tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/typefaces-10729/articlesTypefaces – The Conversation2016-07-21T14:51:05Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/623732016-07-21T14:51:05Z2016-07-21T14:51:05ZA hundred years of Johnston – the iconic typeface of the London Underground<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131255/original/image-20160720-31146-5vtrke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s been 100 years since the London Underground’s distinctive typeface made its first appearance. Alongside the unmistakable roundel, Johnston has helped to create some of the most recognisable signage in the world: a design which screams “London!”, no matter which language you speak. It has guided Londoners and visitors alike through the city’s complex and changing transport system for a century – it’s hard to imagine where we’d all be without it. </p>
<p>On the centenary of London’s most famous lettering, now is a good moment to reflect on how Johnston has shaped the city, and why words – and the way they’re written – form such an essential part of urban infrastructure. </p>
<p>The development of modern cities and transport systems called for new tools to help people negotiate urban life: new technologies for finding our way, new systems for naming, new rules to preserve order and avoid accidents – and, of course, new visual forms to communicate all of these things. Every city has tackled these tasks in a slightly different way, and London made progress thanks to the efforts of many different people. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131438/original/image-20160721-32286-l1nd72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131438/original/image-20160721-32286-l1nd72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131438/original/image-20160721-32286-l1nd72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131438/original/image-20160721-32286-l1nd72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131438/original/image-20160721-32286-l1nd72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=860&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131438/original/image-20160721-32286-l1nd72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1081&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131438/original/image-20160721-32286-l1nd72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1081&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131438/original/image-20160721-32286-l1nd72.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1081&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">I get around.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For instance, in 1854, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/snow_john.shtml">physician John Snow</a> mapped the cholera epidemic in London. Not only did he manage to locate the source of the outbreak (a water pump in Soho), his designs also helped those in power to understand the needs of the people. His maps were consulted during the development of crucial sanitary and plumbing works, which transformed London into a 20th-century city.</p>
<p>Later, during the 1930s, Phyllis Pearsall also helped to forge the path, by creating an alphabetical index of London. Pearsall’s <a href="http://www.az.co.uk/?nid=5">Geographer’s A-Z Map</a> became a milestone of design and transformed the way place can be understood, by recasting the city’s then 23,000 streets into an easily navigable list. </p>
<h2>Designing London</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131435/original/image-20160721-32600-jz2zd8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131435/original/image-20160721-32600-jz2zd8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131435/original/image-20160721-32600-jz2zd8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=741&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131435/original/image-20160721-32600-jz2zd8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=741&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131435/original/image-20160721-32600-jz2zd8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=741&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131435/original/image-20160721-32600-jz2zd8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=932&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131435/original/image-20160721-32600-jz2zd8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=932&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131435/original/image-20160721-32600-jz2zd8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=932&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Johnston, by Johnston.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnston_(typeface)#/media/File:Johnston_2.png">Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While the likes of Pearsall and Snow responded to the city’s surface, others turned their attention underground. In 1908, three events transformed London’s nascent underground railway: both the roundel symbol and the word “Underground” appeared for the first time in stations, and the network’s first machine-made tickets were issued. </p>
<p>These innovations were part of managing director Albert Stanley and then-publicity officer Frank Pick’s plan to rescue the ailing Underground Electric Railway Company of London. From this, a brand was born, and calligrapher Edward Johnston was commissioned create a typeface as visually striking as the roundel mark. In 1916, it was rolled out right across the city. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131432/original/image-20160721-32606-t3x4h7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131432/original/image-20160721-32606-t3x4h7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131432/original/image-20160721-32606-t3x4h7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=927&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131432/original/image-20160721-32606-t3x4h7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=927&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131432/original/image-20160721-32606-t3x4h7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=927&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131432/original/image-20160721-32606-t3x4h7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1165&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131432/original/image-20160721-32606-t3x4h7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1165&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131432/original/image-20160721-32606-t3x4h7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1165&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trajan column: an inspiration.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/uralumnitravelandlearn/7295605192/sizes/l">UR Alumni Travel & Learn/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For Johnston, the alphabet’s most important letter was “O”. Along with the “I”, its purity and character drives the form of all others. For inspiration, he turned to one of the Roman alphabet’s most critical touchstones: the Trajan column. Located in Rome and constructed in around 117AD, the column celebrates Emperor Trajan’s military victory in the Dacian wars with an inscription of six lines of letters. </p>
<p>It was the unadorned, uncorrupted form of the column’s square capitals that defined the character of Johnston’s typeface, which strove to represent a humanist essence among the chaotic visual landscape which was emerging above and below ground in London in the 1930s. Advertising and branding were colonising the everyday visual space, and competing for the attention of passengers and pedestrians through a veritable typographic storm. </p>
<p>But Johnston had a more radical intention: to create a typeface that was understated, quotidian, ordinary – a part of the consistent background, rather than a changing foreground. It’s this quality which perhaps explains the design’s longevity; the way it has become a feature of the city’s landscape, seeped into its infrastructures of government and, of course, transport. </p>
<h2>Changing face</h2>
<p>The typeface’s 1979 redesign by Colin Banks and John Miles placed Johnston at the centre of a strategic rebranding for <a href="http://www.ltmcollection.org/roundel/about/detailedhistory.html?IXpage=4&_IXSESSION_=GAwsfxHs6_c">London Transport</a>. They reined in some of Johnston’s typographic idiosyncrasies, by reducing the ratio between a stroke’s height and thickness, and breaking the rule that the stroke of a letter must be a constant width. </p>
<p>These interventions helped to shape the typeface that so powerfully embodies the character of the city; steeped in history and tradition, while striving towards an ideal of modernity; resolute and resourceful, unique and efficient.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131441/original/image-20160721-30441-1jwezce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131441/original/image-20160721-30441-1jwezce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131441/original/image-20160721-30441-1jwezce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131441/original/image-20160721-30441-1jwezce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131441/original/image-20160721-30441-1jwezce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131441/original/image-20160721-30441-1jwezce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/131441/original/image-20160721-30441-1jwezce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=411&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">From old to new.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/futureshape/6936208501/sizes/o/">futureshape/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the 21st century, we’ve seen Johnston’s lettering extend beyond the functional and into the political, after it was adopted by London’s mayor and assembly. Now, 40 years after Banks and Miles’ redesign, global type agency Monotype <a href="http://www.dezeen.com/2016/06/27/monotype-update-transport-for-london-100-year-old-johnston-typeface-underground-tube/">have retooled Johnston</a> for new platforms, trends and media. Notably, they have introduced thinner weights for digital use and, for the first time, the hash (#) and at (@) signs. </p>
<p>Like London, the typeface is subject to the push-and-pull of its own sense of self and history: one feature of Monotype’s Johnston100 redesign was the return of those quirks and idiosyncrasies that fell by the wayside in previous reworkings. The versatility of Johnston’s remarkable letters show how such superficially simple characters can powerfully influence the way people experience the city. It is the “voice” which helps people to get around – a comforting familiar presence amid the chaos of the morning commute.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62373/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Wilson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A century ago, Edward Johnston designed a typeface for London’s transport authority. It continues to shape our experience of the city to this day.Paul Wilson, Lecturer in Communication Design, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/469762015-09-02T20:04:47Z2015-09-02T20:04:47ZYes, Google has a new logo – but why?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93614/original/image-20150902-6712-uj9a9a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In a world that is already filled with clutter, simplicity is a strong message.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/google-update.html">Google</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As you’ll no doubt know, given the blanket coverage thus far and the fact you evidently use the internet, Google has given its logo the <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/01/us-google-logo-idUSKCN0R14C320150901">largest overhaul in 16 years</a>. Instead of being written with a serif typeface, the new logo is written with a custom designed geometric sans-serif typeface. The colours of the letters are blue, red, yellow, and green as before. So what’s the point?</p>
