" news fonts of the 1920s and 30s were concerned with opening up the counters: certainly the results produced a cleaner image, and the mantra has since always been in favour of open counters--but there is no scientific evidence that this actually improves reading! As John has suggested, let's consider non-latin scripts, and in Chinese and Japanese there are closed counters galore.

I think that closed counters may improve readability. For instance, consider the sequence "i_n", which may be confused with "m".

Saccadic scanning has been common knowledge since the 1940s -- there were Life magazine articles with call-outs on a photograph, showing "where men and women looked subconsciously" -- all very Freudian. I'm not sure whether that knowledge has ever informed a typeface design.

Claude Hopkins' work in the 1920s (he wrote Scientific Advertising, and developed split-run direct marketing as a means of testing the relative merit of different copy and layouts, measured in sales) was a great influence on David Ogilvy, who disseminated some of the successful readability principles in several of his How-To books. But not really much hardcore science there, more market research using statistical techniques.

Cyril Burt's A Psychological Study of Typography (with foreword by Stanley Morison) was noted in its time, but all Sir Cyril's oeuvre has been tarnished by his reputation for falsifying.

It's not as if scientific knowledge about how we read hasn't been available in the past. But has this been any use to the designers of the most-read faces, other than giving them a lever to create something new and different--has it produced more "readable" typefaces and typography?

Why are you, Eben and Bill, assuming things will be different soon? Isn't this the modernist fallacy which believes that the present age is the only high-tech era, and all previous eras were pre-modern? The blind faith in science, technology and progress that believes we are always on the threshold of discovering the way things REALLY work.

Thanks for all the examples. Very interesting! That i_n example is pretty cool.

One quibble: Saying “Too many (unrelated) variables” isn't at all what Peter is saying as far as I can see. Party because you were claiming that nothing that science could offer up could inform our understanding of Readability. As far I understand it Peter is saying thinking about Readability per se isn't what we are going to get up to in Science - but he isn't eliminating the possibility that our (humanist) understanding of Readability won't or couldn't be impacted by science. And probably the problem is that the variables are related when it comes to their impact and the tricky bit will be characterizing their relationships. Peter?

assuming things will be different soon? I don't think we are. And I don't think we have faith so much as curiosity. And perhaps some hopefulness. That's not so bad is it?

No, and if one is able to take criticism constructively and answer one's critics, so much the better.
Which is why I'm optimistic about the multi-disciplinary nature of Kevin's team at Microsoft, and respect his efforts to make reading research more typographically savvy. (But that won't dismount me from my anti-science-of-readability hobby-horse!)

>Too many (unrelated) variables

But the variables are related. For example, many books on typography state that if you have a long measure (over 65 lc letters), you can compensate by increasing the leading *to achieve good readability* .

So the concept of readability is still a useful one.

I shouldn't have agreed above totally with Eben, because I think it is a better way to put it that in different situations different designs are more readable, rather than to 'atomize' the concept of readability.

>won’t dismount me from my anti-science-of-readability hobby-horse!

Yeah, I'm sure you won't notice that you're sitting backwards on the horse, and it's running the wrong way :)

Didn't stop Crazy Horse from whipping some Custer *ss!

Bill, don't get me wrong here, I think readability is a viable issue to explore through humanist efforts. I just don't think science will study it directly. I don't say science couldn't impact our understanding of it though. Nick still might. Despite his praise for Kevin, he hasn't said - yet.

Nick, While your list was a interesting one it also shows how very very little was been done. Not as you would have it how impotent science must therefore be. With so little science done I think it is presumptive in the extreme to suggest what the outcome might or might not be. Moreover much of what you referred to was not science. It was theory. But not scientific theory.

So rather than a horse riding in the right or wrong direction I would say you have at best, a tiny little mouse baby to ride. Don't ride it - it's too small to take your weight.

Nick, I assume you are not saying that readability as an idea has no legs whatsoever. Am I correct? You are also not saying that all faces have more or less equal readability. Correct? You are just saying that it is a bad idea to take two faces that are quite close in readability and make superficial and importantly reductionist observations about them. No? Who would disagree with this?

>I just don’t think science will study it directly.

Huh? I guess I misunderstood you then.

Do you think that scientific tests like my proposed one above, comparing serif and sans fonts at given spacing, size and leading can't ever be informative about readability?

Nick, Eben, what's wrong with my specific proposal? Is it unscientific? Doesn't it test readability? Nick you complain about my being general, but you don't acknowledge or address my specific proposal.

Readability means generally speaking that text can be read with comfort, speed and comprehension. It may be that we have to disaggregate these three factors, but that's really no problem conceptually. These will simply be aspects of the general concept of readability, and they may have some complex relationship--which can be tested for.

The distinction between legibility--ability to distinguish letters readily from on another--and readability was I think to contend that there is more to readability than simple recognition of individual letters. By the way this has yet to be shown in any crucial experiment, so far as I know.

I guess I misunderstood you then. Maybe. Go back & look at what Peter wrote about Readability. I thought it was very helpful.

And here is an analogy while I am at it. Peter, Kevin, feel free to ding this up if you like...

Suppose you wanted to study Cuteness scientifically. You can't say scientifically what Cute is right off the bat so how do you study it? Are you blocked forever? No way! What can yo do?

You could create an objective set of criteria describing perhaps not even the thing that was meant to be cute or not cute but the reactions you thought were indicative of a person coming into contact with the "Cute". Get the right reactions ( whatever you have decided they are ) and you know what is cute. Bring subject & target together and report what you get. What is you are looking at? Reactions.

Or you could expose people to stimuli designed by you and ask them to report what was cute and so test hypotheses about what is needed for say a human face, or dog, or cartoon to be cute. Now it's reported reactions.

Or you could track eye movements. Whatever.

No matter how much you test you will not describe the whole phenomena! But you could start to figure out things about the impact of eye to mouth & eye to nose ratios ( or whatever objective phenomena you choose) on what people are willing or not willing to report as cute. Not too bad really.

Doing this you yourself could report that in a rough and casual manner "I am studying cute". You wouldn't be lying exactly. On the other hand you wouldn't be completely accurate either. You would be fudging because on some deeper level it is the atomized stand-ins for cuteness, the objective* phenomena to gauge that are being studied.

But back to Readability. If comfort, speed and comprehension are your standards for "Readability" then you face some problems. You have to define comfort. You have to define how you calculate speed. You have to define how you gauge comprehension. This is atomizing**. It's not common sense. But then it isn't meant to be. It's meant to be a reproducible scientific test.

This is what I mean by indirect. This is what I man by "contribute to". It isn't that there cannot be a relationship. It's that it has to be a certain kind of relationship. Not a bad kind. Just a different kind.

So this not lying thing is tricky. Nick wants to spin things one way so he says simply " You cannot study readability with Science". It's sort of true. In a specific way. But he is leaving out some important stuff in a statement like that. You can say "You can study readability with Science" and you are doing the same thing. Leaving out something.

Obviously we can't get into infinite detail all day so we fudge like this about lots of stuff. And most of the time it's okay. But on a thread like this it makes for a very long thread and talk about hobby horses.

So it isn't so much that what you described before was unscientific perhaps; but that it was under-scientific.

