Hrant: "divergence provides the information"
Yes! but if my fourier transforms say what I think they do, too much hurts readability by inhibiting bouma formation, i.e., has an adverse affect on what I called in my Typo#13 contribution a wholistic (rather than letter slot-processing skewed) response bias.
George: "reduced clarity of vision in the parafovea isn’t really gaussian"
Yes! brilliantly put! the increasingly well-understood effects of lateral interference on the processing routines applying to processing in parafoveal vision of letter-clusteral material are not, to my mind at least, effectively integrated into Hrant's scheme.
> too much hurts readability by inhibiting bouma formation
The question is: Is this within errant-saccade tolerances?
Because if not, it's largely moot.
> not ... effectively integrated into Hrant’s scheme.
"The question is: Is [...]"
Could you elaborate: I don't understand the question.
If the color divergence necessary to inhibit bouma formation is
greater than the divergence necessary to cause a saccade (to fixate
on the color spike) from a fixation other than the "correct" (previous)
one then it's moot because reading is disrupted so globally that optimal
boumas never have a chance anyway.
I would think the level of divergence that threatens effective bouma formation would threaten efficient saccading as well. We could call the 'rank' of these types of issues the molecular 'rank'. Disturbances that threaten functioning at the molecular rank would also create problems of colour at the text-block rank.
Re: divergence, and your fondness for Fleischman 65, I produced a "generic 65" by modifying the most vanilla Dutch baroque style face I could find - Bitstream Aldine 721, actually a narrowing of Plantin but so far from Granjon that its ultimate origin is irrelevant - to reduce the height of bowls, verticalise o, Jannonise the head serifs and Fournish the feet. I think it works: I can try to do it again rather better if you'd like to see the results.
"Rank": wouldn't fixation-scope parafoveal issues be of a different
rank than broader, non-content-relevant peripheral issues?
> "generic 65"
Got a visual?
I've posted a PDF to the Serif Crit forum.
"wouldn’t fixation-scope parafoveal issues be of a different
rank than broader, non-content-relevant peripheral issues?"
I'd see fixation-scope, and the parafoveal issues you like to foreground when you talk about reading as bouma-based, as relevant to the molecular level.
Patterson, D. G., Tinker, M. A. (1932a). Studies of typographical factors influencing speed of reading: X. Style of type face. Journal of Applied Psychology, 16(6), 605–613.
I find that they reference:
Roethlin, B. E. (1912). The Relative Legibility of Different Faces of Printing Types. American Journal of Psychology, 23, 1–36.
Who in turn references:
Koopman, H. L. (1909). Scientific Tests of Types. The Printing Art, XIII, 81-83.
Has anyone found a primary source for the typographic convention which claims "serifs are easier to read than sans" on which these studies are based?
There is no strong empirical evidence yet. Kevin has to assume for the sake of argument that serifs help (because of the persistent anecdotal evidence) and then devise rock-solid testing that proves or disproves it.
Nobody besides Kevin has the combination of resources and insight.
Today, learn about the Armenian Genocide.
Perhaps a piece of typographic history akin to quoting Frederic Goudy for saying "Anyone who would letterspace blackletter would steal sheep."
I'm not aware of a primary source for this claim, Christopher.
Have you read Mark van Rossum's paper ‘A new test of legibility’ (Quærendo 27/2, 1997)? A report on his study is available on his website. See the last page of the PDF for the illustration of the possible serif effect in the parafovea (I say possible because what the illustration shows is a gaussian simulation of parafoveal blur, so the actual effect might be different).
Thanks for the reference John. I have not read this one yet.
(I'm pretty sure I have asked this before, but what is the syntax to make it so that a link downloads a PDF the way you did?)
I just did a straight href link to the PDF file. I think how that is interpreted depends on your browser and on Acrobat. When I click the link, the PDF opens in my browser.
Is this some kind of game, where we find a four year old thread and suddenly revive it? Cause I really don't want to play.
There is no expiration date on quality discussion.