<p>The point is simplification. <a href="https://design.google.com/articles/evolving-the-google-identity/">Google wanted</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A scalable mark that could convey the feeling of the full logotype in constrained spaces. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In small words: a logo that can be produced and seen in smaller sizes than before. This is an essential functional quality since the Google logo today not only appears on computer screens but in several other applications, including wearable devices, with less space available. </p>
<p>Google also states other reasons for the logo change. These, roughly said, deal with reflecting the spirit of the company better as it widens its activities.</p>
<p><br></p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93616/original/image-20150902-6700-t2axrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93616/original/image-20150902-6700-t2axrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93616/original/image-20150902-6700-t2axrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93616/original/image-20150902-6700-t2axrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93616/original/image-20150902-6700-t2axrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93616/original/image-20150902-6700-t2axrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93616/original/image-20150902-6700-t2axrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93616/original/image-20150902-6700-t2axrz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Google’s new four colour G logo.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/google-update.html">Google</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93617/original/image-20150902-6714-163lw5t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93617/original/image-20150902-6714-163lw5t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93617/original/image-20150902-6714-163lw5t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93617/original/image-20150902-6714-163lw5t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93617/original/image-20150902-6714-163lw5t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93617/original/image-20150902-6714-163lw5t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93617/original/image-20150902-6714-163lw5t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93617/original/image-20150902-6714-163lw5t.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Google’s old G logo.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/google-update.html">Google</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<p>For use in very small contexts, Google has developed a four-colour capital “G” to substitute the old lower case “g”. It has also introduced four coloured dots, the use of which is not totally clear: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A dynamic distillation of the logotype for interactive, assistive, and transitional moments. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Finally, a new geometric sans-serif typeface has been introduced to go with the new logo: Product Sans.</p>
<p>Google rightly stresses the childlike simplicity and playfulness of the new logo. But is it better than the old logo? </p>
<p>More practical? Yes. More exciting? Hardly. But much depends how it will be used. Google’s <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/google-update.html">news release</a> concerning the new logo does not reveal whether they will continue to adapt their logo to special occasions on special days – such as the Google logo made of <a href="http://www.seankenney.com/portfolio/google/">LEGO bricks to mark the toy bricks’ 50 year anniversary</a>. </p>
<p>The basic idea of graphic brand identity is reputation by repetition, but sometimes a short-lived change makes us see the well-known in a new light. It is Google’s privilege to be bold in their logo adaptions since – like TV stations – we see them so often in the same place. They are not easily confused with something else.</p>
<p>With its welcoming logo on the white screen homepage with minimal text, Google’s logo has long been a paragon of simplicity. Long forgotten are the cluttered user interfaces of their former competitor search machines.</p>
<p>When large corporations change their logo they typically simplify. Shell, Westinghouse, American Airlines to mention a few. Simple logos are more robust than more complex marks. They are easier to produce and easier to read under difficult circumstances.</p>
<p>When companies adopt their first logo they typically want to say as much as possible. The rationale is that the market will look at their logo, and correspondingly understand the company’s special place in the market. This often leads to rather complex designs.</p>
<p><a href="http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/Procter_%26_Gamble">Procter & Gamble</a> in many years sponsored their 1882 logo showing the man in the moon and 13 stars, a reference to the the original 13 North American colonies.</p>
<p>Later, companies realise that once the logo is learned it is just noticed rather than studied and interpreted. We don’t speculate much about an <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/06/opinion/apple-logo/">Apple apple</a> when we see it – we just think Apple. Whatever symbolism was invested in the original multicoloured Apple apple is long forgotten.</p>
<p>When companies realise their logo is too complex in practical use, time is up for a simplification. Some companies change their logo gradually, sometimes because they both want and don’t want to change. </p>
<p>Some companies change gradually as part of a long-sighted plan. <a href="http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_WW/Corp/Identity/Identity-Elements/3M-Logo/History/">3M have changed their logo more than 30 times</a> in the last hundred years. Most of the changes were simplifications. When 3M (and other companies) reached the bone they stopped changing. </p>
<p>Google has adjusted its logo a number of times – the last time being in 2014 when it moved the “g” and the “l” microscopically.</p>
