Digital Fonts

and Reading

9968_9789814759533_TP.indd 1 21/1/16 11:59 AM

 Series on Computer Processing of Languages

Editors
Ching Y. Suen
Concordia University, Canada
[email protected]

Lu Qin
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
[email protected]

Published
Vol. 1 Digital Fonts and Reading
edited by Mary C. Dyson and Ching Y. Suen

Forthcoming
Vol. 2 Advances in Chinese Document and Text Processing
edited by Cheng-Lin Lu and Yue Lu

Kim - Digital Fonts and Reading.indd 1 11/1/2016 2:12:54 PM

 World Scientific

9968_9789814759533_TP.indd 2 21/1/16 11:59 AM

 Published by
World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224
USA office: 27 Warren Street, Suite 401-402, Hackensack, NJ 07601
UK office: 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Series on Computer Processing of Languages — Vol. 1

DIGITAL  FONTS  AND  READING
Copyright © 2016 by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval
system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the publisher.

For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright Clearance
Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. In this case permission to photocopy
is not required from the publisher.

ISBN 978-981-4759-53-3

Printed in Singapore

Kim - Digital Fonts and Reading.indd 2 11/1/2016 2:12:54 PM

 Introduction to the series

Language Processing, Pattern Recognition, and Intelligent Systems

This book is part of a series on Language Processing, Pattern Recognition,

and Intelligent Systems evolved from the termination of the International
Journal of Computer Processing of Languages (IJCPOL) in 2013, pub-
lished by World Scientific Publishing Co. (WSPC) for the Oriental Lan-
guage Computer Society (OLCS). OLCS was created in 1976 by some
prominent professors of Chinese descent in North America, and was ini-
tially called the Chinese Language Computer Society (CLCS). The original
aim of CLCS was to promote and facilitate the use of Chinese in computer
technology. Gradually it received the support from many people in various
regions of Asia, notably Hong Kong, Taiwan, Mainland China, Japan, Sin-
gapore, Korea, North America, and others. As research and digital technol-
ogy advanced, a variety of oriental languages became usable for computer
input and output, leading to the change in name of the society to OLCS in
2005.
Apart from promoting and organizing numerous international confer-
ences related to the theme of this society, CLCS also started its international
quarterly journal called Computer Processing of Chinese and Oriental
Languages (CPCOL) in 1983, which later changed its name to Interna-
tional Journal of Computer Processing of Languages (IJCPOL), published
by WSPC. This journal and conferences stimulated substantial research in
this area, made many valuable contributions, and played a critical role in
international collaborations. As this field and computer science matured,
coupled with the rapid growth of digital technology, IJCPOL’s role dimin-
ished. After successful negotiation with WSPC, a new book series in the
field of CPL was founded by Dr. Ching Y. Suen of Concordia University in
Canada and Dr. Qin Lu of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University of Hong
Kong. To make it more attractive and marketable, we plan to expand the
scope of this book series to include subjects like pattern recognition, image
processing, neural networks, knowledge engineering and intelligent sys-
tems, in which most of the OLCS members have been engaged. Presently

v
vi Introduction to the series

two books are already in the pipeline: this one, Digital Fonts and Reading,
and the next, Advances in Chinese Document and Text Processing. As time
goes by, it is hoped that others will follow suit covering research and devel-
opments in different parts of the world.
The publication of this book series could not have been accomplished
without the tremendous help and encouragement from our colleagues, in
particular Dr. Shi Kuo Chang of the University of Pittsburgh, Chao Ning
Liu formerly with IBM Yorktown Heights, and Ms. Kim Tan of WSPC, as
well as the beautiful memory of the founder of CLCS, the late Dr. Yaohan
Chu of the University of Maryland.

Ching Y. Suen, Editor of the Book Series,

Montreal, July 2015
 Preface

Digital fonts and reading is a collection of invited chapters contributed by

different authors, whose writing reveals their perspectives, from science
to design, and their experiences as researchers, teachers and practitioners.
This diversity introduces a range of approaches to the topic which will res-
onate with all sorts of readers from academics to students to experienced
or novice typographic or interface designers to software engineers, and
especially those who have an interest in type.
By focusing on reading, a common thread through all chapters is the
reader’s perspective. This may seem an unnecessary observation but much
is written about fonts without mentioning readers. Chapters which draw
on the experience of designing fonts and explain the decisions that are
made reveal the importance of judging how the characters or words will
be perceived, not focusing only on the marks on paper or pixels on screen.
It should be no surprise to learn that legibility is frequently mentioned
as an objective and is defined by several authors in broadly similar ways,
with reference to Walter Tracy’s Letters of credit [1986] which distin-
guishes between legibility and readability. These issues are addressed
through reporting on original studies or reviewing current knowledge,
either as the primary focus for the chapter or as a contributory factor in
making other judgments (e.g. harmonization of type or appropriateness of
typefaces for specific media or purposes).
Traditionally, there has been a separation between researchers and
practitioners, with different agendas. Also, knowledge from within each
separate discipline has not been accessible to those outside the discipline,
either due to the lack of records of craft knowledge, or overly complex sci-
entific articles. The objective of bridging the gap between scientific testing
and design experience underpins most of the chapters and is also made
explicit by a number of authors. By combining knowledge across disci-
plines the validity and value of research outcomes are increased through,
for example, recognizing the complexity of typographic test material.
The seemingly simple task of comparing the legibility of fonts is com-
plicated by the need to consider the interrelationships of many variables
within letters (such as x-height, stroke contrast, etc.) and between letters

vii
viii Preface

(such as letter-and word-spacing, leading, etc.). The research reported here

includes examples demonstrating awareness of the importance of carefully
choosing or designing the form of test material alongside how it is tested.
Focusing only on straddling the science-design divide would produce
an incomplete account of the interdisciplinary opportunities inherent in the
subject of this book. Combining knowledge from related fields is a key
objective in putting together this book, which draws on historical and more
theoretical analyses, which nonetheless feed into practical applications.
The scope is also broadened by including research and analysis of Chinese
and Arabic, as well as Latin typography.
From apparently diverse standpoints, consistent themes emerge in
addition to the ones already mentioned (considering the reader; managing
interrelationships of type variables). These include: optimizing fonts for
different types of readers and circumstances; consistency of style; critique
of simplistic analyses (of fonts or texts); opposing forces (regularity versus
flexibility, economy versus readability); making explicit typographic prac-
tice (as an objective or exemplifying the process).
The four sections (‘Vision and reading’; ‘Scientific approaches to design
for reading’; ‘Perspectives on type design practice’; ‘Using type’) perhaps
reflect artificial divisions as, for example, scientific approaches are found
in ‘Using type’ as are descriptions of type design practice. There are also
overlaps in content but these are reassuring in confirming common threads
and convergence of ideas.
Chapters 1 and 2 (Beveratou and Bessemans) both look at visually
impaired readers and carry out experiments to explore the optimization of
fonts and typesetting parameters for adults or children. The authors use
different test methods and test different aspects of fonts, but both start from
the premise that increasing the size of print is too simplistic. Beveratou
(chapter 1) looks at leading, spacing, type size, thickness of stroke and use
of serifs in relation to reading. Bessemans (chapter 2) designed her own
test material varying shape characteristics to identify what best supports
reading.
Chapters 3 to 6 differ in their objectives but each provides insight
into how scientific studies are carried out from perspectives informed by
design knowledge. Larson and Carter (chapter 3) demonstrate how collab-
oration works in practice by describing the iterative process of testing and
refining a new typeface named Sitka. This typeface is also mentioned by
 Preface ix