And closure is a cozy, over-rated illusion.
Anyway, I have to ask: who signed you up?
>Serifs. What's the point?
Succinctly put, thanks.
They have data for us.
I believe there is a personality difference between serif and sans serif typefaces, but not an inherent legibility difference. In several legibility studies that look at a variety of typeface styles, we don’t find that all the serif typefaces or all the sans serif typefaces rise to the top. Type design is more interesting and complicated than that.
When Dawn Shaikh measured the font personality of dozens of typefaces, she found that people consistently characterize serif typefaces differently from sans serif typefaces. Serif typefaces are more formal and assertive, while sans serif typefaces are more youthful and casual. The personality differences can make one style more appropriate for a particular document. This was the topic of my ATypI talk in Mexico City.
One notable contribution to the serif versus sans serif debate involved Chuck Bigelow creating a font that had equally competent serif and sans serif forms. The title of the paper is quite informative:
Morris, Robert A. Kathy Aquilante, Charles Bigelow, and Dean Yager. 2002. Serifs slow rsvp reading at very small sizes, but don’t matter at larger sizes. Society for Information Display International Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, P-13.
...personality differences can make one style more appropriate for a particular document...
That's almost like... graphic design.
Aren't you making rather a large assumption that results from RSVP reading tests have any great relevance to normal reading?
That seems to be the inference.
After all, as you yourself said, "type design is more interesting and complicated than that".
As I have written before, the studies I have heard about I believe do not take into account the difference between readability and legibility. I just noticed that Walter Tracy's wonderful Letters of Credit includes a section—p. 30-32—discussing the distinction, in exactly the same terms as I have done here. Many of the best type designers, including Tracy—whose book summarizes centuries of type lore—routinely operate with this distinction.
To test for readability, ease of reading extended text with comfort and comprehension, it is necessary to test reading for extended periods. I have suggested using timed SAT reading exams in various settings, and seeing how comprehension and speed and self-reported fatigue vary.
In typography literature, it is common held that sans serifs need more leading for optimal setting. And this is probably because serifs act to define the base line to the eye more easily. This would be one advantage, but I think there are others. But I think we will only get the real information if the distinction between readability and legibility is acknowledged, and tests are done on reading extended text.
This is a big gap in testing, I think. Kevin has referred to a 1948 book that is I believe the only one to test with this kind of goal. But it has never been repeated, and I strongly suspect that its methodology was flawed. It is long past time to do some good testing on extended text, on paper.
"Kevin has referred to a 1948 book…"
Reference? I can't seem to find him mention this within this thread.
> … serifs act to define the base line to the eye more easily.
I think this is an interesting hypothesis that I think should be investigated. If a student is interested in picking this up as a masters or PhD project, I would be happy to partner with them on this. This is the only argument I’ve heard that predicts a difference between legibility and readability.
To my knowledge there is no evidence that there is any difference between legibility and readability. Models of reading assume the word recognition is serial. We read one word, then our attention and sometimes eye fixation moves to the next word, and we read that word. If we read words one at a time with no interaction from the previous word, then legibility and readability are the same thing. If serifs can act to improve the saccade accuracy, then there is a clear interaction between the previous word and the word that you are currently reading.
Another one for the list:
De Lange, R. W., Esterhuizen, H. L. & Beatty, D. (1993). Performance differences between Times and Helvetica in a reading task. Electronic Publishing, 6(3), 241–248.
(with an unfortunate failure to counterbalance the order in which Ss were exposed to the two different typefaces)
Kevin: If serifs can act to improve the saccade accuracy, then there is a clear interaction between the previous word and the word that you are currently reading.
What do you make of Mark van Rossum's study, Kevin? It suggests a role for serifs in strengthening the terminals of extenders in the parafovea, illustrating how in a blurred state the extenders of sans serif letters are less well defined. This implies a possible role for serifs in saccade accuracy and also, I would think, for word recognition at the edges of a fixation and, hence, a reduction of regressions.
> Type design is more interesting and complicated than that.