Also, I & Nick ( I think...) are not saying these is no such thing as Readability. (Or if Nick is he may be the only one.)

I hope this is helpful.

* As objective as you can imperfectly make them.
** Atomizing sounds a bit like all the life has gone out of it but I don't think thats accurate either.

Bill, here is my reaction to your talk of factors, and to your question about whether your proposal tests readibility:

Suppose we agree readability simply means it can be read. That that which can be read, can be read with comfort, speed and understanding, indicates that comfort speed and understanding are affordance-related, but not affordance-constitutive. Specifically, your proposed test tests "how the sustainability of immersion with comprehension is modulated (if at all) in tightly line-spaced settings by the presence or abscence of serifs of a certain dimension at the terminations of strokes.” That, literally, is what it tests. The readability is assumed. It doesn't anymore require testing, but the experience of reading can be enhanced. In this sense there is more to readibility than just that it can be read. But let's be pointed and specific about what it tests

The results of your test will tell us about exactly the same thing: how the sustainability of immersion with comprehension is modulated (if at all) in tightly line-spaced settings by the presence or abscence of serifs of a certain dimension at the terminations of strokes. This tells us about how affordances can presumably be enhanced.

If we want to know why, we will have to entertain hypothesis about how perceptual processing in reading works, and part of the reason why, might very well be that there is more to perceptual processing in reading than simple recognition of individual letters.

Unlike comfort, speed and understanding, criterial cue-values and proper salience of role architectural parts and their evoked forms are affordance-constitutive. Criterial cue-values and proper salience are the very things that make it possible to make out the identity of the letters.

I guess we are all trying here to find a language that is comfortable for us all. I'm not sure though that we are advancing in leaps and bounds. A way of speaking about or in a certain domain is in part a social contract. Maybe I've ridden my own little pony long enough.

>If comfort, speed and comprehension are your standards for “Readability” then you face some problems. You have to define comfort. You have to define how you calculate speed. You have to define how you gauge comprehension. This is atomizing**. It’s not common sense. But then it isn’t meant to be. It’s meant to be a reproducible scientific test.

Eben, I don't understand what is bothering you about 'atomizing'. When you have subcategories of a general category, the general category doesn't vanish. Because people can be 'atomized' into male and female do human beings become impossible to study scientifically? You can't study feet scientifically because there are male feet and female feet? No, you study both, the similarities and differences. But they're still feet, and you can study them with observation and experiment.

Similarly, because you can distinguish different aspects of readability, and characteristics of type that are more readable in different circumstances, it doesn't invalidate the concept of readability or make it only possible to study 'humanistically'. You just study the different aspects.

Comfort, speed, and comprehension can and have been already be measured scientifically.

I would get at "comfort" first of all by self-report. In Kevin's report at ATypi I believe he said Sheedy had a number of questions, such as complaints of eyes burning, blurring, etc. as discomfort. Then he has identifies physiological analogues he can measure that correlate with these. I would be looking more at mental fatigue, but there have been reports like that also--that people are tired of reading and don't want to go on, etc. Any study of perception and cognition is going to have to start with self-report, but that doesn't make it invalid.

Any such study is a process of refining, but it doesn't erase the concept of comfort, it just makes it more clear and precise for testing. Again, I don't see that problem. Comfort is not gone, and the whole thing is conceptually pretty straight forward. Finding good questions and good measures requires creativity, but scientists, including Kevin and his colleagues, have already started. And the tests are all described in a way that they can be reproduced. No impossibility.

On reading speed, this is words per minute. What is your problem about this? How do words per minute become only 'humanistic'? Doyouthinkicantmaketextthatslowsyoudown? Or speeds you up? Is that not objective and repeatable?

On comprehension, there are oodles of standardized tests of comprehension. Conceptually, they you just ask questions about the content, and how many answers are right or wrong. People will do better and worse, and under different conditions. Standardizing the difficulty of tests is tricky, but it's been done including in SAT reading tests.

So comfort, speed and comprehension can all be measured by objective, reproducible tests. The test I proposed is scientific--how good it is is another question.

Peter, you are saying that 'affordance' is a better focus for research. I would say that 'affordance' is a concept to help explain better and worse readability--and other aspects of reading. And it may be a very useful concept, in which case we should use it.

But readability shouldn't then become a taboo word. You design text that is more rather than less readable as one of your goals, I'm sure. And I am trying to do the same for a typeface.

Science attempts to explain the world as we experience it. In the process it refines the concepts, but it doesn't vanish our experience. Because Newton distinguished weight and mass doesn't mean that we no longer experience gravity. The refinements in terminology can help, but they are no reason to say that we can't use ordinary English concepts, or to say that gravity or readability can only be studied 'humanistically'. So I don't think there is any need to avoid the word 'readability', and *only* use technical terms like 'affordance'.

But in any case, I think we are in agreement that greater and lesser ease of reading is something that scientific research can shed light on.

Bill, there isn't a taboo. I don't *only* want to use my terms.

‘Legibility’ and ‘readibility’ have a well-established and perfectly acceptable use within the public sphere and the type domain. But they’re are poly-valent and multi-referential, and their usefulness in the public sphere and type domain is in a large part dependant on their not being tied too tightly to specific measures in distinct functional domains. This doesn’t make these judgements crude or inexact. The eyes of a capable typographer are more discriminating than the tests.

Sometimes science fails to honour this.

Yet, when I am rummaging around in distinct functional domains I do feel better served with new hand-crafted constructs. That’s all.

We need a transcendental critique of judgements of legibility and readability, a sustainable and typographically attuned theory of perceptual processing in reading, measures of performance that are geared to thresholds and ranges in specific contexts of use, relative to a range of measures, and a theory about how to put this information into practice.

John: "For the typical typographic Latin script I’m pretty sure the atom is the letter..."
Boooooo-ooo-oo-o. See these things at the end of each sentence? . . . that is three atoms separated by two atoms, when . isn't an atom sitting beneath another atom or a molecule ! ? Ooopah, there's them now. When we read we swing along on things that are not letters. Else, the analogy fails any next step along the atomic analogy path, as we've seen, when applied to Latin text, as de-atomized by ClearType and displayed on lower screen resolutions.

Place a piece of paper, or, another window, over the lower 1/2 of the x-height of this Latin, and read on. There are few atoms you need that disappear, . being one of them. Then, think the 1/2 test again, the other way though — is the letter, horizontally as a unit, and as part of a text, more important, than a unit that begins at the mathematical center of one letter, and ends horizontally in the mathematical center of the next letter? These two units, a whole letter and it's space, and 1/2 of two adjacent letters and the space in between, are of equal value.

Kevlar: "..all [filtering] options that have been available in MS Reader for many years..."
Yes but you've seen as well as the rest of us, that it's not your reader running on the average Windows platform that makes a long a read a swing. How many exodus' need to be executed from the MS environment for higher resolution devices, before a study is done of why the tizzy over text so fizzy?

John: "Bringhurst wonders if people read differently when all literate people were writers as well as readers"
There is testament to important literate people who were only readers. But even then, 'History' of anything, is so funny! It makes one seem like an idiot until one states clearly, who one is, then what one's calling people, places and things, of a particular time or span of time, with time being measured in a particular way, along with defining everything else one wants to measure in such a History. We can't do it now...understand how people read, that is, so wondering back...is not completely unlike seeking a black dog on a moonless summer night...in glacier goggles...with a bag overhead and no bacon. But thanks, the unknowable history of readability, makes what some are doing today, more possible to imagine.