<p>There are other reasons than the strictly practical to simplify logos. In a world that is already filled with clutter, simplicity is a strong message. It is the designer’s noblest aspiration to explain a complex world in simple ways.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46976/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Per Mollerup does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Google has unveiled its new logo, adopting a sans-serif typeface and retaining the same colours as before. But is it better or more practical than the logo it replaces?Per Mollerup, Professor of Communication Design, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/281692014-07-31T14:08:12Z2014-07-31T14:08:12ZDigging for data in Bic’s typeface experiment<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54800/original/7t5q3k6t-1406201651.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bic is gathering handwriting samples to produce a new typeface.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/transandino/5523457195/in/photolist-dhU9RW-5uXEjn-hGZuw-nck8k8-5TvLLi-9qWwK9-6dnuUy-hHMk7-hHMk8-hJsfr-rDH9X-c3HXD-9qWxbh-9q6aoB-5Qmox7-8Bxtmn-hH7x7-9qTzrB-9qTyYa-9qTzPx-h29fDn-5SXD6B-7xg1fw-4z5xaM-5TpDh2-4z5BbR-fFtzzW-9qWyZW-9qTyFP-9qTyfp-9qTAuK-9qWxRm-9qTA4H-9qWzJY-9qTxv2-9qWwww-5XT36w-hHeaq-i2ngF-8z12YV-9rMepe-5GZ1jp-gohNf-5TNSfE-69VgiY-bdAaYR-rEMbR-8JUE9o-rEMbL-5Cgj29">Caligrafia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Pen maker Bic has been asking people around to world to submit their handwriting so it can produce what it is calling <a href="http://theuniversaltypeface.com/">the Universal Typeface</a>. Although the experiment is not claiming to have any scientific credibility and is much more aimed at selling pens, a look at what has been produced so far can tell us something about how we write. </p>
<p>The idea is for contributors to draw letters using a tool on the Universal Typeface website. These will then be gathered together and a typeface produced based on the results. If everyone wrote the letter I with a serif, for example, we might expect to see the eventual typeface having a serif for that letter. </p>
<h2>The data</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54235/original/47hx25gc-1405676275.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54235/original/47hx25gc-1405676275.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=697&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54235/original/47hx25gc-1405676275.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=697&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54235/original/47hx25gc-1405676275.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=697&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54235/original/47hx25gc-1405676275.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=876&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54235/original/47hx25gc-1405676275.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=876&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54235/original/47hx25gc-1405676275.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=876&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54241/original/d2mx79dd-1405678327.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54241/original/d2mx79dd-1405678327.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=675&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54241/original/d2mx79dd-1405678327.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=675&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54241/original/d2mx79dd-1405678327.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=675&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54241/original/d2mx79dd-1405678327.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54241/original/d2mx79dd-1405678327.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54241/original/d2mx79dd-1405678327.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=849&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Bic’s experiment is essentially a marketing excercise so it won’t actually produce a truly universal typeface. But the data being gathered provides some interesting food for thought. What is actually being produced here is a <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/universal-typeface-averages-worlds-handwriting-to-produce-an-incredibly-average-font-180951904/">mean shape</a> for different letters. Looking at the data across countries provides an excellent demonstration of the effect of averaging. Any individuality is removed as the number of contributions increases. The end result is more representative by wiping out the interesting outliers. </p>
<p>There is a precedent for using this technique to combine letters. Designer <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Signs-Symbols-Their-Design-Meaning/dp/0823048268">Adrian Frutiger</a> superimposed six typefaces to reveal a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175630613X13660502571741">letter skeleton</a>, or basic letter shape. This basic letter shape is now shared across fonts and is comparable to what psychologists refer to as the abstract letter identity, which is used to access word representations. Type designers apply stylistic features to basic letter shapes to individualise their font, avoiding a uniform prototype (or universal typeface). </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54244/original/sgb23nbs-1405679699.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54244/original/sgb23nbs-1405679699.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54244/original/sgb23nbs-1405679699.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54244/original/sgb23nbs-1405679699.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54244/original/sgb23nbs-1405679699.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54244/original/sgb23nbs-1405679699.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54244/original/sgb23nbs-1405679699.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Combination of Times, Palatino, Baskerville, Garamond, Helvetica, Univers, Bodoni and Minion, created by Joe Thompson, based on Frutiger’s image.