View
74
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
280 281
Lit
ho
sL
it
ho
sC
ar
ol
t
wo
mb
ly
Tara
Coo
k
Photo by: Carter, Sebastian. Twentieth Century Type Designers: Sebastian Carter. Aldershot: Lund
Humphries, 2002. Print.
“Text families have so many characters and
require such attention to detail. They can
be both tedious and exhausting to create.
I like display designs better. They’re more
spontaneous and fun to work on.”
Carol Twombly is an award-winning type designer born in Concord, Massachusetts, on June 13, 1959 and is the youngest of fi ve children. Originally interested in sculpture, she attended the Rhode Island School of Design where she discovered type design and typography under professor Charles Bigelow. Encouraged by her professor and his partner, Kris Holmes, she was not only starting to gain a respect for letterforms but also becoming involved in the design of letters. Encouraged by her professor and his partner, Kris Holmes, she was not only starting to gain a respect for letterforms but also becoming involved in the design of letters. Twombly is one of only fi ve people to hold this specialized diploma combing the art of graphics and the science of computers.
In 1988 Carol joined Adobe Systems, Inc. part-time as one of three in-house designers. It is here that she fi rst began using the Macintosh and Mac applications to design type. Two years after joining Adobe, Twombly completed her fi rst original display typefaces which include some of Adobe’s Originals most popular typefaces: Trajan, Charlemange and Lithos. Trajan is based on inscriptions on the Column of Trajan in Rome and is a popular font for movie posters. Charlemange was modeled after classical Roman carvings. Lithos is a sans serif typeface based on Greek stone inscriptions comprised of only uppercase letters. Just within a few weeks of Lithos being commercialized, it became an instant success and is perhaps the
most enduring of the three typefaces.
In 1994, the Association Typographique Internationale awarded Carol the prestigious Charles Peignot Award for her outstanding contribution to type design. She was the fi rst woman and second American to receive this award in the under thirty-fi ve age category. Her approach is of that of a visual artist who relies on a trained eye and a skilled hand rather than the logic of a scholar. Although she is recognized as one of the twentieth century’s most infl uential designers, Twombly sees herself a graphic designer who specializes in type. According to her, “If a type is well-received and widely used by the public then it is a success.”
In 1990, two years after joining Adobe Systems Inc., Carol Twombly completed Adobe’s fi rst original display typefaces: Trajan, Charlemange and Lithos. Within weeks of becoming commercial, Lithos was considered an instant success and remains one of her most popular font designs. It is based on the inscriptional lettering, dating from 400 B.C, that was used to dedicate temples or honor public fi gures in ancient Greece. The basic shapes were derived from the geometric letterforms that were free of adornment and chiseled into stone. Twombly described the way she came up with the design, “I began by drawing fairly geometric interpretations of them. I didn’t copy the letters directly, however I started with fairly close copies of the Greek stuff , but the letters ended up looking a little bit dead on the page. I also wanted to make the design a bit more contemporary but not lose the simplicity of the original Greek model.”(Fig 1) Therefore Lithos is a modern interpretation rather than precise reproduction.
Carol began the design of three diff erent initial weights, she said “I found that the extralight weight was the most diffi cult to design.”
The typeface now has fi ve diff erent weights including the initial light, regular and bold. It has a fl exible design, simplifi ed character shapes along with playful asymmetric qualities which makes it ideal for display type such as headings, posters or fl yers and is not suitable for body text. This typeface would be classifi ed as sans serif because of it’s noticeably absent serifs at the end of the strokes. The fi nal characteristic that puts this font in the sans serif category is the fact that it is based upon geometric construction.
1. Digital copy of a
Lithos sketch
- Carol Twombly
Tara Cook Type Final1.indd 280-281Tara Cook Type Final1.indd 280-281 5/22/12 12:51 PM5/22/12 12:51 PM
MBLYTWOMY
WOMBLYTWY
AROL CARoLL CLTWOMBlYTwYCAROL CAROL
ROL CAROLL CALOMBLYTWOY
L CAROLCAROL
OL CAROLCARL
CA
RO
L T
WO
MB
LY
ADOBE TYPE DESIGNERa b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
CCCCCAAAAA
RO
LLLL TTTTT
WO
MB
LY
Caro
l Tw
ombl
y is
bor
n in
Con
cord
, M
assa
chus
etts
, on
Ju
ne
13,
1959
an
d is
the
youn
gest
of
fi ve
child
ren.