Cheers!

If Science ever wants to study metaphors, I hope it starts with this thread!

David, the 1/2 test doesn't prove anything about how we normally read: it only proves that we're able to recognise letters from parts of letters. It doesn't tell us anything about the significance of that ability to reading: just because we can recognise letters from partial information doesn't mean that we use such partial information during reading, and if we do -- as seems likely to me* -- is it a direct contribution to word recognition or indirect via letter recognition. Being able to recognise a pair of letters from two halves and the space in between them doesn't mean that the basic unit of reading is not, still, the letters. Being able to recognise fragments of letters in sequence doesn't imply that we build up to word recognition through recognising half letter + space + half letter sequences; it implies only that we can recognise more than one letter at a time in a fixation, which everyone knows and no one contests.

* You skipped a key aspect of my (first) hypothesis, which is that while the letter may be the atom, we make free use of both subatomic particles and molecules as we need during reading. But the atom sits in the middle and is what is built up to and built up from. I think the letter plays that role in typical typographic Latin text.

But I don't think we should generalise from such text. If I consider all the other writing systems I know about, it seems to me that the atom is what we make it, when we write or set type or create text in any other way. There are too many writing systems in which the individual identity of the letter is subsumed into a graphical molecule for the letter to be considered always the atomic unit. I think we make it the atomic unit by disconnecting it from adjacent letters and giving it a static form: we emphasise its atomicity.

the atom is what we make it,

So, in reading studies that focus on types with discrete letter forms, the outcome of letters-as-atoms would be expected.

writing systems in which the individual identity of the letter is subsumed into a graphical molecule

Including Latin script script, i.e. cursive writing/fonts.

John, I don't think anything from here is going to seem likely to you for long times, and then, poof.
"...the 1/2 test doesn’t prove anything about how we normally read."
"...it only proves that we’re able to recognize letters from parts of letters."
We’re able to read words and ideas from parts of letters, skipper, not letters.

"...we make free use of both subatomic particles and molecules as we need during reading..."
Agreed. But then the reader, again, by making use of less or more than a letter, is not using your atom of reading. You need a typoscope? There is another proof that employs 1, I and l, shows in a, 'total' sans. There is yet a much longer proof that shambles through written vs. mechanized Greek. But I don't think that's gonna persuade, here. :)

Cheers!

Bill, I think you are glossing over what is an essential difference. The objective neural reaction to smelling saffron isn't the smell. The molecules involved in sensing saffron are not the smell. The smell is a subjective* experience. This distinction isn't the same thing as the specific derived from the general. Obviously these things are not unrelated. Far from it. The smell is not the main thing from which descends the specifics. There isn't a hierarchy. These things are aspects. Aspects with differences.

I admit a smell is not a good pure analogue to reading. Reading is more complicated. But it has aspects too. Some aspects can be studied well with science. Science is in effect a good tool. And some of them - not so much.

* A reportable experience. But it's not the experience collected then. It's the report of the experience.

>It’s the report of the experience.

Science as a social enterprise--involving many researchers--basically deals with reports of experience, or "observation reports" and tries to explain them. This is true whether you are looking at the position of a star or reading or smelling saffron. Reports of being tired reading are perfectly acceptable data for scientific explanation. The explanations may be complex, but there is no bar to scientific method here, if that is what you are arguing. For example there is food science, and that involves hard science, such as chemistry, and tasting and reports of tasting.

but there is no bar to scientific method here We don't disagree about this. My point is separate.

Eben, if you are saying there are limits to scientific explanation, I certainly agree.

I just don't think that there is any inherent barrier to a deeper understanding what makes type more and less readable, and that there is such a barrier seems to be Nick's position.

I don't expect a complete theory, especially of the aesthetic aspects, but I do think we can get a lot more insight than we have so far into what causes fatigue, and what promotes the combination of good speed and good comprehension under different circumstances.

David: But then the reader, again, by making use of less or more than a letter, is not using your atom of reading.

Unless the information gained from what I characterised as subatomic and molecular levels were used precisely for the purpose of identifying letters and, hence, recognising words. That seems to me at least as viable a model as proceeding directly to word recognition from the sub-word and/or inter-word information.

Let's say that the atom is, by definition, what you need to be able to identify in order to recognise the larger semantic building block, the word. [Furthering the metaphor: words are the complex molecules, the DNA of text.] That's the main value of the general hypothesis, and I'm specifically questioning what constitutes the atom in different scripts, and suggesting that it might vary even within a script depending on the writing style: i.e. that how we read is not a generalised process independent of what we read.

Unless the information gained from what I characterised as subatomic and molecular levels were used precisely for the purpose of identifying letters and, hence, recognising words.

The striking thing about these ideas is that with just a pinch of magic cleverness they spring into really really complex theoretical structures. See above. My feeling ( and this is all gut - sorry ) is that the notion of the atom may not be useful because it's creation stems from the human urge to simplify. It's not a bad urge at all. It's a hugely useful one when you can make it work. This is why scientists cherish the simple equations that actually work - they are like refuges from what is ordinarily a torrent of complexity. So if the "atom" turns out to be an apt metaphor then that's great. But my guess is that reading is more like weather with everything impacting everything else and making prediction better done by hugely complex modeling than by equation or any other simpler model. Still, we don't know and that's the persistent reality.

Bill, it sounds like we agree now for the most part. But it isn't key to my regard for you or Nick or anybody else that we do. The main thing I wanted to accomplish ( why did I write so many posts?) was to combat what sounded like the all too common morbid fear of science is in our culture. I don't think it's healthy - in lots and lots of ways. And that is why I have asserted as you have, that there is no inherent barrier to a deeper understanding of Type/fonts/scripts etc via science. And that this science need not be a threat to the work typographers do; and quite importantly, that it is certainly no substitute for it either.

Bill, you say, “[s]cience as a social enterprise—involving many researchers—basically deals with reports of experience, or “observation reports” and tries to explain them.”

I thnk that's right, but, what is being resisted is an explaination of the form: “x or y is actually objectively more readable because reading using x or y is faster or less tiring." What we or I don't resist is explainations of the form: "judgements of readability and legibility are possible because affordance varies complexly across many factors, and yes some typefaces compromise discrimination affordance of criterial role-architectural parts in certain conditions of use by reducing the formal grammer through a reduction of stroke contrast or the size and the distinctiveness of counters, for instance."

“…at least as viable a model…”

John, it may seem so as a matter of surface-level type-analytic* common sense and from a basically complicit reading of actually inconclusive tests. But does it have the same disclosive power or practical relevance in terms of expert-level attunements**? Can it help us see why, in perceptual processing terms, inter-letter spacing is important, or the synchronization of intra and inter-letter whites is vital.

A critical reading of non-dissenting studies reveals caveats, actual and potential anomalies, historical inattention, and only partially warranted inferential leaps, as well as truncated knowledge or jaded characterizations of competing hypothesis.

* changed “analytic” to ”surface-level type-analytic”
** added “in terms of expert-level attunements”

the all too common morbid fear of science is in our culture.