Not least because so is readability.
And as a result, so must the testing also be.
> serifs act to define the base line to the eye more easily.
This cannot hold water. Linespacing already does that. If the linespacing is inadequate, no length of serif will help. The baseline is purely aesthetic.
On this account serifs affect performance at thresholds of performance differently than they affect performance on plateaus. If we were to relate legibility to performance at thresholds and readability to performance on plateaus, the above might be enough to motivate the making of a distinction, and an investigation of how serifs effect the size of the plateua, especially under manipulations of spacing.
Test results are moot when the testing is fatally flawed.
And RSVP?! Let's get real, guys.
Did that mean they have more data for us? ;)
Hrant: This cannot hold water. Linespacing already does that. If the linespacing is inadequate, no length of serif will help.
But Bill's larger hypothesis is that adequate linespacing is different for serif type than for sans serif type. That hypothesis might be true even if his comment re. ‘defining the baseline’ is not.
Personally, I don't think it's about the baseline, but about what happens at the end of extenders, and I can imagine how the presence of horizontal serif elements better define the upper and lower limits of a line of text, allowing for tighter adequate linespacing. [Adequate linespacing means, to me, linespacing that prevents one line of text optically interfering with another during reading.]
> adequate linespacing is different for serif type than for sans serif type.
If this is true, I think it must be due to serifs on extenders helping to form better boumas (as opposed to better defining virtual horizontal lines).
> What do you make of Mark van Rossum's study, Kevin?
I like that van Rossum starts from knowledge of the visual system and attempts to build a model. I’ve been working with the S-CIELAB model of the human visual system to do something similar. An improvement of the S-CIELAB model over using Gaussian blur is that the human visual system is more sensitive to some spatial frequencies that others. We are particularly sensitive to 3-5 cycles per degree. If this improvement was added to van Rossum’s blurring, I believe that you would find that small features like serifs disappear more quickly in the parafovea.
This could also be tested more directly by conducting a letter legibility test in the fovea and parafovea. If serifs strengthen the terminals of extenders in the parafovea than we should expect that the serifs perform relatively better in the parafovea than in the fovea. It would be better to use a serif and sans serif face that match like in the Bigelow study rather than comparing four typefaces that differ on many dimensions.
> I like that van Rossum starts from knowledge of the visual system
The best way would be to start from a knowledge of the visual system coupled to anecdotal evidence. Ignoring anecdotal evidence is unscientific.
> small features like serifs disappear more quickly in the parafovea.
Which is why they need to be big enough to "bind" letters together into boumas.
> letter legibility test
If you mean testing the legibility of individual letters in both the fovea and parafovea:
1) I'm pretty sure that's been done, IIRC by Herman Bouma himself.
2) It's largely moot because: that's not what we really read; and serifs cannot play their role without multiple things to bind.
> It would be better to use a serif and sans serif face that match
Indeed. But determining proper letterspacing compensation for lack/presence of serifs is non-trivial.
I don't have time to do this discussion justice, but just a point of clarification.
I believe that a problem with too little leading is that the eye has problems in holding to the line, and/or in jumping correctly from one line to the next. That is, with too little leading the eye will mistakenly move to the wrong line, either while reading a line or when moving from one line to the next line. It may also tax the reader to hold his or her eye on the line.
If this is correct, it should be possible to detect with eye tracking equipment, if I understand what that does.
The view about leading with sans, which I have read in many places and is not my own—though I accept it—is that "too little" leading happens at a greater distance between lines than it would with a comparable serif.
I think that this is by no means the only advantage of serifs. Another important one has to do with maintaining both even color and good spacing between letters—which in tern affect ease of visual word formation.
>To my knowledge there is no evidence that there is any difference between legibility and readability.
That's because the testing on extended reading hasn't been done. Not a good reason not to try.
>But determining proper letterspacing compensation for lack/presence of serifs is non-trivial.
Maybe, but we do it every single day along with determining proper height, weight and other compensations not only for lack/presence of serifs, but everything in between serif and sans.