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Different strokes</h2>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54237/original/5z387vyr-1405677371.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54237/original/5z387vyr-1405677371.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=704&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54237/original/5z387vyr-1405677371.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=704&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54237/original/5z387vyr-1405677371.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=704&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54237/original/5z387vyr-1405677371.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=884&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54237/original/5z387vyr-1405677371.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=884&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54237/original/5z387vyr-1405677371.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=884&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54238/original/4wkfv6mq-1405677410.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54238/original/4wkfv6mq-1405677410.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=711&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54238/original/4wkfv6mq-1405677410.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=711&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54238/original/4wkfv6mq-1405677410.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=711&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54238/original/4wkfv6mq-1405677410.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=894&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54238/original/4wkfv6mq-1405677410.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=894&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54238/original/4wkfv6mq-1405677410.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=894&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As part of the experiment, Bic is using data to illustrate how letter shapes vary between different contributors. You can compare what the Czech Republic thinks an M looks like compared to the view from the UK, for example or whether artists draw Ws differently to people who work in finance.</p>
<p>There is a substantial imbalance between the number of characters contributed by each gender but it seems that men and women appear to contribute rather similar shapes for some letters. Q and M are very similar while E and H are slightly less so.</p>
<p>This is interesting as we often think of typefaces as having <a href="http://usabilitynews.org/perception-of-fonts-perceived-personality-traits-and-uses/">feminine or masculine connotations</a>. Curly or softer typefaces might be associated with women but in fact, this large sample of female and male handwriting does not seem to show reliable differences between the two.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54278/original/99d4z9mg-1405692863.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54278/original/99d4z9mg-1405692863.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54278/original/99d4z9mg-1405692863.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54278/original/99d4z9mg-1405692863.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54278/original/99d4z9mg-1405692863.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54278/original/99d4z9mg-1405692863.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54278/original/99d4z9mg-1405692863.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54279/original/y3xjn7xk-1405692885.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54279/original/y3xjn7xk-1405692885.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54279/original/y3xjn7xk-1405692885.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54279/original/y3xjn7xk-1405692885.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54279/original/y3xjn7xk-1405692885.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54279/original/y3xjn7xk-1405692885.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54279/original/y3xjn7xk-1405692885.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54280/original/4cm58d2w-1405692905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54280/original/4cm58d2w-1405692905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54280/original/4cm58d2w-1405692905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54280/original/4cm58d2w-1405692905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54280/original/4cm58d2w-1405692905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54280/original/4cm58d2w-1405692905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54280/original/4cm58d2w-1405692905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54281/original/6k5c3z9n-1405692925.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/54281/original/6k5c3z9n-1405692925.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54281/original/6k5c3z9n-1405692925.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54281/original/6k5c3z9n-1405692925.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54281/original/6k5c3z9n-1405692925.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54281/original/6k5c3z9n-1405692925.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/54281/original/6k5c3z9n-1405692925.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Graphologists may have a different view on this. It’s possible that the constraints of the Bic experiment might have prevented contributors from showing the true nature of their handwriting. We were, after all, writing on a screen rather than a piece of paper and many contributors will have used a mouse, which probably doesn’t accurately reflect their handwriting.</p>
<p>The experiment also throws up some very interesting data on handedness. Although the sample of right handed contributors is much larger than left-handed, there may be some differences emerging across letters.</p>