It's the culture that's pathological, not me.
Science in the thrall of industrial capitalism.
That's what scares me, as I contemplate climate change.
I'd prefer a little less science, a little less religion, and a bit more art and humanity.

Science in the thrall of industrial capitalism

I agree that is too true today and has been. I share the thrust of your sentiment. But that is a political and a social issue. Throwing the baby of technology & science out with the bath water of industry is no solution. The attitude of less science please and a bit more art and humanity is just not that far from Bush's suppression of climate science out of NOAA. A bit more art and humanity can be easily exchanged for a bit more "God & country" or more accurately "$" or whatever you like best just as your mood changes. Don't get me wrong; I am all about a bit more art and humanity. Nevertheless distinctions need to be made. Exchange that broad brush for a more narrow one.

Peter if you don't mind would you critique this explanation? I think it's a similar idea but it is also less reliant on a specific hypothesis:

You can run speed tests just as one example; and that can tell you which is faster - but it doesn't tell you why one was faster or begin to illuminate what mechanisms are responsible or the ways in which those mechanisms interact or the conditions in which they will or the degree to which they will & so on. To do good reading science you need to concern yourself first, not with superlatives, but with underlying mechanisms.

I think that Bill's urge can't be completely dismissed however not least because the science of reading as practiced by Peter isn't going to help a type maker with their design of a font for long texts right away. Rather than take apart Bill's example which was in fairness probably a little spur of the moment in it's construction let's consider James Montalbano's Highway font. I quote his site:

Based on extensive human factors research ClearviewHwy was designed to reduce the halation experienced by older drivers with increased contrast sensitivity, when reading road signs at night, while increasing legibility and recognition of the sign displays. The results of this project were significant, with various tests showing ClearviewHwy to be between 12% and 29% more legible and easier to read than the current font used on highway signs.

http://www.terminaldesign.com/fonts/sets/?CID=3

None of us has an issue with this. Correct?

And if so, how reasonable would it be to do similar work for a newspaper font you are designing, or one for novels? This isn't creating Readability science - but it is an attempt to use some scientific techniques to advance the craft. That cannot be too terrible can it? Comments?

Eben, your synopsis is in line with my assertions.

Nick: "So, in reading studies that focus on types with discrete letter forms, the outcome of letters-as-atoms would be expected."

Yes, and perhaps unexpected, when a discrete letter is studied. An example is the study of letters, including zeros, where a lone character, shorn via isolation, i.e. mis-atomized, is graded for legibility by the subjects. Their results, as I recall, showed that 9 of 10 subjects could not identify the zero of a popular font of the CT collection correctly. I recall the number of correct subject responses was high (1 in10), only because the subjects did not know they could guess that the zero could also be misread under such circumstances as a degree sign, a ring accent, or a dehydrated spittle mark, if it had the right stuff in it to begin with.

Eben: "None of us has an issue with this. Correct?"
I only have issues with the tests and the results Eben. Otherwise, I think James and his crew have done a remarkable job of designing & selling the concept.

"Throwing the baby of technology & science out with the bath water of industry is no solution."
Actually, it is the perfect solution, because it tests the resolve of those who wish to hoodwink you.

But now, the dreamer is coming down from the highlands, to have a 'blog war' on the topic.

Cheers!

Nick: "So, in reading studies that focus on types with discrete letter forms, the outcome of letters-as-atoms would be expected."

Yes, and perhaps unexpected, when a discrete letter is studied. An example is the study of letters, including zeros, where a lone character, shorn via isolation, i.e. mis-atomized, is graded for legibility by the subjects. Their results, as I recall, showed that 9 of 10 subjects could not identify the zero of a popular font of the CT collection correctly. I recall the number of correct subject responses was high (1 in10), only because the subjects did not know they could guess that the zero could also be misread under such circumstances as a degree sign, a ring accent, or a dehydrated spittle mark, if it had the right stuff in it to begin with.

Eben: "None of us has an issue with this. Correct?"
I only have issues with the tests and the results Eben. Otherwise, I think James and his crew have done a remarkable job of designing & selling the concept.

"Throwing the baby of technology & science out with the bath water of industry is no solution."
Actually, it is the perfect solution, because it tests the resolve of those who wish to hoodwink you.

But now, the dreamer is coming down from the highlands, to have a 'blog war' on the topic.

Cheers!

Peter, Eben, I don't think you are understanding correctly the relationship between observation, scientific explanations of the observations, and scientific theories. I'm not optimistic that I can explain it to you briefly, so it will have to wait till we meet Rochester, if you are interested.

>“Throwing the baby of technology & science out with the bath water of industry is no solution.”
>Actually, it is the perfect solution, because it tests the resolve of those who wish to hoodwink you.

Well, my cousin has William Morris's old press, so I can hook you up with that. It is hand pulled, and that way you, like Morris, will avoid the evils of science: electric motor driven presses, and now the computer, and so on.

No doubt you'll do some lovely work, but we'll miss your new digital types :)

Bill, I can wait until then. That's fine.

Bill, I'm not sure to which post you’re referring when you say you don’t think I understand correctly the relationship between observation, scientific explanation of the observations, and scientific theories. I can wait til TypeCon, but for the sake of this thread I’d rather be given a little clue.

Perhaps you mean to say that by varying single parameters one at a time on the stimulus side in a bank of tests, and observing the result in terms of speed (for instance), I can do more than just tell which is faster. I can build up a picture of what affects perceptual processing in reading, and gradually compile a total picture of how they interact.

Of course I'd agree with that. It's implicite in the majority of my posts.

Peter, you wrote, "What is being resisted is an explanation of the form: 'x or y is actually objectively more readable because reading using x or y is faster or less tiring.'"

That's not an explanation, that's a definition, the meaning of readability. Highly readable *means* that people can read it with relatively good speed, comfort and comprehension. Less readable *means* people can read it with less comfort, speed and comprehension.

Speed and comprehension can be objectively measured, though comfort is more dicey as of yet. So what a scientific theory of readability should be looking for is theories that would explain why some texts are more readable than others. Part of the challenge of that development and testing is to objectively distinguish the more and less readable texts. So you are going to need objective measures that will reflect the fact that, eg. people prefer to read extended text in print rather than on screen. Of course there will be individual variation, and this needs to be taken into account in the measures--eg that over 45 are generally going to have more problems handling small type.

Then the theory is going to have to explain why those measures turn up the way they do. The theory may be about the reading process in general, and not specifically readability, but it will need to have logical consequences that predict the differences in the objective measures of readability.

In principle, so far as I can see there nothing scientifically objectionable in the testing I described. It would only need to be better specified to carry out the tests. The theory of reading would need to explain whatever the results are.

Bill, perhaps what I should have said is “[w]hat is being resisted is an inferential judgement of the form: : ‘x or y is actually objectively more readible since reading using x or y is faster [more accurate], or less tiring.’”

Whether it is or not depends on the definition, and a definition is a social contract. What you propose is, it seems to me, a proto-scientific formalization which I think confuses what something is a function of with ways in which it manifests itself. Science needs formalizations to get its investigations going. Ole Lund in his Reading PhD dissertation on legibility research rasied issues of ‘construct validity’ and characterized the kind of formalization you propose as ‘easy operationalism.’

