Comments for alexpoole.info

Comment on Fighting bad typography research by Alex Poole

Alex Poole — Tue, 15 May 2012 16:17:25 +0000

Hi there, The criticisms are very specific about the methodology of the research. Do you have a copy of the original research so I can check these points definitively?

Comment on Fighting bad typography research by Drayton Bird

Drayton Bird — Tue, 15 May 2012 15:53:59 +0000

And where is your research – other than a series of generalisations – that indicates Wheildon is wrong?

Comment on Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces? by pir

pir — Sun, 13 May 2012 06:57:03 +0000

very interesting; it’s refreshing to see a solid analysis of usually uncritically accepted studies. my own anecdotal evidence from several decades of being a voracious reader of print on paper as well as on screen, is that i vastly prefer certain well-designed sans serif faces, though it matters more to me on screen. FWIW i also prefer light type on dark background on screen (but not pure white on black); it makes my eyes tire a lot less when i spend 12 hours staring at a monitor. i am myopic and have astigmatism, not always corrected as much as might be needed, which might have something to do with both preferences. aesthetically i am agnostic; i love some serif typefaces just as much as some sans serifs, and i am happy typeface designers continue to give us new ones.

it’s therefore always seemed strange to me, this insistence that serifs are definitely more legible/readable. i think you’re right; acculturation is a strong motivator, and actually individual aspects of typeface design are of more importance than serif or not. for the website i am currently building i am preparing alternate style sheets for people like me versus what the majority seems to prefer; fortunately this is very easily done on the web.

have you come across any research on text justification? i really wish nobody did it ever on screen, and fewer people on paper; it can interfere with rapid word recognition for me.

Comment on Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces? by United Staaaaaates! « Eigenblogger

United Staaaaaates! « Eigenblogger — Fri, 11 May 2012 19:04:02 +0000

[...] any interest at all in typography and/or the serif/sans serif debate, I strongly urge you to read this. It’s an article discussing whether serif fonts or san serif fonts are more legible. It’s [...]

Comment on Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces? by Wanda Hodder

Wanda Hodder — Fri, 11 May 2012 18:04:31 +0000

I have a print disability and sans serif is a more accessible for me. It’s not preference and when I create alternate format for students I use sans serif. The little extra strokes are just extra. I enjoyed the break down on font features. This is something I need to spend more time working with to improve readability in the alternate format I develop.

Comment on Fighting bad typography research by Alex Poole

Alex Poole — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:13:52 +0000

Hi Michael,

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

It’s good that he used so many test subjects (224 to be exact), but if he presented the test conditions as described in the report – ie probably not randomised and maybe with leading questions, then that number is irrelevant – it simply isn’t a fair test and the results cannot be taken seriously.

But as I said, the copy of the report I have perhaps isn’t the most complete one – but it sounds like you have access to the full write-up. If you post a scan or link here or send it to me by email, I’d be glad to update my post.

Comment on Fighting bad typography research by Michael McBain

Michael McBain — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 04:04:16 +0000

I’ve read and considered Wheildon’s work in the broader context of legibility and readability studies since I first came across it about 1990. I have worked in publishing and printing since the early 1970s, being just old enough to have direct experience of letterpress [trained as a compositor, ho, ho , ho] and then to see the complete transformation of my craft over the next twenty years or so. I advise large numbers of thesis writers about the use of production technologies, and help them actually design their theses to communicate their findings.
I disagree with those who say that Wheildon’s study was poorly designed. He used over 200 subjects to test five main hypotheses, sufficient to demonstrate the necessary content and construct validity. The material he was using [text and pages from a popular automobile club magazine] was at an appropriate level for the audience. He only measured comprehension, no other fashionable concepts, which is what makes it such a powerful study. When I advise thesis students, who are writing material far above that used by Wheildon but for an expert audience, I treat his work as a classic empirical study. Very few other studies are as clearly defined, and very few have findings as clear-cut. Too many are compromised at the outset by theory. The purpose of typography, invisible as it should be, is to let the meaning of the words flow effortlessly to the reader.
Objections based on literary theory founder, in my view, on Wheildon’s empirical rocks. I have lost count of, and lost patience with, people who says things like ‘I hate Times New Roman’. TNR was designed to be legible from 4 points to 196 points; it is the quintessential ‘legible’ font. When students give me a page of Arial [or Garamond], I convert it to Times and print it for comparison, and say ‘what do you think now that you see it on the page?’: grey versus black, a function of ascenders, descenders and counters. To paraphrase Wheildon: black is the best colour, the blacker the better.
Michael McBain
University of Melbourne, Australia

Comment on Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces? by Typografi på nettet | Victor Vikene

Typografi på nettet | Victor Vikene — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:54:23 +0000

[...] Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces? – av Alex Poole [...]

Comment on Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces? by Alex Poole

Alex Poole — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:54:23 +0000

Thanks Lynne, glad to be of service!

Comment on Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces? by Lynne

Lynne — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:51:52 +0000

Great Article!
I was just on the phone with one of my clients “which is better” and “I can’t remember which is which”…

You answered all my questions with enough detail to satisfy any Scholar out there!

Thanks so Much,
Lynne