<p>An <a href="http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-760358331/left-handedness-a-writing-handicap">observational study</a> of left-handed writing on paper has identified the effects of different writing techniques, such as penhold and grip, on the written trace. Research on left-handed interactions with touch screens would form an interesting comparison. </p>
<h2>Universal but dull</h2>
<p>For many of us, the letters we contributed to Bic’s experiment will have been <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/bic-hopes-create-universal-font-based-everyones-handwriting-n12895">rather different from what we would write on paper</a>. Using a tablet, you might be able to use a stylus to simulate the writing experience, but many people will have used a mouse.</p>
<p>Although I could erase and re-draw my letters, I was still not satisfied with the outcome. My perceptual skills are rather more fine-tuned than my production capabilities.</p>
<p>But even if contributors are able to submit their actual handwriting to Bic, do we really want to use our writing as a model for reading? Teachers and educational publishers sometimes favour <a href="http://www.wired.com/2014/05/to-help-students-learn-this-school-created-its-own-font/">typefaces that correspond to children’s handwriting</a> but it has also been shown that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/idj.11.2.04wal">children can handle different letter shapes</a>. Adult readers are also extremely adept at recognising most words within a fraction of a second, regardless of the font so there doesn’t seem to be a great need to mimic handwriting.</p>
<p>And aesthetically, the concept of a universal typeface is probably misguided. Unlike faces, where <a href="http://galton.org/essays/1870-1879/galton-1878-nature-composite.pdf">Galton</a> observed that averageness is attractive, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/368239a0">though not necessarily the peak of attractiveness</a>, averaging letters is likely to result in a rather boring typeface. Designers spend considerable time balancing readability and look when producing a typeface. It is very much an art. Bic’s experiment is still fun though, and is throwing up some interesting data for all those keen to know more about how we write. And maybe the findings about men and women will at least teach Bic that women don’t need a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9503359/BIC-ridiculed-over-comfortable-pink-pens-for-women.html">specially adapted pen</a> for ladies anymore.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/28169/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mary Dyson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Pen maker Bic has been asking people around to world to submit their handwriting so it can produce what it is calling the Universal Typeface. Although the experiment is not claiming to have any scientific…Mary Dyson, Associate Professor, Typography & Graphic Communication, University of ReadingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/267252014-05-30T12:26:23Z2014-05-30T12:26:23ZThe secrets of designing a good typeface: it’s all in the tuning<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/48735/original/7rwn9tq9-1400249793.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">And how do you read your typeface?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/rachelpasch/2249021588/sizes/l">Justmakeit</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When we want what we write to be clearly communicated to a reader, we generally try to use a typeface that is clear to read. But few people realise how quickly your choice of typeface affects that process. If we can understand it better, we can design typefaces more effectively.</p>
<p>Readers like expending as little effort as possible when identifying individual letters and recognising words, so that they are left with more capacity to focus on understanding the meaning of the text. </p>
<p>Today we have many legible typefaces, each of which has its own visual style. Futura, for example, has no contrast of thick and thin strokes whereas Bodoni has substantial contrast.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49385/original/wckqxvqc-1400948384.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49385/original/wckqxvqc-1400948384.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49385/original/wckqxvqc-1400948384.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49385/original/wckqxvqc-1400948384.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49385/original/wckqxvqc-1400948384.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49385/original/wckqxvqc-1400948384.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49385/original/wckqxvqc-1400948384.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How contrast can vary.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Other characteristics include the slant, the weight and the angle of stress. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/48736/original/bp5w9r6j-1400250150.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/48736/original/bp5w9r6j-1400250150.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/48736/original/bp5w9r6j-1400250150.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/48736/original/bp5w9r6j-1400250150.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/48736/original/bp5w9r6j-1400250150.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/48736/original/bp5w9r6j-1400250150.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/48736/original/bp5w9r6j-1400250150.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/48736/original/bp5w9r6j-1400250150.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">So many Bs.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Despite this variation, fluent readers can, apparently without undue effort, identify quite different shapes as all being the same letter. An “a” in Comic Sans looks very different from an “a” in Times New Roman but they are still instantly understood as an “a” to the reader.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49386/original/x6ymphpv-1400949538.