Sorkin (chapter 8) and Shaikh and Chaparro (chapter 13). Slattery (chapter
4) reviews eye movement research as a methodology for studying reading
and highlights the disconnect between psycholinguistic research and font
design, discussing possible reasons. These resonate with my own expla-
nations of the divergence which have guided my efforts to bridge the gap.
Beier (chapter 5) draws on scientific findings and designer’s experiences
to review what we know about the legibility of fonts that are designed to
be read at a distance. This knowledge is converted into practical guid-
ance on how shapes can be improved for optimal distance reading. Wang
(chapter 6) reports an investigation of the effects of introducing interword
spacing in Chinese text read by children in two age groups. As she found
that the younger children (7-8 year olds) benefitted from additional space,
the results have implications for the design of learning materials.
Perspectives on type design practice (chapters 7-10) range from an
introduction to Chinese typefaces, to coverage of specific issues, to the
introduction of a more theoretical approach. Lu, Zhu, Zhang, and Tang
(chapter 7) provide a detailed account of the complexities of designing
Chinese characters, outline the typical workflow, and discuss partic-
ular challenges. Some concepts and methods common to the designs of
Chinese and Latin typefaces can be identified. Sorkin (chapter 8) also
deals with practicalities by describing the factors to consider when opti-
mizing type for different viewing distances, media, technologies, angle of
viewing, and readers. Nemeth (chapter 9) focuses on the harmonization
of type design across scripts, touched upon by Lu et al. In contrast to the
preceding descriptions of practice, this chapter takes a critical look at the
practice and questions the case for regularity and uniformity as opposed
to flexibility. McKaughan (chapter 10) introduces the design method of
pattern languages, illustrating with an example of designing newspaper
typefaces. The approach works at a level of abstraction that can handle the
multiple variables within and between letters and their interrelationships
and can combine knowledge across disciplines.
The final section on using type (chapters 11-14) explores various aspects
of fonts in quite diverse ways, from scientific methods to case studies.
Dyson, Tam, Leake and Kwok (chapter 11) pick up the theme of consis-
tency of stylistic characteristics of fonts and investigate whether designers
have the expertise to enable them to perceive this consistency when they
cannot read the (Chinese) characters. Lacava (chapter 12) examines the
x Preface

process of selecting fonts for newspapers through two case studies (one
English, one Arabic), providing an interesting complement to the pattern
language approach (chapter 10). The personality of the font is also touched
upon, which is the subject of chapter 13. Shaikh and Chaparro focus on the
perception of onscreen typefaces in terms of personality and the perceived
appropriateness of typefaces for various document types. In common with
Dyson et al., this research is concerned with the stylistic characteristics of
fonts. Almuhajri and Suen (chapter 14) conduct experiments to compare
Arabic fonts in terms of legibility and readability with a view to recom-
mending fonts for Personal Digital Assistants.
The publication of this book would not have been possible without
the wonderful enthusiasm of authors, the support of colleagues in the
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication at the University
of Reading, and the patient assistance and skill of Natassia Swulinska in
typesetting and laying out pages.

Mary C. Dyson
 Contributors

Mrouj Almuhajri
Department of Computer Science, Saudi Electronic
University Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
[email protected]

Sofie Beier
School of Design, The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts,
Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation, DK
[email protected]

Eleni Beveratou
[email protected]

Ann Bessemans
PXL-MAD (Media, Arts & Design), University Hasselt, Belgium,
READSEARCH
[email protected]

Matthew Carter
Type designer, Carter & Cone Type Inc., USA
[email protected]

Barbara Chaparro
Software Usability Research Lab; Department of Psychology;
Wichita State University; Wichita
[email protected]

Mary C. Dyson
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication,
University of Reading, UK
[email protected]

xi
xii Contributors

Brian Kwok
School of Design, Hong Kong Polytechnic University
[email protected]

Kevin Larson
Advanced Reading Technologies, Microsoft, USA
[email protected]

Lucie Lacava
Lacava Design Inc., Montreal, QC
[email protected]

Clare Leake
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication,
University of Reading, UK

Xiaoqing Lu
Institute of Computer Science and Technology, Peking University
[email protected]

Rob McKaughan
Advanced Reading Technologies, Microsoft, USA
[email protected]

Titus Nemeth
[email protected]

A. Dawn Shaikh
Google
[email protected]

Timothy J. Slattery
Department of Psychology, Bournemouth University, UK
[email protected]
 Contributors xiii

Eben Sorkin
Sorkin Type Co. Easthampton MA, USA
[email protected]

Ching Y. Suen
Centre for Pattern Recognition and Machine Intelligence
Concordia University Montreal, Canada
[email protected]

Keith Tam
Department of Typography & Graphic Communication,
University of Reading, UK
[email protected]

Ting Tang
Founder Fonts Business Division, Beijing Founder
Electronics Co., Ltd
[email protected]

Hsiu-Feng Wang
Department of e-Learning Design and Management,
National Chiayi University, Taiwan
[email protected]
August 1, 2014 10:17 9in x 6in Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy. . . b1683-fm

This page intentionally left blank

 Contents

Introduction to the series............................................................................ v

Preface...................................................................................................... vii
List of contributors.................................................................................... xi
Section 1: Vision and reading
Chapter 1: The effect of type design and typesetting on visually
impaired readers.................................................................................................. 1
Eleni Beveratou
Chapter 2: Matilda: a typeface for children with low vision...................19
Ann Bessemans
Section 2: Scientific approaches to reading
Chapter 3: Sitka: a collaboration between type design
and science..........................................................................................................37
Kevin Larson and Matthew Carter
Chapter 4: Eye movements: from psycholinguistics to font design......54
Timothy J. Slattery
Chapter 5: Designing legible fonts for distance reading...........................79
Sofie Beier
Chapter 6: Effects of interword spacing on Chinese children’s
reading abilities.................................................................................................94
Hsiu-Feng Wang
Section 3: Perspectives on type design practice
Chapter 7: Elements of Chinese typeface design. .................................... 109
Xiaoqing Lu and Ting Tang
Chapter 8: Optimizing type for use in specific media............................. 131
Eben Sorkin
Chapter 9: ‘Harmonised type design’ revisited......................................... 150
Titus Nemeth
Chapter 10: Using pattern languages in typographic design. ............... 173
Rob McKaughan

xv
xvi Contents

Section 4: Using type

Chapter 11: How does expertise contribute to the recognition of
Latin and Chinese characters? .................................................................. 193
Mary C. Dyson, Keith Tam, Clare Leake, Brian Kwok
Chapter 12: Newspaper text............................................................................. 209
Lucie Lacava
Chapter 13: Perception of fonts: perceived personality traits and
appropriate uses.............................................................................................. 226
A. Dawn Shaikh and Barbara Chaparro
Chapter 14: Legibility and readability of Arabic fonts on
Personal Digital Assistants PDAs.............................................................248
Mrouj Almuhajri and Ching Y. Suen
Index...................................................................................................... 267
 Chapter 2

Matilda: a typeface for children

with low vision

Ann Bessemans

Due to the low quality level of visual input they receive in the form of printed text, visually
impaired beginning readers are at a disadvantage in comparison to their peers. In the past,
typography has often been regarded as a useful instrument to improve the legibility of the
printed reading material that is being offered to children with low vision. However, the
legibility research that was at the base of this conception was not always of good quality.
In cognitive science for example, many efforts were made that were methodologically
correct, yet the test material (typefaces) was unrealistic. On the other hand, typographers
themselves introduced many typefaces that were supposed to improve legibility, but the
reasoning behind them was hardly ever sufficiently methodologically supported. More-
over, most legibility research focused on people with low vision in general, ignoring the
fact that visually impaired children constitute a very particular group with specific issues.
This PhD research project approached the issue of legibility for visually impaired begin-
ning readers from a design context. The research is an attempt at bridging the gap between
the font designers and the cognitive scientists studying the legibility of letter characters.
In the development of the test material, the focus was on parameter design. Parameters are
shape characteristics that can be isolated within the same type. Starting from two existing
types (one serif, one sans-serif), typefaces were designed based on five parameters that
explored the balance between homogeneous and heterogeneous in both form and rhythm.
Based on legibility research with test material that conforms to both the scientific and the
typographic knowledge in this field, a typeface is proposed that provides support for the
target group of visually impaired children in the first stages of the reading process.