The definition I might propose defines readible text as text in which rapid automatic visual word-form resolution is not obstructed, but actively afforded. (This presupposes of course that something denominatable as ‘visual wordform resolution’ in fact exists.) I think that when type designers talk about readability, this way of tying it down for investigative cross-examination is more representative of what they're after and more cognitive-scientifically sound. That it is closer to the intentions of typographical practioners is reflected by the orientation to making optico-grammatically integral words rather than simply nice letters.

In any case science shouldn't be making the kinds of inferential judgements I described until it has a relatively accurate idea of what in actual functional terms is going on.

Highly readable *means* that people can read it with relatively good speed, comfort and comprehension.

That's not how I would describe readability.
I'd say it *means* people find the combination of content plus presentation interesting enough to start reading, and meaningful enough to continue. Limiting "meaningful" to the kind of comprehension that concerns deciphering words from letters and recognizing grammatical structures that look logical enough to not cause too many regressive saccades -- that's a pretty basic concept of meaning. Surely there's more to it than that?

Nick, the Oxford concise gives two definitions: "1. Able to read; legible. 2. interesting or pleasant to read."

The first definition clearly refers to the visual aspect of reading. The second has to do with the quality of the writing. Of course "there is more to it," as the reader's overall experience will involve both. But with a little cleverness we should be able to study the typographical dimension on its own.

Within typography a sophisticated but still pre-scientific definition of readability I quoted earlier: "the ease with which the eye can absorb the message and move along the line."

"Absorbing the message" clearly refers to comprehension, to understanding meaning. And 'ease' is some kind of comfort, or lack of resistance. Since we can decipher nearly illegible writing by slowing down, I think an idea that we can have some speed along with comprehenseion is implied or understood.

Yes, there's more to it, but the first, narrower typographic meaning is worthy of scientific study in my opinion.

Peter, I don't see that I am making much of any inference here about the underlying mechanisms of reading--of how we go from the printed page or screen to understanding. The only thing I pointed out is that two aspects have been operationalized: speed and comprehension. The third, comfort, has not been operationalized successfully yet. I suggested two possible measurable correlates of the subjective experience of discomfort or difficulty with the visual aspect of reading: reduction in comprehension with time and decline in proof-reading accuracy. One would have to test to see whether either of these is any good. I have proposed no short-cut or 'easy operationalization' here. It's difficult, but if achieved would be enlightening.

Then once you have such measures, you have the challenge of explaining their behavior in different circumstance. But at least you have something measurable, beyond the general self-report of comfort or discomfort. That I think would be a plus for further research.

As you know, I think that technical terms should be introduced only when necessary, and then with clear definitions. When you write your definition of readability as "readable text as text in which rapid automatic visual word-form resolution is not obstructed, but actively afforded," your technical terms smuggle in assumptions that may not be correct.

1. It may be that part of good readability, is having short words, such as
a, an, the, that have sufficient markers that the brain is able to skip and never read them. The meaning may be derived from a sub-set of words in many sentences.

2. Secondly, it might be that we can go directly from letters to meanings of whole phrases--the 'bouma' extends over multiple words. I don't think this is true, but your terminology assumes it rather than investigating it.

3. Finally when you nominalize and use the term 'affordance' you are creating something that seems to be a single variable that may turn out to have a number of independent processes going on, and the single term is not useful. I greatly respect your insights into the reading process, as you know, but I do think that introducing technical terms quickly is a serious obstacle to communication and may even muddy the waters conceptually .

You may object that 'readability' also implies a single variable, but that's not the case, because it is not being used as a technical term. As a general rule, terms that emerge out of peoples' experience represent something real, and that's why science would do well to respect them as a starting point, and only replace them with a very good reason.

Bill:
1. It may be that part of good readability, is having short words, such as
a, an, the, that have sufficient markers that the brain is able to skip and never read them.

And, how 'bout dem Germans, they must have some hell of a time reading all those long words.
There are a variety of opinions, but none say we skip the and never readlittle ones. But you must think there is something between, skip and read-each-letter, then.

In any case, we've been through all this, it's like freshman readability orientation week — day one, (each and every day).

When is the actual Groundhog's Day?

Cheers!

>none say we skip the and never read little ones.

I can't cite the article--I bet Peter or Kevin can--but I believe that is exactly the currently most accepted view--we 'preview' in the parafovea, and often skip small words for the next saccade, never reading them, and fixate on later large ones.

>When is the actual Groundhog’s Day?

As you can see, above I tried to get out of this movie, but resistance was futile :)

>But you must think there is something between, skip and read-each-letter, then.

Yes, I started by arguing against Peter's rhetoric, and then but then I actually had to try to understand him. In the end, he converted me to the dark side--believing in the 'bouma'--and now I am stuck in this movie. Help!

Bill, you are right in saying “terms that emerge out of peoples’ experience represent something real, and that’s why science would do well to respect them as a starting point.” For me the vital question is who is doing a better job: you in your seemingly innocent formalizations or me in my apparently unnecessary elaborations.

In response to Nick perhaps I'd say: maybe “efficient saccade planning” should be added to my definition. And I might need to add “and epiphenomenally enhanced” and change “actively” to “effectively.” so my definition reads “readible text is text in which rapid automatic visual word-form resolution and efficient saccade planning are not obstructed, but effectively afforded and epiphenomenally enhanced,” by which I mean helped out by more than strictly visual wordform resolutional virtues. Examples of directly visual word-form resolutional virtues are perfect spacing and distinctive cue values for criterial role architectural features. Examples of epiphenomenal virtues might be gestural atmospheric propriety, and clarity of presentational logic (at the very least).

Yes my definition makes assumptions. Don't yours?

Do you think visual word-form resolution is not real? Or should I have used “visual word-rocgnition instead?” Or is that less precise? Do you have a better sense of what word recognition is than you do of what visual word-form resolution is? Instead of “afforded,” should I have used “made possible?” Or is that kess succint?

Anyway, I apologize for the trouble I've caused. I am not a deliberately evil man.

And, how ’bout dem Germans, they must have some hell of a time reading all those long words.

And how 'bout dem Thais, they must have some hell of a time reading without separating the words at all.

I hope readers of this thread will allow me another addition to this thread, just in case it is of use.

I could simplify my definition somewhat by saying “readible text is text in which holistic processing, efficient saccade planning and robust sense-following are not disrupted or obstructed by the particularities of type-design or the specifics of the typesetting, but effectively afforded and epiphenomenally enhanced.”

(Legible writing then, is writing in which the discrimination affordances necessary for accurate wholistic processing and sufficient for reliable analytic processing are not compromised by peculiarites in or degredations of letterform or the mis-management of letter-form-design parameters. The discrimination affordance will need to be perceptual, and of cue-providing role-architectural information)

Holistic processing in this complex has to be thought of in ‘bouma shape’ and ‘form resolutional’ terms, rather than ‘envelope structural’ and ‘lexical access‘ terms.

The reason to insist on more challenging definitions is because I believe this leads to the search for and the emergence of more discriminating tests of value. New tests to gauge for value might be in the realm of testing for the robustness of the word superiority effect, or in the realm of attentional effort, or in the realm of gauging sustainability of immersion with comprehension and delight. Perhaps Kevin‘s corrugator muscle and eye-fatigue research relates to the second one of these.