1959
1988
1990
Join
s Ado
be an
d de
sign
s Ado
be’s
first
orig
inal
dis
play
typ
efac
es -
Traj
an, C
harle
mag
ne &
LIT
HO
S
Awar
ded
the
pres
tigio
us
Char
les
Peig
not
Awar
d fo
r he
r ou
tsta
ndin
g co
ntrib
utio
n to
ty
pe
desig
n by
Th
e As
soci
atio
n Ty
pogr
aphi
que
Inte
rnat
iona
le. S
he w
as th
e fi rs
t wom
an
and
seco
nd A
mer
ican
to
rece
ive
this
awar
d in
the
und
er t
hirt
y-fi v
e ag
e ca
tego
ry.
1992
Des
igne
d ty
pefa
ce
Adob
e Ca
slon,
co
nsid
ered
by
man
y to
be
the
best
ty
pefa
ce e
ver
to c
ome
out
of t
he
Adob
e de
sign
stud
io
1994
Des
igne
d ty
pefa
ce M
yria
d Pr
o
“If a type is well-received and widely used by the public
then it is a success.”- Carol Twombly
DDD
1999
Two
yea
rs a
fter
rele
asin
g he
r la
st
type
face
, Ch
apar
ral,
Caro
l Tw
ombl
y co
mpl
etel
y re
tired
from
des
ign.
S
he
now
live
s a p
rivat
e lif
e de
vote
d to
her
ot
her
crea
tive
purs
uits
unr
elat
ed t
o ty
pogr
aphy
.
1984
Won
the
pres
tigio
us M
orisa
wa
Type
face
Des
ign
Com
petit
ion
aw
ar
d-
w
in
ni
ng
d
es
ig
ne
r GGG
Sinclair Community College Design Department
Presents
Visiting SpeakerTypography
Lecture Seriess
MBLYTWOMY
WOMBLYTWY
AROL CARoLL CLTWOMBlYTwYCAROL CAROL
ROL CAROLL CAL
OMBLYTWOY
L CAROLCAROL
OL CAROLCARLADMISSION
IS
FREE!!!!
OPEN TO PUBLIC!!!!
Questions?(937) 512 - 4505
When: Friday, June 15, 2012 7:00 pm Where: Blair Hall Theatre Building 2 Sinclair Community College 444 West Third Street Dayton, OH 45402
Table of Content sChapter 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B1Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C1,D1Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E1Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G1,H1 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1Colophon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A1
T h e L e g i b i l i t y O f T y p el i n d a r e y n o l d sDedicated to Jackie Brewer
All rights reserved. No part of the contents of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication
Data: Reynolds, Linda. Th e Legibility of Type.
A1
Copyright 2010 by Linda Reynolds
What makes type legible? Th is is oft en dismissed as merely a mater of common sense, but if common sense is all
that is needed, why is it that some of the basic rules for good legibility are so frequently fl outed? True, legibility
may not always be the fi rst consideration, but for words that are intended to be read it cannot be ignored.
It has never been diffi cult to fi nd examples of illegibillity of various kinds, but examples are abound now that desktop
publishing systems have brought electronic typesetting within reach of those with little or no knowledge of basic
design principals. Legibility as an issue is perhaps more important than ever before, some of the most important factors
eff ecting it are outlined below.
T h e L e g i b i l i t y O f T y p e l i n d a r e y n o l d s
b1
1. A relatively large x-height in
relation to the capital letter height.
Th is will make the lowercase letters
easier to discriminate (fi g 1.)
2. Large, open counters and a
relatively generous set width. Th is
will help to prevent letters from
fi lling in and running together.
Skilled readers recognize whole
words by their outline and their
internal shape rather than reading
letter by letter. If the spaces within
a word are lost it will be diffi cult or
impossible to recognize (fi g 2.)
For good legibility, a typeface should have the following characteristics:
3. Not too much variation between
thick and thin strokes. Delicate thin
strokes may disappear if the image is
photographically reproduced during
reproduction (fi g 3.)fi g 1.
fi g 2.
fi g 3.