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49386/original/x6ymphpv-1400949538.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49386/original/x6ymphpv-1400949538.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49386/original/x6ymphpv-1400949538.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49386/original/x6ymphpv-1400949538.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49386/original/x6ymphpv-1400949538.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49386/original/x6ymphpv-1400949538.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Challenges of identifying letters.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It can be relatively difficult to differentiate between some fairly similar letterforms, though. On the face of things, a “c” and an “e” have very similar shapes, as do an “i” and an “l”. A comparable problem occurs in speech perception, where we need to identify vowels from different speakers. This is a challenge because the acoustic pattern of a vowel from one speaker is distinct from their other vowels but overlaps with the acoustic pattern of a different vowel spoken by someone else.</p>
<p>In designing typefaces, there is a tension between making sure there is a uniformity of style, which is achieved through commonalities in the shape, proportions, and other attributes of letters within a typeface and ensuring that each letter is distinct. For typographer <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Typographic_Opportunities_in_the_Compute.html?id=4hncNwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y">Jan Tschichold</a>, “legibility has its roots simply in the comfortable recognisability of thoroughly distinctive yet congruent letter forms”.</p>
<p>There are even <a href="http://bdatech.org/what-technology/typefaces-for-dyslexia/#dyslexie">typefaces designed</a> specifically for dyslexic readers. Among other things, these tend to <a href="http://bdatech.org/what-technology/typefaces-for-dyslexia/">increase the distinctions</a> between confusable letters. Dyslexic readers, it seems, prefer “p” and “q” to have distinct shapes rather than just be mirror images of each other, for example in the typeface Lexia Readable. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49176/original/3sdqhw5t-1400695472.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49176/original/3sdqhw5t-1400695472.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49176/original/3sdqhw5t-1400695472.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49176/original/3sdqhw5t-1400695472.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49176/original/3sdqhw5t-1400695472.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49176/original/3sdqhw5t-1400695472.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49176/original/3sdqhw5t-1400695472.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Irregularities of style.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the same time, there is psychological evidence that the shared traits between letters can help a reader identify them more efficiently. This has been explained as the reader’s <a href="http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/25604/1/SanockiDyson2011.pdf">perceptual processing system tuning to the regularities across letters.</a></p>
<p>Type designers add stylistic features to the basic forms of letters, whereas the reader considers the letter the other way round. They identify which stylistic forms have been added and remove them to find the basic form beneath it. </p>
<p>This process happens within a fraction of a second, when our eyes first fix on letters. If we focus on this process, we might be able to better understand how we process typefaces.</p>
<p>By collaborating with typeface designer Sofie Beier, we’ve identified some of the outstanding questions that need to be answered.</p>
<p>We don’t yet know exactly when we retune so we don’t know how the level of distinctiveness between typefaces affects timing. We don’t know if retuning is a default process and we don’t know if it happens gradually or rapidly. Nor do we know exactly what triggers it – is it that we have noticed that the letters are in a different typeface or that we struggle to identify certain letters? We don’t know if it happens more in some readers or reading contexts than others.</p>
<p>These are all important questions that could help us design better typefaces. We might even try to see if some irregularities, such as one or two particularly quirky letters in a typeface prevent us from tuning, making reading it more difficult. </p>
<p>This last question links to the contradictory objectives of distinctive yet congruent forms. If we know the answers, we could make better decisions about the optimum degrees of uniformity and distinctiveness in our typeface and about whether uniformity across some features, such as width, placement of <a href="http://www.typographydeconstructed.com/serif/">serifs</a> are more important than others. </p>
<p>Once these issues have been addressed, we could have a firmer basis for supporting people who have more difficulty reading – but we could also choose typefaces for specific purposes and design new typefaces that optimise legibility.</p>
<p>We may never be able to resolve the difficulties we have understanding the nuances of speech because we can’t choose what people’s voices or accents sound like but we do have control over what we read and how we present words to each other. With a little more understanding, we could develop typefaces that are not only visually pleasing but also highly functional.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26725/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mary Dyson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When we want what we write to be clearly communicated to a reader, we generally try to use a typeface that is clear to read. But few people realise how quickly your choice of typeface affects that process…Mary Dyson, Associate Professor, Typography & Graphic Communication, University of ReadingLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.