1.1 Introduction

Reading is done without consciously recognizing letters [Warde, 1956;

Unger, 2007]. Nevertheless letters constitute an important aspect of deter-
mining legibility [Rayner and Pollatsek, 1998]. Letters need to be decoded
in order to obtain meaning. Reading is a complex, cognitive and fast pro-
cess. Children having serious problems with reading are at an increased
risk to end up in a cycle of failure [Stanovich, 1986; Wolf, 2007]. When
reading is a slow and cumbersome process, it will have consequences for
cognitive behavior and motivation. A person whose reading process is im-

19
20 Digital fonts and reading

peded is less able to develop both intellectually and socially. Because most
of the process of learning to read is finished after the age of nine it is im-
portant that children who encounter difficulties are supported in the initial
stages of this process [Stanovich, 1986; Marquet et al., 2006].
Visually impaired children with no additional disorders do not have
problems with reading comprehension, spelling or accuracy. Therefore the
reading problems of children with low vision are (initially) visual and not
cognitive [Gompel et al., 2003; Gompel, 2005]. A visual impairment has a
direct impact on technical reading skills.
Due to the low quality of visual input they receive in the form of printed
text, beginning visually impaired readers are at a disadvantage in compar-
ison to their (visually unimpaired) peers. The reading process is disturbed
due to a reduction in visual input [Gompel et al., 2003; Gompel, 2005].
Children with a visual impairment have problems with the decoding of
words, the deciphering of visual patterns, and the recognition of letters.
Because their decoding is hampered, the reading speed is lower, which
eventually can lead to cognitive problems necessitating a transfer from
regular to special education. To improve visual input, a lot of attention is
given to optical reading aids and the use of large print. Large print is often
seen as a quick fix to show that efforts have been made for the visually
impaired. Research has shown that large print books are not effective for
the technical reading process for most children with low vision [Lovie-
Kitchin et al., 2001; Corn et al., 2002].

1.2 Typographic research and legibility research

In the past, typography has often been looked upon as a useful instrument
to improve the legibility of printed reading material that is being offered
to people with low vision. However, legibility research efforts are not al-
ways of good quality. In the case of cognitive scientists this is all too of-
ten caused by inadequate domain knowledge of typography, pointed out
by Spencer [1969], Dyson [1999], Lund [1999] and Bessemans [2012].
This can lead to the use of incorrect terminology, poorly designed letters,
poorly motivated and incorrect choice of text material. For the designers,
this is due to an intuitive way of approaching legibility research [Dyson,
1999; Lund, 1999; Bessemans, 2012]. Typographers rarely do empirical
research. Very few attempts are made by typographers to test their de-
 Matilda: a typeface for children with low vision 21

signed material on their target group. They portray their ‘findings’ as tru-
ism, but these lack any scientific validation.
Many legibility studies focusing on the influence of design, both within
cognitive science and within the design world, lack internal and/or exter-
nal validity. Figure 1 shows test material illustrating a common external
validity problem. The material is carefully constructed by manipulating
isolated parameters (like heaviness of serifs, letter width, letter height).
This results in high internal validity. But the external validity is very low.
These letters are not considered real typefaces used in everyday life. Fig-
ure 2 shows test material illustrating a common internal validity problem.
The test material could be present in real life, which means that the ex-
ternal validity is high. However, effects on legibility cannot be attributed
to single design parameters. Several design parameters (or even a com-
bination) can influence the legibility effect. For example a difference in
legibility between Helvetica and Times New Roman cannot be attributed
solely to the serifs as there are other differences between the two types.
Therefore the internal validity is rather low. Design parameters are design
characteristics within the same font that can be isolated and can be manip-
ulated independently of each other. A design parameter can therefore be
related to the internal and external validity.

Figure 1: (Left) An example of a common external validity problem. Examples of such

material can be found in: [Liu and Arditi, 2000; Arditi, 2004].

Figure 2: (Right) An example of a common internal validity problem. Examples of such

material where comparisons are made between typefaces can be found in: [Mansfield et al.,
1996; Woods et al., 2005].

Moreover, most legibility research has focused on adults with low vi-
sion, ignoring the fact that visually impaired children constitute a very
particular group with specific issues. Both the fact that their reading pro-
22 Digital fonts and reading

cess has just started, as well as the fact that their visual impairment is not
caused by ageing, makes it difficult or even impossible to simply transfer
results. It makes sense to hypothesize that the elderly are more aided by
a macro level of typography like the layout of a page or book or even
a bigger type size which slows down reading but is more comfortable
[Bouwhuis, 1993].

1.3 The term legibility

Another problem within the existing legibility research is confusion re-

garding the term legibility. Many different groups of people (e.g. typogra-
phers, linguists, educationalists, ergonomists, psychologists, etc.) use the
term and give it a personal related meaning without explicitly explaining
it. This explanation is of importance in order to make legibility studies
comparable. Within this research legibility is the ease with which visual
symbols are decoded [Bessemans, 2012]. This definition arose from dic-
tionary descriptions of reading. Reading means: transposing visual sym-
bols and converting them into linguistic meanings. To concisely define
the term legibility, attention goes to the two global and successive steps
that occur when reading: decoding and the acquisition of meaning, or the
sensoric and the cognitive aspects of reading (see Figure 3). Decoding
or the sensoric aspect in reading is the conversion of the purely visual
representation of words (which may not yet relate to the meaning of these
words in beginner readers). The definition of legibility used in this study is
clearly related to this first sensoric aspect of reading and thus to decoding
problems of children with low vision.

1.4 Design methodology applied

Comprehensive legibility research within my own study takes into ac-

count a clear definition of legibility and a combination of both scientific
methods and typographic practice. A designer-researcher is able to com-
bine these two and thus guarantee the internal and external validity of
the test material. The materials of the design research are systematically
constructed. The design is the point of focus throughout the research. The
methodology starts with the context that is shaped by theoretical research
(consisting both of scientific and typographic matter) and practical work
 Matilda: a typeface for children with low vision 23

Figure 3: An onion model explaining the sensoric and cognitive aspects within reading.

from other designers (mainly typefaces). This context will lead to an initial
design that ultimately results in test fonts. These test fonts are used with-
in legibility studies (see 1.5). In turn, the results of the legibility studies
provide motivation for a second type design that will eventually lead to
the development of a special font for children with low vision. Using this
global framework, this study starts with an explicit definition of legibility,
and uses methods of measuring that have both internal and external validi-
ty. The output is an improved insight into the nature of legibility and some
practical guidelines in the realm of type design.
During the process of designing the test typefaces the focus was on
parameter designs. Departing from two existing typefaces (serif DTL
Documenta and sans-serif Frutiger) a number of derived typefaces were
designed with five different parameters: (1) variable x-height; (2) conven-
tional contrast; (3) unconventional contrast; (4) direction; (5) letter width
(see Figure 4).
24 Digital fonts and reading

Figure 4: The test fonts (sans serif and serif) with their illustrated rhythm. From top to
bottom: the basic fonts Frutiger and DTL Documenta; parameter conventional contrast;
parameter unconventional contrast; parameter direction; parameter letter width; parameter
variable x-heights.