Th ese criteria are satisfi ed by a number of typefaces,
both seriff ed and sans serif. Sans serif faces, however,
are considered by some to be intrinsically less legible
than serif faces. It is argued that serifs give horizontal
emphasis that helps to hold letters together as words,
and to guide the eyes along each line. Th is may well be
true (fi g 4.)
fi g 4.
Th e German school of Gestalt psychologists described
a number of principals by which we try to group areas
of the retinal image that are likely to be part of the
same fi gure. One of these is the principal of direction,
also known as the principal of good continuation,
whereby separate elements with a common direction or
trend are seen to form a line. Th is would suggest that
serifs may indeed help adjacent letters to be grouped as
words, and words to be grouped into lines.
It is also argued that seriff ed letter shapes have
more individuality and therefore are more easily
distinguished from one another than sans serif letters.
Interestingly the top halves of lowercase letters are
more important in letter and word recognition then
the bottom halves. Th e tops of some sans serif letters
are very much alike, whereas in a seriff ed face they are
more easily distinguishable. Some sans serif faces may
also cause problems, it is essential that the numeral
‘l’, lowercase ‘I’, and capital ‘T’ should be uniquely
identifi able.
In spite of these arguments, researchers have been unable
to fi nd any signifi cant diff erences in the legibility of
seriff ed and sans serif faces. Most of us are more familiar
with seriff ed faces, and it may be that we tend to prefer
what we’re used to. Provided that the letter, word and
line spacing are suitable, a sans serif face is likely to be
just as legible as a seriff ed face, and in some situations it
may be more so.
chapter 1 - choice of t ype
c1chapter 2 - variations in letterformCapitals
Text set in all-capital lettering is less legible than text
set in lowercase letters with capitals where appropriate
(fi g 5.)
Th is is because lowercase letters, with their ascenders
and descenders, create more distinctive word outlines
than do capital letters. Any word in capitals has a
rectangular outline. Capitals also take up more space
than lowercase letters, so more fi xations of the eyes
are needed to perceive the same number of words.
Th is slows reading (fi g 6.)
LITH
OS
Charlemagne
trajan
fi g 5.
fi g 6.
Italics
Italics have been shown to be less legible than roman
letters for continuous text. Th is may be because
the italic letters are less easily distinguished from
one another. We are also less used to them. With
electronically generated type, so-called ‘italics’ may
in fact be a slanted version of the roman letters,
rather than a separately designed font. Some of these
‘obliques’ are likely to have reduced legibility (fi g 7.)
fi g 7.B
old
Bold type is of course invaluable for
emphasis, but it is likely to reduce legibility
when used for continuous text. Th e dense
black type tends to create aft er-images,
noticeable as bright glowing areas between
the lines.
l i n d a r e y n o l d sT h e L e g i b i l i t y O f T y p e
True Italics
T h e L e g i b i l i t y O f T y p e l i n d a r e y n o l d s
d1chapter 2 - variations in letterform [cont.]
Condensed & Extended Type
Th e danger with condensed
styles is that the letters will either
apparently or actually fi ll in
and run together. Th e standard
of reproduction needs to be
high to ensure good legibility.
Extended styles reduce the
number of words that can be read
at each fi xation. Normal letter
proportions can be distorted very
easily in electronic typesetting
systems, with predictably illegible
results in many cases.
Type Size
If the type is too small, letters and word will be diffi cult
to discriminate. If it is too large, less words will be
perceived at each fi xation. For a normal reading distance
of 12-15 in, the optimum type size for continuous text
is usually somewhere between 9pt and 11pt, depending
on the x-height of the typeface and the circumstances in
which the material will be used.
one point = 1/72 inch
one pica = 12 points
one inch = 6 picas or 72 points
Ex.
extended
condensedEx.
T h e L e g i b i l i t y O f T y p e l i n d a r e y n o l d s
e1chapter 3 - the arrangement of t ype on the page
Word Spacing
Th e space between words must of course be
perceptively greater than the space between letters
within a word. Th e Gestalt principle of grouping
by ‘proximity’ is at work here. However, the
spacing must not be so great that the horizontal
emphasis, or ‘good continuation’ of the line is
destroyed. Optimum word spacing will therefore
depend on both letter spacing and line spacing.