>> To my knowledge there is no evidence that there is
>> any difference between legibility and readability.
> That's because the testing on extended reading hasn't been done.
David: Sure, but [somebody like] Kevin would have to do it empirically. So I guess that means optimal letterspacing would have to be empirically established for a given font, and then that font could be compared to a sans/serif "counterpart" (which has also been letterspacing-optimized).
A literature review by Alex Poole.
Kevin: If this improvement was added to van Rossum’s blurring, I believe that you would find that small features like serifs disappear more quickly in the parafovea.
The serifs disappear as features in van Rossum's gaussian blur too, but what is interesting is what they leave behind in terms of a more strongly defined extender. In the sans serif example, the extenders are badly compromised by the blur, whereas in the serif example the serifs are lost but the overall extender remains much stronger than in the sans serif. The more you have to lose, the more remains. I'd like to see the same kind of comparision with your S-CIELAB model
On a practical design level, I've been experimenting with ways to visually strengthen the ends of extenders other than with serifs.
Hrant: Ignoring anecdotal evidence is unscientific.
What do you understand to be meant by ‘anecdotal evidence’?
It's a phrase that we throw around pretty loosely here -- me included --, but if we're going to start making statements like this one of yours, then we need to be more rigorous in our usage.
"A literature review by Alex Poole."
I try to be pretty rigorous. To me "anecdotal evidence" here specifically refers to the belief -resulting from trying and failing- that setting a book in a sans makes it harder to read.
Ah. Maybe you want a different term then. Anecdotal evidence usually refers to something that is either unverifiable or which cannot be be used to logically reach the conclusion presented. As such, true anecdotal evidence should not only be ignored by science but needs to be systematically excluded from scientific experiment and from conclusions based on experiment.
John, I don't see "anecdotal" as being so negative, and now that I double-checked it really doesn't have to equate to unverifiable* and certainly not untenable. But anyway, now that I've explained what I mean: I hope you agree; and feel free to suggest a term you consider better.
* Very difficult to verify, sure.
Hrant, the term "anecdotal evidence" is generally used as a term of disapproval for evidence that is of dubious value, or used improperly, as the wikipedia article on it explains. However, another thing is "observation reports," which science actually is obliged to account for in one way or another.
The fact that many expert typographers see sans as needing more leading is something that any complete reading theory should account for, eventually. To blow it off as "anecdotal" would be unscientific, in my view. Because you can show many people the same examples of leading, and get the same kind of reaction as to which is best.
This doesn't mean that people can't interpret their observations wrongly, but if so the theory needs to explain why and how the mistake is made systematically.
It looks like the construct "anecdotal evidence" is indeed negative. But "anecdotal" is fine, and very pertinent. So maybe "anecdotal reporting"?
BTW, it's very unfortunate -but telling- that Formal Science has driven the concept of the anecdotal into such a corner. I guess it's just not convenient to be reminded how narrow and limited one's research is, so Formal Science makes all anecdotalism negative...
The standard in science is of "inter-subjective testability" (Popper). In the case of experimental results, it means that others can and do repeat the experiment and get the same result. That has been around as a standard of scientific method since Robert Boyle in the 17th century. In the case of a one time observation, it is helpful if many people see it, if they are reliable witnesses, if someone takes a picture, etc, as evidence would be tested in a court of law.
In the case of this typographic stuff, it is all repeatable, and repeated. "Reports of expert observers" should work.
Hrant, I understand the feeling that science somehow misses things that might seem obvious to experience, but this is not a fault in science, though; rather, it is what distinguishes science as a method. I've often found myself thinking this or that experiment is failing to take into account something that seems to me important, but I'm usually at a loss to consider how the experiment could have taken it into account. Science has to proceed in its method, and while we can and should acknowledge that there are things about which science might not be able to enlighten us, we shouldn't expect science to be other than it is.
Regarding whether extended sans serif text is harder to read than serif, I think it will be difficult to first get past the issue people may not want to read extended sans serif text.