1. Variable x-height: By changing the x-height and the ascender and descender
height of the letters, this design parameter induced a lot of heterogeneity,
both rhythmically and in terms of letter form.
2. Conventional contrast: This parameter adds contrast to the letter in a conven-
tional way. Certain letter parts were emphasized in a conventional manner.
This parameter mainly induced heterogeneity in terms of letter forms.
3. Unconventional contrast: This design parameter emphasized the most dis-
tinctive character parts within the letters. This induced in particular the het-
erogeneity of letter forms (because of less symmetry).
4. Direction: Within this parameter, more heterogeneity was induced within
rhythm by playing with the directions of the letter strokes.
5. Letter width: Within this parameter, more heterogeneity was induced within
rhythm and letter form by varying the letter widths.
 Matilda: a typeface for children with low vision 25

The five parameters were used to examine the balance between homo-
geneous and heterogeneous in both form and rhythm. The heterogeneity
with regard to the letter shape can be illustrated by making related letters
less similar (see Figure 5). The heterogeneity with regard to the rhythm
of the font can be illustrated by a more irregular stripe pattern which is
formed by the vertical letter strokes.
Using the concepts of homogeneity and heterogeneity we can say that
in general sans serif typefaces are homogeneous within their letter forms
(because of possible mirroring) and heterogeneous within their rhythm
(see Figure 6). With serif typefaces it is the other way around (certainly for
serif typefaces based on the 20th century model): they are heterogeneous
within their letter forms (the serifs and contrasts make mirroring impos-
sible) and homogeneous within their rhythm. Theoretical and practical
insights concerning legibility of material for low vision children pointed
in the direction of more heterogeneity. Notice that we never tested very
extreme forms of heterogeneity.

Figure 5: Illustrating the heterogeneity within letter shape. Top: a geometrical sans serif.
Bottom: a humanistic sans serif.

1.5 Quantitative and qualitative legibility research

The typefaces were tested by means of experimental (quantitative evalua-

tion) and subjective (qualitative evaluation) legibility research. Both chil-
dren with good eyesight and low eyesight were selected in order to study
the reading skills and reading experiences in visually impaired children.
In the study 110 visually impaired children with no additional disorders
participated. They were recruited thanks to the cooperation of centers for
26 Digital fonts and reading

Figure 6: Illustrating letter and rhythm heterogeneity. The heterogeneity within the
letter shape lies in the serifs and the contrast of the serif typefaces. The heterogeneity
within the rhythm lies within the rhythmical pattern formed by sans serifs.

the visually impaired in Belgium and the Netherlands. Also 54 normally

sighted children participated in the study and were recruited by regular
schools. All readers were five to ten years old.
A psychophysical method was used in the test. Children were present-
ed pseudowordsa,b in the test typefaces on a computer screen for a short
period of time and asked to read aloud the word seen (see Figure 7). The
read words were typed and the number of word (letter) reading errors was
counted using the software Affect [Spruyt et al., 2010].
In order to allow for differences in error rates between different type
faces, the words were followed by a mask and the time in between the
word and the mask and/or the word exposure time was adjusted for each
child in order to obtain a 50% chance of recognition. This was done in
an initial testing phase. Hence, every child had an individual duration at
which words were presented. The children who were better at recognizing
words were presented with words for a shorter duration. Then, in the main

a
Pseudowords were used because phonological rules and conventions within the
letterforms remain, while semantic knowledge and the influence of context are excluded.
b
100 pseudowords were created with an equal amount of letters. These pseudowords were
used within each parameter and the basic fonts. The software controlling the experiment
selected and mixed at random an equal amount of words within the design parameters. Si-
multaneously the fonts (basic and derived) were chosen at random by the software (Affect).
 Matilda: a typeface for children with low vision 27

test, 6 sessions of 60 pseudowords were presented to each child with the

child’s specific word-duration. Within each session there were 3 breaks
to ensure concentration. The statistical analyses were performed on these
data.
The effects of the design parameters were measured using statistical
analyses based on a General Linear Model (GLM) with repeated measures.
The GLM calculates the extent of the connections between a dependent
variable (e.g. percentage of words read correctly) and some independent
variables (e.g. the different design parameters). Repeated measurements
allow you to take multiple observations within a subject (the various ses-
sions of each child can be included within the analysis, taking into account
between-subject variability). The GLM identifies those variables that are
reliably influencing legibility. Several analyses with percentage correctly
read pseudowords as the dependent variable were done: 1) global analy-
ses; 2) analyses within each group of children (low vision and normal); 3)
analyses limited to words where at least one letter was correct; 4) analyses
in relation to reading level; 5) analyses contrasting Documenta vs Fruti-
ger; 6) analyses for different types of visual problems.
In the subjective part of the study, reading experiences of children who
read the test typefaces were examined. The children were (individually)
asked to rank the test material, 12 fonts, by the legibilityc of the fonts (see
Figure 8). The children were interviewed about which factors played a
role in their subjective judgement by means of dialogue. The feedback and
the interaction with the children were of great importance for the design
of the final typeface. In contrast with this way of working, a type designer
very rarely gets immediate feedback from his readers. Type designers have
always been very far behind the frontline when it comes to contact with
the readers. In this case there was direct feedback between the readers and
the type designer.
The effect of the design parameters on legibility using the subjective
method was measured using Kendall’s concordance coefficient W. When
this coefficient is high, this means that the ranking as observed is a reliable
one, i.e. children agreed on the ranking.

c
The children were asked which fonts read the best for them.
28 Digital fonts and reading

Figure 7: Experimental legibility research (quantitative).

Figure 8: Subjective legibility research (qualitative).

 Matilda: a typeface for children with low vision 29

1.6 Results

A remarkable finding from the objective legibility research is that children

with normal vision read with reliably fewer errors when the serif typeface
DTL Documenta was used, rather than the sans serif Frutiger. This result
is somewhat surprising because children (especially beginning readers)
mainly read with a sans serif in primary school. Zuzano Licko’s [1990]
well-known quote: ‘…the readers read best what they read most’ is thus
jeopardized, certainly for beginning readers in the age group of five to ten
years old. The teachers’ belief that letters for beginning readers should
look as simple as possible and should reflect handwriting is falsified by
this study. In visually impaired children the difference in reading accuracy
of the two typefaces is less pronounced. During the reading (decoding)
process non-visually impaired children appear not to be hampered by a
homogeneous rhythm, but rather by a homogeneous form. The children
with low vision however, seemed to be hampered more, and in particular,
by a homogeneous rhythm. Within the DTL Documenta font set (the basic
font with a homogeneous rhythm) the design parameters – rhythmd and di-
rection – that made the rhythm the most heterogeneous, had the most pos-
itive effect on legibility (in terms of decoding). It appears that for visually
impaired children a more irregular rhythm is beneficial for their reading.
Also it may be that a certain degree of formal heterogeneity offers support
(as we saw with the normally sighted children).
Within the subjective legibility research, the analysis of the rankings
showed no significant results. However, the dialogue with the children
contained a lot of relevant information. The subjective legibility research
results showed a rather early conditioning with daily reading material in
beginning readers. Children associated sans serifs with school and con-
sidered them to be writable; serifs they associated with literature (e.g.
books and newspapers) and they considered them to be difficult to repro-
duce themselves. The non-visually impaired children generally perceived
the most conventional typeface as being the most legible one. Amongst
the visually impaired children this was not always the case. Some of the

d
It became clear that the difference with respect to the design parameter rhythm and the
basic font is not seen by most of the beginning readers. This parameter can therefore be
useful for practical use because it induces legibility while remaining invisible.
30 Digital fonts and reading

children appeared to experience social pressure to choose a normal letter.

They were reporting that classmates would laugh at them if they chose a
strange looking font to read.