Line Spacing
For ease of reading, words must be grouped into
lines that the eyes can follow easily. Th e white
space between lines must therefore be greater than
the word spacing. For continuous text it is almost
always an advantage to use a linefeed one or two
points greater than the point size of the type. Th is
is especially true for line lengths approaching the
upper limit for good legibility, for typefaces with a
strong vertical emphasis (this would include most
sans serifs and modern seriff ed faces) and for faces
with a relatively large x-height. If too much space
is added however, the lines will appear to drift
apart and the text will appear lighter in color.
Line Length
Line length is a very important factor in legibility.
If the lines are too short, we are unable to make
effi cient use of our peripheral vision and the normal
pattern of eye movements is disrupted. If the lines
are too long, it is diffi cult for the eyes to make a
smooth and accurate ‘backsweep’ to the beginning
of each new line. We may miss lines or begin reading
the same line again (‘doubling’). Th e optimum line
length for continuous reading is between about 60
and 65 characters and spaces. Lines of more than 70
characters and spaces will reduce legibility and may
be consciously perceived as being an eff ort to read.
Th e minimum line length for comfort is probably
about 40 characters and spaces.
Justifi ed & Unjustifi ed Setting
Line length is a very important factor in legibility.
If the lines are too short, we are unable to make
effi cient use of our peripheral vision and the normal
pattern of eye movements is disrupted. If the lines
are too long, it is diffi cult for the eyes to make a
smooth and accurate ‘backsweep’ to the beginning
of each new line. We may miss lines or begin reading
the same line again (‘doubling’). Th e optimum line
length for continuous reading is between about 60
and 65 characters and spaces. Lines of more than 70
characters and spaces will reduce legibility and may
be consciously perceived as being an eff ort to read.
Th e minimum line length for comfort is probably
about 40 characters and spaces.
Letter Spacing
Th e space between letters must be suffi cient to
separate them clearly. If they touch or appear to
touch, legibility will be severely reduced. Where
condensed sans serif faces are set tightly spaced, it
is common to fi nd letters that have fused to form a
diff erent but legitimate word with a meaning quite
diff erent from that intended. If letter spacing is too
great, outline will be diluted and mote diffi cult to
recognize.
km km k m
Th e quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
Ex.
Ex.
T h e L e g i b i l i t y O f T y p e l i n d a r e y n o l d s
F1chapter 4 - t ype and it s background
Black on White vs White on Black
White type on a black background is, in general,
less legible than its opposite. Th is is because of
the phenomenon of ‘irradiation’, whereby small
bright images on a dark ground will appear
to spread. To counteract this tendency, the
typeface should have open counters and the
letters should not be too tightly spaced. Sans
serif faces generally withstand reversal better
than seriff ed faces. Th ere are no fi ne serifs or
thin strokes to be lost if the image is thinned-
down, and no serifs to fuse if it becomes
thickened.
Mechanically Tinted Backgrounds
When using mechanical tints it is important to look
carefully at the dot size in relation to the size of the
type. Th e coarser the screen, the more likely it is that
the dots will distort the letter shapes. Sans serifs tend
to survive better than seriff ed faces because of their
simpler and more robust letterforms.
Contrast
For good legibility, the contrast between type and
its background should be at least 70%. Th us if the
background has a refl ectance of 100 units the type
should have a refl ectance of not more than 30 units,
or vice versa. Th is is true for colored images too.
Complementary colors with similar tonal values
will cause the type to appear to vibrate against its
background, a particularly unpleasant eff ect.
T h e L e g i b i l i t y O f T y p e l i n d a r e y n o l d s
g1Glossary
alignment - Th e positioning of text within the page margins. Alignment can be fl ush left , fl ush right, justifi ed, or
centered. Flush left and fl ush right are sometimes referred to as left justifi ed and right justifi ed.
ascender - Th e part of lowercase letters (such as k, b, and d) that ascends above the x-height of the other lowercase
letters in a face.
baseline - Th e imaginary line on which the majority of the characters in a typeface rest.
contrast - A subjective feeling that graphic elements (such as fonts) are diff erent but work together well. Th is gives
a feeling of variety without losing harmony. Within a particular font, contrast also refers to the variety of stroke
thicknesses that make up the characters. Helvetica has low contrast and Bodoni has high contrast.
counter - Th e enclosed (or partially enclosed) space within letters such as ‘c,’ ‘e,’ S,’ ‘H,’ and ‘g.’ Oft en confused with
“bowl.”