>Do you have a better sense of what word recognition is than you do of what visual word-form resolution is?

Yes, because 'word recognition' is English; that's my native tongue :)

What does the longer phrase 'visual word-form resolution' add? I don't know until you explain it, and that's why such phrases are a barrier to understanding. What I gather you think it adds is that it includes some of your theories about how we read. But the theories are not in the verbiage, which obscures rather than clarifies. If you first explain the your theory of word recognition, then when you write further I will know what you mean when you use the phrase 'word recognition'. And you don't have to pile anything on for me to understand each time you mention it. When you pile term on term, the whole thing becomes impenetrable.

For example, above you wrote:

“judgements of readability and legibility are possible because affordance varies complexly across many factors, and yes some typefaces compromise discrimination affordance of criterial role-architectural parts in certain conditions of use by reducing the formal grammer through a reduction of stroke contrast or the size and the distinctiveness of counters, for instance.”

I'm sorry, but that's just impenetrable without a lot of explanation, and when you have the explanation you can make the point or points more simply.

> I am not a deliberately evil man.

Ha! You have a pure heart, and good ideas on reading, I know. It's just that there's this demon called phenomenology that has possessed your keyboard. I'm trying to exorcise it :)

What is bad about this way of writing is that it obscures. At worst it gives a false impression of precision and depth that covers up a lack of ideas. At best--and that is in your case--it just makes a writer much hard to understand. Just as in graphic design, in writing prose lucidity is a fundamental virtue. It can be compromised on occasion for a reason, but the reason had better be a damn good one.

Bill, I don't have rough and ready explanations for all the words I use. Some are of my own creation. Often they are cobbled together from terms I meet in things I read. They form because of things in my reading that resonate with my awareness of science and my knowledge of type and type-making. This resonance often has to do as much with the everyday ordinary meaning of these words, as it has to do with their assigned meaning in the specific contexts in which they appear

I don't choose them just to be obscure, but because I find them to be descriptive and precise. I guess I depend on the fact that the same resonance will occur in the minds of my readers. Perhaps I am foolharding in expecting that it might, and too undiscipline to not let them out until I can give a full account of what they mean.

Scattered throughout my posts on these subjects are various attempts at explanation of why and how I use my terms. I don't pretend what I write is easy to understand, and I try to be as lucid as I can without ressorting to formulations I'm uncomfortable with, or writing longer dissertations.

My only hope is some things will get through, and that the things that do won't be fool’s gold, but have legs.

the reason had better be a damn good one.

I'd say it is.
There's more in the cupboard than crystal goblets. Some of us like to tipple from ornate beer steins.

>There’s more in the cupboard than crystal goblets.

Yes, I should have qualified that to extended text and expository prose--of course clarity can still be compromised in these, but good reasons are more rare than in display type or fiction.

When it comes to being curious about how to improve type I have keep being interested in that crystal and in Peter's fantastically garbed ideas. When it comes to use I will always be willing to choose a stein if it fits the tone I require. The instances where maximum clarity are crucial are pretty few & far between. These are not contradictory things to say at all.

>where maximum clarity are crucial are pretty few & far between

Eben, do you really mean to say that? Newspapers? Text books? Non-fiction? Lengthy fiction?

I would say rather that clarity and having different 'voices' with different aesthetics and moods are not in conflict. The goblet should be clear, but it can be beautifully shaped and decorated.

For a writer--an I speak as a writer first and a designer second--my interest is in having the visual clothing of my words be as inviting as possible to the reader and as easy as possible to understand. In other words, visual design that is both inviting and transparent.

Where public safety and visually impaired folk and a variety of other related situations are concerned then yes I think that doing absolutely all you can is crucial. The greater the dangers the more thats the case. Highway signs fall into this category as well I think.

For general wayfinding on foot you have comparitively waaay more leeway. It's not a question then of safety so as much as wasted time and the sense that the makers do or don't care about you I suppose.

For texts: the longer the text and the longer you might reasonably need/want to keep reading the more important it will be. But Crucial? Maybe not. Too strong a word. If I am setting a novel I might legitimately choose something with a tad bit less readability in my eyes if the voice of the font was right. For magazines I would be willing to extend the lead further.

I am not saying the issue of Readability isn't important - far from it - I am saying there are degrees of importance.

The phrase maximum clarity are crucial is pretty strong wording isn't it?

By the way the word above is "garbed" as in robed or clothed. Not "garbled" as in unintelligible.

Bill, to return to the goblet/stein analogy (perhaps one should also include tea cups, coffee mugs and drinking straight from the bottle), and apply it to writing rather than type:

Isn't it reasonable to assume that complex ideas may best be expressed by complex grammar?
And precise meanings by long words?
And new ideas by new words?

Surely the alternative is dumbing down.

Isn’t it reasonable

Quite right. And this is why specialist language comes about in all areas. We need new words so we make them. Or borrow them. Or we recycle them.

It is true that to understand Peter you have ask him what he mans by these things. But he is very nice about answering questions.

My view about good writing is similar to what Einstein said about a good scientific theory: it should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.

I think one should always be reluctant to introduce new terminology, though there are times when it is useful and desirable. Complex grammar is is not a requirement expressing for deep or complex ideas, and is best avoided as a disservice to the reader. Bertrand Russell, for example, wrote about very difficult and complex philosophical issues with admirably clear prose.

Lucidity is a wonderful achievement, whether in graphic design or in writing. It is by no means the only virtue in these fields, but it is one of the highest in both.

I think you you should cut him some slack Bill. He is getting the ideas together. Not presenting them as fait accompli.

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

Eben, I'm okay with Bill’s remarks about the way I present my ideas. I try to formulate compact stand-alone and all-inclusive one-sentence definitions, but recognize they're often not good prose or easily navigatable. And than I don’t generally give readers what they need to unpack them. That’s not right, even though I think readers should be able to find their way into my ideas by exploring the ordinary-language and dictionary usage of my terms.

I make myself and my ideas vulnerable to readers throwing up their hands, thinking sooner or later readers will come around to my thickish brew.

In a personal not to Bill I wrote: “just so you know, 'visual word-form resolution' is my name for the visual or perceptual processing component in word recognition. Word recognition also has a cognitive processing component which has to do with connecting with meaning. Word recognition is also used in connection with contacting items in a 'mental lexicon' — basically a database of spellings. Contacting items in the mental lexicon is a grey area in theories of word recognition. It isn't really thought of in perceptual processing or cognitive processing terms. It's regarded as a post-perceptual, neural-computational thing. This use is very widespread. I feel the need to distantiate what I am talking about from it.”

>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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

[edit: replaced with bigger image file.]

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

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."

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!

What does it mean?

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

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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

>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.

>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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

That's legibility, not readability.
These words have well-established meanings for typographers.
But even for legibility, factors such as lighting and paper stock play a role.

Experimenters might be able to confirm where my threshold is relative to a particular font.

Whether you find a document more or less readable has little to do with whether the particular typeface is set 9 or 10 pt., but on the overall typography of the page. One typographer will set 9 on 14 rag right two columns, whereas another will set 10 on 12 justified three columns. What has size to do with the relative readability of these two pages?!

you are applying standards of art to science,

I'm talking about science and design.
You're trying to discredit my argument against bad science by saying that it's too artistic.