1.7 Matilda

Starting from the results, together with my own understanding, knowl-

edge, intuition and ideas as a design researcher, a typeface called Matildae
was designed that is able to provide support for the target group of visually
impaired children in the first stages of the reading process. Matilda should
be seen as a tool for supporting reading, not as the solution to reading
problems.
The new typeface is similar to the basic fonts DTL Documenta and
Frutiger in terms of letter width and text color (see Figure 9). Matilda is
based on a serif typeface, in order to reduce the gap between the read-
ing material for non-visually impaired children and those with low vision.
Furthermore compared to the sans serif font Frutiger, the design parame-
ters within the DTL Documenta font set had the most positive effect on the
decoding skills for children with low vision.
The main characteristics of Matilda are wide, open and round letters
which are intended to have a friendly feeling (see Figure 10). The letters
are dynamic and solid, constructed and organic. The letters are built on a
rather stable and vertical axis. The curves are open, the serifs are asym-
metric, convex and concave. There are ball terminals to emphasize the
letter terminations to augment its individuality and distinctiveness. The
low contrast in the letters is necessary to easily enlarge or reduce text. If
children with low vision are reading in different contrasts/colors (which
they often do on computers) the letters need to remain very clear. Matilda
does not have a very large x-height. The ascenders and descenders provide
enough room for diacritics.

e
Named after the book ‘Matilda’ from Roald Dahl (1988).
 Matilda: a typeface for children with low vision 31

'Zit j e goed, Sofie? Voor de rest van de curs us is het van belang dat
je inziet dat sofisten echte filosofen waren, die hun plaats verdienen
in de geschiedenis van het menselijk denken. De sofisten lieten zich
voor hun werk betalen, omdat ze niet zoals Plato konden rekenen
op een rijkelijk inkomen. Het waren mensen met een ruime belang-
stelling voor intellectuele en ethische problemen, die hun kunde in
dienst stelden van hun studenten. Dergelijke sofisten zijn de hele
geschiedenis door gekomen en gegaan. In zekere zin war en zij de
eerste humanist en en onafhankelijke onderzoekers. Met leraren en
betweters, die ofwel dik tevreden zijn met het weinige dat ze we ten
of opscheppen dat ze van een heleboel dingen verstand hebben,
waar ze in werkelijkheid geen snars van begrijpen, hebben ze dus
niks van doen .. .' !, ?.

' Zit je goed, Sofie? Voor de rest van de curs us is het van belang dat
je inziet dat sofisten echte filosofen waren, die hun plaats verdienen
in de geschiedenis van het menselijk den ken. De sofisten lieten zich
voor hun werk beta len, omdat ze niet zoals Plato konden rekenen
op een rijkelijk inkomen. Het waren mens en met een ruime belang-
stelling voor intellectuele en ethische problem en, die hun kunde in
dienst stelden van hun studenten. Dergelijke sofisten zijn de hele
geschiedenis door gekomen en gegaan. In zekere zin waren zij de
eerste humanisten en onafhankelijke onderzoekers. Met leraren en
betweters, die ofwel dik tevreden zijn met het weinige dat ze weten
of opscheppen dat ze van een heleboel ding en verstand hebben,
waar zein werkelijkheid geen snars van begrijpen, hebben ze dus
niks van doen .. .' !,?.

'Zit je goed, Sofie? Voor de rest van de cursus is het van belang dat
je inziet dat sofisten echte filosofen waren, die hun plaats verdienen
in de geschiedenis van het menselijk denken. De sofisten lieten zich
voor hun werk betalen, omdat ze niet zoals Plato konden rekenen
op een rijkelijk inkomen. Het waren mensen met een ruime belang-
stelling voor intellectuele en ethische problemen, die hun kunde in
dienst stelden van hun studenten. Dergelijke sofisten zijn de hele
geschiedenis door gekomen en gegaan. In zekere zin waren zij de
eerste humanisten en onafhankelijke onderzoekers. Met leraren en
betweters, die ofwel dik tevreden zijn met het weinige dat ze weten
of opscheppen dat ze van een heleboel dingen verstand hebben,
waar ze in werkelijkheid geen snars van begrijpen, hebben ze dus
niks van doen .. .' !,?.

Figure 9: Comparison of the text color and letter width between Matilda (top), DTL
Documenta (middle) and Frutiger (bottom).
32 Digital fonts and reading

Figure 10: Design features of Matilda.

Matilda is in full development and a growing type family (also ready to

test within new legibility research). The typeface includes a serif, an italic,
and a bold (see Figure 11). Matilda is also extended by the design param-
eters that were most helpful to improve the decoding process of children
with low vision. These are the parameters rhythm (see Figure 12) and
direction (see Figure 13)f. More research will be done because it would
be interesting to know how the degree of rhythmic heterogeneity affects
legibility. Also the outcome of interaction effects such as the combination
between the parameter letter width and direction would give more insight
into legible fonts for children with low vision (and human perception as
more information is revealed about the sensoric aspect when reading).

f
Emphasizing letter parts seems to be helpful for visually impaired children at the lowest
reading level.
 Matilda: a typeface for children with low vision 33

Figure 11: Matilda Regular, Bold & Italic.

1.8 Conclusion

When legibility is explicitly defined and linked to the reading problems

of the target group, methods of measuring legibility become clear while
maintaining internal and external validity. It becomes clear that letters in-
fluence legibility and that results can be translated into a type design. A
design researcher plays an important role in such legibility research.
This research highlights the importance of exploring the balance be-
tween homogeneity and heterogeneity. The design research gave clues to
design parameters that can successfully improve legibility for low vision
children by inducing rhythm heterogeneity. My future aim is to gain more
insight into the legibility of printed matter by studying stripe patterns
within words during reading, link these to spatial frequencies when read-
ing and translate this information into practical designs. The new envis-
aged research wants to investigate to what extent the rhythm and spatial
34 Digital fonts and reading

frequencies within a typeface can affect legibility for normal and poor
readers (e.g. low vision readers). This is in line with the findings of my
doctoral dissertation where disturbed stripe patterns within words resulted
in better decoding skills (and thus legibility) for those with a less devel-
oped perceptual system.

Figure 12: Matilda Rhythm.

Figure 13: Matilda Direction.

References
Arditi, A. 2004. Adjustable Typography: An Approach to Enhancing Low Vision
Test Accessibility. Ergonomics, 47 (5) pp. 469-482.
Bessemans, A. (2012). Letterontwerp voor kinderen met een visuele functiebep-
erking. (Dissertation, Leiden University & Hasselt University).
Bessemans, A. (2012). Research in Typography, Typo, 47, pp. 60-63.Bouwhuis, G. D.
1993. Reading rate and letter size, IPO Annual Progress Report, 28, pp. 30-36.
 Matilda: a typeface for children with low vision 35

Corn, A. L., Wall, R. S., Jose, R. T., Bell, J. K., Wilcox, K. and Perez, A. (2002).
An Initial Study of Reading and Comprehension Rates for Students Who
Received Optical Devices, Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,
May, pp. 322-334.
Dyson, M. C. (1999). Typography through the eyes of a psychologist. Hyphen,
2 (1), pp. 5-13.
Gompel, M. (2005). Literacy Skills of Children with Low Vision. (Dissertation,
Radboud University Nijmegen).
Gompel, M. , Janssen, N. M., van Bon, W. H.J. and Schreuder, R. (2003).
Visual input and Orhtographic Knowledge in Word Reading of Children
with Low Vision, Journal of Visual impairment and Blindness, May,
pp. 273-284.
Licko, Z. (1990). Do you read me? Emigre, 15, pp. 1-36.
Liu, L. and Arditi, A. 2000. Apparent string shortening concomitant with letter
crowding. Vision Research 40, pp. 1059-1067.
Lovie-Kitchin, J., Bevan, J. D. and Brown, H. (2001). Reading performance in
children with low vision, Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 84(3),
pp. 148-154.
Lund, O. (1999). Knowledge construction in typography: the case of legibility
research and the legibility of sans serif typefaces. (Dissertation, The Uni-
versity of Reading).
Mansfield, J. S., Legge, G. E. and Bane, M. C. (1996). Psychofysics of reading
XV: font effects in normal and low vision. Investigative Ophthalmology &
Visual Science, 37 (8), pp 1492-1501.
Marquet, R., Smits, D. and Naegels, G. (2006). Slecht leren begint met slecht
zien, Klasse, 163, pp. 10-13.
Rayner, K., and Pollatsek, A. (1989). The Psychology of Reading. (New Jersey:
Prentice Hall).
Spencer, H. 1969. The visible word. (Lund Humphries, London).
Spruyt, A., Clarysse, J., Vansteenwegen, D., Baeyens, F. and Hermans, D.
(2010). Affect 4.0: A free software package for implementing psycholog-
ical and psychophysiological experiments. Experimental Psychology, 57,
pp. 36-45.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of indi-
vidual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quar-
terly, XXI/4, pp. 360-407.
36 Digital fonts and reading

Unger, G. (2007). Typografie als voertuig van de wetenschap. (De Buitenkant,

Amsterdam).
Warde, B. (1956). The Crystal Goblet. Sixteen Essays on Typography. (The
world publishing company, Cleveland).
Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the Squid. The Story and Science of the Reading
Brain. (HarperCollins: New York).
Woods, R. J., Davis, K., Scharff, L. F. V. and Austin, S. F. (2005). Effects of
typeface and font size on legibility for children. American Journal of Psy-
chological Research, 1, pp. 86-102.
August 1, 2014 10:17 9in x 6in Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy. . . b1683-fm

This page intentionally left blank

 Index

Typefaces are indicated in italic BA Signs, 85–86

Badiya Regular, 253, 257
accuracy, 14, 20, 29, 39–41, 44–46, Baltimore Sun, 212, 214, 217–219
48–52, 99, 128, 200, 202, 204, 207, baseline, 110, 161, 168, 181, 255
249–250, 255; see also reading Baskerville, 165, 231–232
accuracy Bauhaus 93, 232, 244
accurate performance, 205 Berlin Sans, 232
activity, 184, 193, 226, 228–229, 231, Berthold Bodoni, 197
233–234, 240–241, 243–244 Biao Kai Ti, 198
adjective pair, 227–229, 231 bilingual, 156, 160, 162–163, 193–194,
Advertisers Naskh, 168 197, 202, 205–206
age difference, 98, 104 bipolar adjective, 228–229, 231
Agency, 232, 234 blink, 58
Al Ittihad, 220 Body Frame (BF), 111; see also
Alexander, Christopher, 173–174, ideographic em-box
176–177, 188–189 bold typeface, 4, 9, 12, 15, 32–33, 37,
alignment, 100, 110, 123–124, 150, 152, 40, 67, 85–87, 168, 170, 226, 234
156–157, 170 boundary change paradigm, 60–62, 65
Almohanad, 253, 257, 260, 262–263 bounding box, 111, 122, 198
alternating case, 57, 64 bowl, 146, 220
Amharic, 161 Bradley Hand, 232
Amplitude, 213–214 Broadway, 232, 234
Andale Mono, 67 Brush Script, 232
ANWB-C, 81–82
ANWB-E, 81–82 Calibri, 231–232
ANWB-U, 81, 83 Calisto, 232
appropriateness, 164, 226, 241; see also Cambria, 70, 232
perceived appropriateness Caslon, 231–232
Arabic, 151, 156–165, 168–170, 209, Centaur, 49–50, 232
220–222, 224, 248–251, 254–258, center alignment, 39, 109, 123
263 central vision, 5
Adobe, 170 centroid, 110–111, 117, 124
Frutiger, 169–170 Century, 209
Simplified, 249 Gothic, 7, 12, 232, 234
architecture, 173–174, 188 character
Arial, 6, 8, 9, 12, 65, 67, 232, 244 density, 65–66, 109, 112, 123, 146,
Armenian, 151 180–181, 183–184
ascenders, 13, 24, 30, 41–42, 85, 154, grouping, 95
180–181 identification, see letter identification

267
268 Index

misrecognition, see letter convention, 23–24, 26, 29, 96–97,

misrecognition 134–135, 144, 154, 158, 170, 178,
recognition, see letter recognition 186, 188, 220–221
Cheltenham Oldstyle, 87–88 Corbel, 232
Chiller, 232 counter, 4, 7, 12, 14–15, 79, 81–83, 87,
Chinese, 55–59, 94–95, 96–101, 105, 91, 113, 148, 211, 215, 220–221
109–112, 115–120, 126–129, 146, Courier, 65, 69–70
167, 171, 193–207, 226 New, 232, 234
Christopher Alexander, 173–174, crowding, 3, 10, 14–15, 89, 91, 134, 186
176–177, 188–189 Curlz, 232, 234
Chronicle Text, 211 custom font, 212, 214
ClearType, 58, 66–67, 227, 250 Cyrillic, 37–39, 42–43, 146, 151–152
ClearviewHwy, 83, 88–89
cognitive, 19–20, 22–23, 63, 105, Deco Type Naskh, 252–253
185–186 decoding, 19–20, 22, 29–30, 32, 34
psychologist, see scientist denotative, 231, 240
science, 19, 21 descender, 24, 30, 41–42, 52, 85, 154,
scientist, 19–20, 185–186 168, 180–181
collision (avoidance), 109–110, 124, design parameter, see parameter
181, 221–222 design
column width, 161, 175, 180, 182–184, iteration, 38, 47
209, 216–217 specification, 109, 117
common language, 174–175 training, 193–194, 196, 207
comprehension, 2, 20, 55, 58, 94, 98, Devanagari, 146, 151, 170
105, 209, 248–250, 261–263 diacritic, 30, 52, 140, 161, 254
condensed, 82, 87, 182, 184, 186, 212, dictionary, 116, 156, 160
215 digit, see number
congeniality, 249 DIN, 49–50, 169
congruency, 195, 204, 206–207, 243 disappearing text, 62–63
congruent, 195, 197, 202–204, 226, discrimination, 194–195, 197, 202–203,
241, 245 205–207
incongruent, 193, 195, 197, 202–204, display typeface, 48–49, 212–214,
206 216–217, 220–221, 226, 234, 238,
connotative, 227–228, 230–231 249
Consolas, 65, 67, 70, 232, 234 distance
constraint (design), 156–157, 160, 170, legibility, 79–80, 82–87, 89–91
176, 182 reading, 2, 39, 54, 79–81, 85–86,
continuous reading, 47, 160, 165, 88–89, 91, 132–134, 138–139, 145
249–250 testing, 48, 81, 255, 257
contour interaction, see crowding threshold, 49, 84, 87
contrast, 23–26, 30, 86, 90–91, 113, 143, distinctiveness, 24, 30, 112, 114, 153,
145–146, 167–168, 170, 213–215; 156, 160, 212, 241
see also stroke contrast distortion, 66, 132, 139–140, 146, 153,
 Index 269