The main thing is that you can measure and test empirically whatever you assert.

And you can't, if you're attempting to isolate the effect of things like serif size or weight on readability.
These things can't be measured.
Does Adobe Garamond have bigger serifs than Times Roman? That's not even a question, and yet it represents the kind of thing that, in theory, you are assuming is relevant to readability.

How can the size of typeface counters be measured?

Track

the science of the fall-down-ability of falling objects

You killed me with this. I was giggling for several minutes. Thanks!

if you’re attempting to isolate the effect of things like serif size or weight on readability.

This is exactly right. But it isn't the case that we have to be gunning for "on readability" - we could go for specific measures like impact on speed for instance and get something which may (or may not) lead to the deeper understanding Peter is after, but which may be interesting all the same.

So instead you have:

if you’re attempting to isolate the effect of things like serif size or weight on speed...

The obvious next question to ask is what targets might you reasonably go for: Serifs strike me as especially complicated. The white space between letters vs that held in counters might be a great one. It would require an explicit formula though. David Kindesley made a device to do this that wasn't perfect but was decent. Adobe has one they call 'optical' that similarly isn't perfect. But these, or a new one might be used. Descender length is probably low hanging fruit. The key thing would be to use a face & then make modifications to it so as to isolate the variables as much as possible.

I should also point out that plenty of perfectly good research is done which doesn't isolate EVERY variable but which notes the ones that have not been isolated along with the ones that have & how they isolated the ones they think they got. Obviously the more the better but...

>How can the size of typeface counters be measured?

By the total area of white within the counter. You do have to decide for a letter C how far to go out, but you can make a choice and see whether it turns out to be informative.

You can also measure area within the black in the serifs, the extension from the stem, etc. Actually David Kindersley already did a version of such measurements.

I don't know what's going to be important, but you are quite wrong about the impossibility of measuring this kind of stuff. That's actually the easy part.

I am not opposed to any argument against bad science. I am just looking at the wonderful expose by Gary Taubes of bad science in the field of obesity prevention. It is a truly horrifying story, and seems quite true.

While I agree with you that there there is a great deal of bad science out there, including in the field of reading, it doesn't justify opposing all science. For good science can be a boon to humanity, including artists.

>saying that it’s too artistic.

No, I'm saying you're mixing up artistic and scientific goals, and wrongly applying standards from one to the other.

you are quite wrong about the impossibility of measuring this kind of stuff. That’s actually the easy part.

No, YOU are quite wrong!

the total area of white within the counter.

Nick, your points would go down so much better at this point if you would stop using this term "readability".

Also I reject the idea that you could do "Bill Style" research on two Typefaces. You would need to have a standard ( control) and a variant or a series of variants. Otherwise you have no basis for looking at a typographic feature.

Of course if you want to just do a speed test of one font vs the other you could do that but as you point out you would have to do them again & again with multiple leadings etc to find their "sweet spot". And basically the data you got out of that would probably not be easy for most people to take in or make use of. If you did a simple X inches wide 10/12 test - easy by comparrision you would be testing in a typographically naive way.

If you wanted to look at opening/appature sizes you would ( I think) want to look at them in the context of interior sizes vs interletter spaces as a sequence of ratios - not as simple interior measurements to see if the Noordzij model for that which seems so "bang-on" bears out. Peter even has a name for this and some theory built up as well. And NO, it isn't going to give you the picture. Nobody would claim that it would.

>stop using this term “readability”.

Well I know it is an inexact term, but it's a good start as it's a meaningful word in ordinary language. I don't know why you are so allergic to it. As progress is made on the issue, then more refined terminology will be introduced.

>these would appear to have the same counter area, but that tells one nothing about the readability of the face en masse.

Nick, you are muddling different issues. I said it is easy to measure the counters, and I can tell you how many pixels there are in each in each counter on my monitor, if you like.

Now you are changing the issue and saying that won't tell us about readability en masse. But I already said that measuring a counter is the easy part. It is also easy to measure the ratio of counter to black in the letter, the ratio of black to white in the em square, and so on. The difficult part is identifying which or combination of variables are really important for reading. That's where having good theory, such as Peter is working on, is going to help guide researchers.

You're seem to be saying that you know before research starts that there is no such variable or combination of variables possible to discover that gives us useful information about readability.

It's called research because we don't know where it will lead when we start. Being against starting seems to me a very poor idea.

I don’t know why you are so allergic to it.

Because what you & Nick mean by it are different things. For a term to be useful it has to have a shared meaning. This one doesn't.

Also I reject the idea that you could do “Bill Style” research on two Typefaces.

Doesn't that mean it's impossible, as I have said all along, to measure the effectiveness of typefaces?

You would need to have a standard ( control) and a variant or a series of variants. Otherwise you have no basis for looking at a typographic feature.

Of course. That's why, as I've argued somewhere above, with regard to serifs, it would make more sense to "control" the typeface. But say you pick Meta, aren't there many, many ways that serifs could be "added" to it, e.g. slab, bracket, etc.--as in the Panose list?

And just suppose you want to measure Speed, Comfort and Comprehension as they relate to counter size, what model are you going to use for varying counter size?

You can't just willy nilly vary counter size and leave other parameters unchanged, because that defeats the whole purpose of having diffent counter sizes. Consider these three Slimbach faces. I've equalized x-height. When the size of the enclosed counter on the e is varied, other proportions in the typeface must also vary for optimum what-ever-it-is-you-want-to-measure. So these must be altered too: the size of the aperture to the lower counter, and the relative size of the capitals and their counters, and even the genre of the type, for a large upper counter on an e is not good for an oldstyle. The size of the e's counter is not a measurement, it's a style.

You’re seem to be saying that you know before research starts that there is no such variable or combination of variables possible to discover that gives us useful information about readability.

Yes.

Nick what was behind my claim is that there is a relationship between (1) perceptual discrimination affordance at the granularity of letter parts and (2) rapid, automatic visual word-form resolution affordance at the granularity of word wholes. I relate the first to legibility, and the second to readability.

What I think I get from your descriptions is that, in your way of thinking, legibility has to do restrictively with the perceptual processing factors. And readibility has to do with the total picture, or rather, specifically with all those other ‘look’ dimensions that go beyond these, but aren’t really directly touched by them.

Readibility in this scheme doesn't have it's own distinct perceptual processing component. It is totally a matter of humanistic virtues: aesthetics, optical-grammatical integrity, expression, historical reference, transparency to information rank, contextual propriety.

I say it is these too, but also has a distinct and foundational perceptual processing component. And I’d say this perceptual processing component is sensitive to things like spacing, counter size, relative proportion of ascenders and descenders to x-height. Because it’s a good deal more than that means that gauges of the sensitivity of this percptual processing component to spacing, counter size, etc will always fall too short as reliable indicaters of the total picture.

You go on to try to show that countersize is style and nothing more, but I say it also has a perceptual discrimination affordance component.

Doesn’t that mean it’s impossible, as I have said all along, to measure the effectiveness of typefaces?