167, 170, 184, 220 FF Info, 81

Droid Sans/Serif, 227 filter, 10–11, 13–15, 152–153
DTL Documenta, 23–24, 29–31 fixations, 47, 55–59, 61–62, 65–68,
250–251, 255, 257, 259
ease of reading, 2, 22, 62 fixed width, 65, 67, 70
e-book, 98–99, 248, 252, 263 flanking letters, 39, 45–47
economy, 175, 178, 179, 180, 182, 228 font tuning, 194–195, 199, 202, 206–207
education, 20, 22, 149, 155, 185, 196 font design, see type(face) design
encoding, 62, 150–151, 227 font-regularity effect, 193–194
evaluative, 226 formal characteristics, 132, 146
expertise, 63, 193–197, 205–207 formation of originality, 109, 117
exposure time, 26, 85–86, 248, 250, Fourier transform, 13–15
253–255, 257–258, 264 fovea, 54, 61, 64
eye movements, 54–58, 60, 63–70, 215, Freight, 7, 10–12, 131
217, 251 French Script, 232, 234, 244
eye tracking, 57–58, 63, 249, 251 Frutiger, 23–24, 27, 29–31
Arabic, see Arabic
factor analysis, 226, 228–229, 233, 240 Astra, 83
familiarity, 5, 98, 101, 151, 158, 166– Bold, 85–86
167, 189, 193–194, 200, 206–207, Roman, 85–86
212 Futura, 41, 154, 220
FangSong, 109, 112, 114–115
FangZhengBaoSong,(FZ), 113 Garamond, 169, 210
FangZhengBeiWeiKaiShu, (FZ), 115 Italic, 85–86
FangZhengBoYaFangKanSong, (FZ), Stempel, 197
113 Geeza Pro, 253, 257, 260, 262–263
FangZhengDaWeiTi, (FZ), 115 genre, 160, 165, 173, 178, 187–189
FangZhengFangSong, (FZ), 115 geometric, 14, 25, 111, 113–114, 144,
FangZhengHei, (FZ), 127 220–221
FangZhengJianZhi, (FZ), 117 Georgia, 42–43, 50–52, 65, 67–68, 70,
FangZhengJunHei, (FZ), 117–119 131, 232
FangZhengJuZhenXinFang, (FZ), 115 Gigi, 232, 234
FangZhengKaiTi, (FZ), 115 glyph, 83, 87–88, 90–91, 110, 113, 134,
FangZhengKeBenFangSong, (FZ), 115 140–144, 146, 151, 170
FangZhengLanTingHei, (FZ), 113, Greek, 37–39, 42–43, 50–51, 53, 146,
126–127 151–152, 161, 163
FangZhengSongKeBenXiuKai, (FZ), 115 grid, 143, 155, 157, 160–161, 171, 181
FangZhengSongYan, (FZ), 117 guideline, 1, 23, 100, 187–188
FangZhengXiDengXian, (FZ), 127
FangZhengYuHei, (FZ), 129 halation, 87–88, 90, 141, 180
FangZhengZhunYaSong, (FZ), 127 harmonization, 43, 125, 150–153,
fatigue, 58, 249 155–157, 160, 165, 167–171, 215,
feedback, 27, 50, 98, 200, 249 221–222, 224
270 Index

Harrington, 67 join, 146, 178, 184–185

Hasan Enas, 253, 257 Juice, 232
Hebrew, 59, 151–152, 161, 170 Ju Zhen Fang Song, 114
Hei, 109, 112–113, 128, 198
Helvetica, 21, 68, 129, 168–169, 220 Kai, 109, 112, 115
heterogeneous, 19, 24–26, 29, 32–33 kerning, 7, 88
High Tower Text, 232 Kindle, 249, 253
Highway Gothic, 81–83, 85–90 Kristen, 232
hinting, 143–144 Kufi, 220
Hoefler Text, 181
holistic processing, 194–195 large print, 1, 6–7, 15, 20
homogeneous, 19, 25, 29, 33, 165, Latin, 6, 37, 42–43, 52, 110, 116, 134,
169–170 146, 151–152 155–161, 163–171,
hot-metal, 160, 164–165 193–207
HuaWenFangSong (STFangsong), 115 leading, 1–4, 7, 10, 13, 15, 63, 160–162,
hyphenation and justification (H&J), 165, 179–181, 216–217, 221, 250
209, 216 legibility, 1, 2, 7, 9–12, 19–23, 25,
27–29, 32–34, 37–38, 40, 48–52, 57,
Ideographic Character Face, 198 63, 65, 67, 71, 79–80, 82–91, 124,
ideographic em-box, 198 148, 152–153, 161, 168, 175, 181,
Impact, 232, 234, 244 186, 211, 213–215, 217, 221–222,
Incised 901 Lt BT, 232, 234 226–227, 233, 241, 243, 245,
Inconsolata, 240-241 248–250, 253–256, 258–260, 263
Informal Roman, 232 letter
ink trap, 140, 213, 221 frequency, 38, 44
inking, 211, 213 identification, 2–3, 12, 39, 69, 85–86,
inkwell, see ink trap 89, 193–195, 249–250, 254
interaction design, 173–174, 187–189 misrecognition, 39–40, 44–47
interletter spacing, 3, 14, 47, 68–70, recognition, 1–3, 12, 20, 26, 38–39,
88–91 41–48, 50–52, 97–98, 105, 158, 193
interline, interlinear spacing, see leading shape, 25–26, 82, 87, 91, 141, 220
Interstate, 90 spacing, see inter-letter spacing
interword space, 94–97, 99, 101–106 superiority effect, 46
unspaced, 96–97, 99–105 terminal, 30, 50, 146, 198
semi-spaced, 99–104 letterform, 26, 38–39, 80, 148, 154,
fully-spaced, 99–104, 106 156–158, 168, 170, 175, 178,
Ionic No. 5, 209 182–185, 213, 220
iPad, 251–253, 256–258, 262–263 letter width, 21, 23–24, 30–32, 38, 85,
iPhone, 145, 253 91, 180
irradiation, see halation narrow letter, 44–46, 51, 55, 81–83,
ITC Avant Garde, 153 85–86, 146, 156, 180–181, 186,
Ittihad Text, 221–222 211, 215
wide letter, 10, 30, 44–45, 47, 55, 79,
 Index 271

81–82, 85–87, 89, 91, 146, 148, non-designer, 193–194, 196–197,

156, 182, 184 204–207
logographic script, 167 normalization, 252, 256
low vision, 12, 19–23, 25, 27, 29–30, number, 40, 79, 82–83, 86–87, 116, 222,
32–34, 69 224, 230, 250, 256
lowercase, 6, 37–42, 44, 51, 83, 199 numeral, see number
Lucida, 68
Bright, 232 oblique axis, 215, 271
Console, 232, 234 Old English, 64, 66
Handwriting, 232 Open Sans, 227
Sans, 68 OpenType, 14, 222
Sans Unicode, 150–152, 155, 166, 171 optical scaling, see size specific
luminance, 86–87, 143 adjustments
Optima, 7, 12
macular optimization, 1–3, 38, 47–48, 79,
degeneration, 5, 9 131–135, 137–139, 144–147, 149
disease, 70 outline, 48, 61, 66, 120–121, 144
mask, 26, 39–40, 59, 65, 200, 255, 257, Ovink, 84, 228
259
Matilda, 19, 30–34 Palatino, 7, 12, 169
media, 131–132, 135, 140, 142, Papyrus, 232
145–146, 149, 178 parafovea, 54, 60–61, 64
Mencken, 212–216 parallel setting, 160, 162–163, 165, 168
Merriweather, 140–141, 143–144 parameter, 19, 21, 23–24, 26–27, 29–30,
Microsoft YaHei, 113 32–33
monolingual, 193, 197, 205–206 participants
Monotype Corsiva, 232, 234 pattern language, 173–174, 176–178,
Monotype Baskerville, 165; see also 183–189
Baskerville pattern name, 174, 177
moving window paradigm, 59–60, 62, PDA, see Personal Digital Assistant
65 perceived appropriateness, 226–227,
Mrs Eaves, 181 240–241
multilingual, 155, 161 perception, 32, 97, 111, 123, 125, 132–
multi-script, 152, 156–158, 160–162, 133, 160, 180, 193, 206, 226–227,
165–166, 168, 170–171, 251 234, 244
myopia, 5 perceptual span, 59, 61, 65
peripheral vision, 3, 5
Naskh, 220, 222 Perpetua, 187, 210, 232
newspaper, 29, 112, 173, 175–181, Persian, 160–161
183–184, 209–215, 217, 220–222, Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), 248,
224 251, 253, 257, 259, 263
Nimrod, 175, 181 personality, 49, 209, 226–229, 231, 234,
noise, 9–12, 152–153 240, 243–245
272 Index

Playbill, 232, 234 visually impaired, 1–3, 6, 8, 10–12,

Poor Richard, 232, 234 15, 19–21, 25–26, 29–30, 32
potency, 226, 228–229, 231, 233–234, younger, 59, 66, 149
240–241, 243–244 reading
practitioner, 154, 170, 174, 183, 188 accuracy, 20, 29, 39–41, 44–46,
preference, 3, 56, 65, 99, 165, 184, 217, 48–52, 99, 200, 202, 204, 207,
248–249, 251, 253, 256–257 249–250
printing process, 186, 211 aids, 1, 20
proportional font, 65, 70 distance, see distance reading
proximity principle, 97, 105 ease, see ease of reading
pseudoword, 26–27 expertise, see reader (type of) expert
psycho- habit, 1, 11, 215, 253
linguistic 54, 67 performance, 2, 10, 12, 44, 50, 69–70,
linguist, 64–65, 68 79–81, 85–86, 94, 98–99, 102–106,
Pyke, 84 195, 200, 202, 205, 207, 249–251,
253, 257, 263
qualitative research, 2, 25, 28 rate, 1, 2, 8, 10–12, 57–58, 65, 69–70,
quantitative research, 2, 15, 25, 28 199, 253
speed, 2–5, 9, 20, 49, 52, 94, 96–98,
rank, 27, 29, 249–250 102, 248–250, 261–263
reaction time (RT), 69, 195, 202 rhythm, 19, 24–26, 29, 32–34, 153, 215
readability, 1–3, 6, 9, 11, 15, 63, 160, Roboto, 227, 231–232
179–181, 209, 248–250, 255, Rotis, 155
261–263
reader Sabon, 151
characteristic, 3, 197 saccade, 10, 13, 55–56, 62, 64–65
experience, 5, 222 sans serif typeface, 3, 6, 10–11, 13, 19,
skill, 20, 25, 106, 249 23–26, 29–30, 67–68, 80–81, 89, 91,
reader (type of) 113, 128, 166, 178, 198, 234, 237,
adult, 68, 149 244, 249, 251
beginning, 19–20, 22, 29, 59 Script MT, 67
child, 19–23, 25–27, 29–30, 32–33, script typeface, 226, 234, 244, 249
62, 94–99, 102–106, 115 semantic differential scale, 226–228,
expert, 149, 194–197, 205–207 232, 249
faster, 59, 102 serif, 1–3, 10–11, 21, 25–26, 30, 59,
native, 39, 42, 50, 68, 96, 255 67–68, 79–80, 90, 114, 178, 180,
non-native, 68, 97 184, 187, 198, 211, 234
novice, 56, 194 typeface, 10–11, 19, 25–26, 29–30,
older, 59, 62, 66, 149 210, 226, 234, 236
partially sighted, 2, 3, 5, 7–8, short exposure method, 85–86, 248, 250,
sighted, 2, 3, 7–8, 10, 12, 15, 26 253–255, 257–258, 264
skilled, 59 sign, 79–81, 83, 85, 87–90, 113, 117,
slower, 59 147–148, 156, 166–169, 171, 227
 Index 273

signage, see sign substituted words, 61, 94, 100, 102–103,

SimHei, 198, 207 105
Simplified Chinese, 199 Surface Frame (SF) 111; see also
Simplified Arabic, see Arabic Ideographic Character Face (ICF)
SimSun, 198, 207 Syriac, 161
Sitka, 37–38, 41–45, 48–53, 145, 227 Systemzwang, 159, 164
size specific adjustments, 37, 47–49
size (of type), 1–4, 6–10, 15, 22, 37–39, Tanseek, 170
41, 47–49, 65, 80–84, 87, 91, 98– Modern pro, 253
100, 105, 109, 111, 117, 120–123, Tempus Sans, 232
127–129, 145, 149, 154, 156–160, terminal, 30, 50, 146, 198
162, 165, 167, 170, 175, 178–180, test font, 23–24, 26–27, 248, 253
182–183, 193, 197–199, 209, 214– text font, 209–216, 220–221
216, 221, 249–252, 254–256, 261 Thai, 151, 167, 170–171
optical, 38, 145 Thesis, 155
perceptual, 83 third order approximation of English,
physical, 48, 65, 132–134, 139 233, 241
visual, 121, 123, 125–126, 128, 144, Times New Roman, 6, 8–12, 21, 41,
153, 198 64–67, 69–70, 175, 187, 198, 210,
software engineering, 174, 189 232, 249
Song, 109, 112–114, 128 Tiresias, 7, 9–12
spatial frequency, 13, 33–34 tonos, 50–52
staircase procedure, 39, 200 trade-off, 38, 40–41, 177, 185, 189
Stempel Garamond, see Garamond Traditional Chinese, 126, 200–202
stem, 9, 13, 90, 146 Trebuchet, 232
STFangsong, 115 type(face)
STHeiti Light, 198 design, 1, 7, 14, 23, 33, 37, 46, 54,
stroke, 7, 14, 24–25, 40, 47–48, 81, 60, 62–63, 79, 91, 99, 105, 109,
87–88, 110–118, 122–126, 128–129, 112, 116–120, 131–132, 142–144,
140, 147, 170, 175, 184, 195, 198, 146, 150, 152, 154–155, 165, 173,
213–215, 222, 262 175–177, 183–184, 186, 189, 220,
contrast, 79, 85, 87, 134, 170, 211, 227
214 designer, 19, 27, 38, 40, 80–81, 83,
density, 109, 111, 123 89, 111, 116, 128, 131–132, 138,
thickness, 1–2, 4, 9, 12, 113–114 145, 152, 155, 186–187, 211, 213
STSong, 198 practice, 37, 152, 155, 157, 165; see
STXihei, 198 also typographic practice
style (of type), 4, 11–12, 67, 88, typeface
109–110, 112–117, 119–120, 128, appropriateness, 220, 226–228,
134, 137, 145, 148, 155, 170, 178, 240–241, 243–245
182, 185, 187, 193, 213, 215, 220, connotation, 227–228, 230; see also
249–251 connotative
subjective, 25, 27–29, 123, 229 typesetting, 1–3, 6–7, 15, 63, 111, 114
274 Index

typographic
knowledge, 19–20, 30, 79, 91, 169,
186–187, 189
practice, 22, 153, 166, 171, 173, 186,
189

Unicode, 150–151; see also Lucida Sans

Unicode
Univers, 148, 154–155, 169
Uthman Script Hafs, 252–253, 260,
262–263

validity (internal and external), 21–23,

33
Verdana, 40–41, 49–50, 67, 131, 198,
232
Vialog, 85–86
Viner Hand, 232
visual
acuity, 2–3, 5, 11, 54, 134, 149
angle, 39, 55, 133–135, 139
balance, 109, 120, 122–123, 125–126,
159, 162, 165, 167, 179–181, 183
cue, 94, 105–106
Vivaldi, 232, 234, 240–241, 244

word
shape, 60–61
spacing, see inter-word space
superiority effect, 46
word frequency, 44, 57–58, 61–62,
66–67, 70
writing system, 42, 110, 112, 193–196,
199–200, 202–207

x-height, 6–7, 13, 23–24, 30, 38, 40–43,

47–48, 79, 83–85, 91, 128, 154,
168, 170, 180–181, 197–199, 211,
214–215, 217, 240

Yakout Regular, 253, 260, 262–263

ZhongGong, 112, 128