I have answered this in detail before. In redux: If you mean as of now; in a scientific way; then yes; we haven't done the research. If you mean in an absolute sense - then yes. Absolute isn't on the menu. If you mean that you couldn't maybe do billions ( or however many) of tests & then maybe come up with something interesting & useful then - no. You can't know that.

But what I meant by this is that focusing on font vs font is not a useful way of thinking about this. That's why I reject it.

That said; it's also true that people make subjective choices about this all the time & will. Thinking "Does this seem more readable to me - or this?" is sometimes a part of font choice and isn't going away.

And in addition they might even make experimentally flawed tests to justify those choices. Wanna stop em? Try it. Good Luck!

It's also true that you can plunk two typefaces into MS Word with default settings ( size+leading ); set a nice long text and then test some factor such as speed with or with comprehension. Will that tell you which face is "better" or "more readable"? No. Of course not. Will it tell you something? Yes! Obviously something about that set of variables. But a very fuzzy something. That is of course not nothing. But it ain't much either. You would have to do many thousands of additional tests to get somewhere that way. That would be expensive and inefficient. And I guess that you would end up with a data set that is too murky to be useful. So again. Impossible No. Very unlikely? Yes.

You can’t just willy nilly vary counter size and leave other parameters unchanged You know that I agree. But you also know, or should by now that this is a yet another straw man at this point.

Unless you are willing to grip specifics in one sense or another you get nowhere. Which is where this thread is now going - fast.

Nick, you seem to be saying that because fonts differ in more than single ways. That is where you prove yourself to be an idiot. It is also why god invented the SRS! You take a lot of fonts, controlling for size by taking a large block of text and setting the font sizes as those at which the size of the block of text is constant, and score how easily read the various fonts are, At which point you can arrange the scores for the fonts by various variables. At that point, all you have to worry about is variables associating.

Also, you insist that readability and legibility are different. How about we ask the American Heritage Dictionary:
read·a·ble (rē'də-bəl) pronunciation
adj.

1. Easily read; legible: a readable typeface.

Well for what it's worth, here's on the word 'readable'. It originally and still generally means "easily read", as you quote, Scalfin. It could refer to something well written, or it could mean that the printed page is visually easy on the eyes. Among those who have written about typography, readability came to be distinguished from legibility, because these writers thought that there was more to making a text block easy to read than having the letters clear and distinguishable from one another. This specialized meaning evolved by the 1960s, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were much earlier. Whether this is a distinction without a difference is still debatable.

Nick and I agree that there is more to readability than the clarity of individual letters. Where we don't agree is whether this difference is worthwhile investigating scientifically. I agree with Eben that there's not more to be said on it at this point. The research will happen or it won't.

Scott, you are making this faaaar simpler than it is. In pretty much each aspect you have presented.

And you are calling people names. This is worse.

Name calling can eventually be seen as a personal attack. Personal attacks are not acceptable on Typophile.

Also, it doesn't promote healthy dialog. Healthy dialog is what Typophile is for.

Please read this: http://typophile.com/readme

And lastly, IMNSHO the American Heritage Dictionary is better off asking us.

Sorry about that, but such testing methods have been used on things more complicated than this.

Scalfin, you sound like you have some understanding of empirical testing.

How would you propose we operationalize ‘easily read’. And isn't variables associating precisely what is being claimed?

Among those who have written about typography, readability came to be distinguished from legibility, because these writers thought that there was more to making a text block easy to read than having the letters clear and distinguishable from one another. This specialized meaning evolved by the 1960s, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were much earlier.

For what it's worth, Dwiggins in 1947 does not seem to be making that distinction:

A type face is good if it is easy to read. No concession that interferes with ease of reading may be made either to beauty of appearance or to mechanical felicity. Legibility is the basic law, the sine qua non.

Nick, science can help improve our knowledge of anything.

There are several ways. We could ask a person to read something then answer some questions about the text and look at how quickly they read. We could look at how often they confuse character, as was done in a test looking at the relative legibility of Constantia, Cambria, and TNR. The only problem is that it would take a large study size to get a satisfyingly low p-value.
By characteristic associating, I mean that fonts w/ open counters usually have long descenders (hypothetical, you could probably name real examples of something like this), thereby confounding any findings on either.

Scaflin, what part of readibility or legibility would your scores give us information about? Its perceptual processing component? And by that should we mean only what occurs inside the visual cortex? What about the other dimensions of readability that typographers are convinced exist?

Variables associating is exactly Nick’s point. He regards the confounding effect as insurmountable when it comes to isolating factors in any useful way. An disassociating them for the purpose of our tests creates bad type.

science can help improve our knowledge of anything.

LOL.

Because The Passion was really informative, and the quote in the bible of Jesus say "he who is not with me is against me" has really improved diplomacy.

science can help improve our knowledge of anything.

This is an under-dissected phrase. As such; there is no point in a yes/no dichotomy.

science can help improve our knowledge of anything.

Research and development that fails in its primary goal may yet come up with useful accidents and spin-offs.
Penicillin and stainless steeless steel, for example.
And then there is the drug development strategy obliquely described by the protaganist of Quadrophenia, "I'll do it, what is it?" -- in other words, lets see what effect this chemical has, perhaps it will cure something. Not a bad strategy for type design, BTW, as art directors can come up with quite unexpected uses for fonts.

That is an interesting point.

And then there is the oblique strategies model...

Still it remains that there are things about perfume that are beyond science's ability to help with & things about perfume that only science could ever help with. There isn't any need for opposition. It needn't be hammer vs saw. Both are useful.

I think we're agreed on that, it's banging nails with a saw that is objectionable.
Although I have been known to saw the head off an intransigent screw.

We could look at how often they confuse character, as was done in a test looking at the relative legibility of Constantia, Cambria, and TNR.

And if you are showing glyphs in isolation, as in that test, don't disadvantage Constantia by using a lining zero for the other two fonts in the test and and oldstyle zero for Constantia!

That's who you read the results, not just the conclusion.

"..science can help improve our knowledge of anything."
I totally agree with this. It gets tricky though, when people read it, or the results, as,
"'..science can prove our knowledge of anything.'"

John: "...don’t disadvantage Constantia..."
You can now join People for the Ethical Study of Type Studies.
I have seen to it, that the normal member fees were waived, in a vote of 1 to o.

Cheers!

Knowledge is not the same thing as understanding.

-=®=-

Understanding is not the same as Experience. Experience is not the same thing as insight. Peas are not the same thing as carrots. Yes yes. I have a dictionary too. English is great isn't it? All these words that don't mean precisely the same thing...

and oldstyle zero for Constantia!

Oldstyle vs. Oldstyle, Times may still have "disadvantaged" Constantia, as its oldstyle zero is both taller than x-height, and is monolinear rather than stressed.

The issue raised: is it better to have disambiguation to take care of extremely *rare* problems, or live with some ambiguity, for a better *normal* experience (the decision John made with Constantia's oldstyle zero). And how do the designers of reading tests decide on what's normal?

(Please don't call me "softly" in unaccented Greek capitals:-)

The New York Times magazine did a wonderful piece on the design of Clearview, a typeface designed for maximum nighttime and inclement weather visibility for highway signs. It's not quite the same dynamic as print legibility issues, but a fascinating read nonetheless:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/magazine/12fonts-t.html?_r=1&ref=magaz...