descender - Th e part of lowercase letters (such as y, p, and q) that descends below the baseline of the other lowercase
letters in a font face. In some typefaces, the uppercase J and Q also descend below the baseline.
font - One weight, width, and style of a typeface. Before scalable type, there was little distinction between the terms
font, face, and family. Font and face still tend to be used interchangeably, although the term face is usually more
correct.
grid - A grid is the skeleton or framework that allows for arranging content within the space of the page. It is the
building block of all digital images and marks and is not a rigid formula, but instead a fl exible, resilient structure.
headline - Th e short lines of emphasized text that introduce detail information in the body text that follows. Also
the category of faces that are designed to work best in headline text.
kerning - Th e adjustment of horizontal space between individual characters in a line of text. Adjustments in
kerning are especially important in large display and headline text lines. Without it, many letter combinations
can look awkward. Th e objective of kerning is to create visually equal spaces between all letters so that the eye
can move smoothly along the text.
T h e L e g i b i l i t y O f T y p e l i n d a r e y n o l d s
leading - Th e amount of space added between lines of text to make the document legible. Th e term originally
referred to the thin lead spacers that printers used to physically increase space between lines of metal type. Most
applications automatically apply standard leading based on the point size of the font. Closer leading fi ts more
text on the page, but decreases legibility. Looser leading spreads text out to fi ll a page and makes the document
easier to read.
legibility - Th e ease with which the reader can discern the type on the page, based on the tone of the type in
relation to the background and the letterforms’ shape with respect to each other.
pica - A unit of measure that is approximately 1/6th of an inch. A pica is equal to 12 points. Th e traditional
British and American pica is 0.166 inches. In PostScript printers, a pica is exactly 1/6th of an inch.
points - A unit of measure in typography. Th ere are approximately 72 points to the inch. A pica is 12 points.
san serif - A type face that does not have serifs. Generally a low-contrast design. Sans serif faces lend a clean,
simple appearance to documents.
serif - Small decorative strokes that are added to the end of a letter’s main strokes. Serifs improve readability by
leading the eye along the line of type.
subhead - May be either a display line enlarging on the main headline, usually in smaller size or a short heading
inside the copy used to break up long patches of gray.
tracking - Th e average space between characters in a block of text. Sometimes also referred to as letter-spacing.
typeface - Th e letters, numbers, and symbols that make up a design of type. A typeface is oft en part of a type
family of coordinated designs. Th e individual typefaces are named aft er the family and are also specifi ed with a
designation, such as italic, bold or condensed.
x-height - Traditionally, x-height is the height of the lowercase letter x. It is also the height of the body of
lowercase letters in a font, excluding the ascenders and descenders. Some lower-case letters that do not have
ascenders or descenders still extend a little bit above or below the x-height as part of their design. Th e x-height
can vary greatly from typeface to typeface at the same point size.
Glossaryh1
T h e L e g i b i l i t y O f T y p e l i n d a r e y n o l d s
i1index
counters p. B1, F1
stroke p. B1, F1
sans serif p. B1, F1
serif p. B1, F1
ascender p. C1
descender p. C1
Gestalt Principle p. E1
legibility p. B1, C1, D1, E1, F1
capitals p. C1
bold p. C1
italics p. C1
condensed type p. D1, E1
extended type p. D1
letter spacing p. E1
line length p. E1
justifi ed setting p. E1
x-height p. B1,E1
typeface p. B1, D1, E1, F1
type size p. D1
word spacing p. E1
unjustifi ed setting p. E1
line spacing p. B1,E1
contrast p. F1
pica p. D1
points p. D1,E1
T h e L e g i b i l i t y O f T y p e l i n d a r e y n o l d s
J1
colophonBook D
esign: Tara E Cook
Hardware: Th is book was created using a M
acintosh Gx
Soft ware: Designed and produced using
Adobe Photoshop and InDesign
Type Faces used: ITC anna, Minion Pro
Linda Reynolds
Th e Legibility of Type
Copyright2010 by Linda Reynolds
“Your Solution to Pest Intrusion!”“Your Solution to Pest Intrusion!” Technologically
advanced methods of protection!
Family and
environmentally friendly!
Well-trained and
professional employees! Lifetime protection!
www.terminix.com
Call 24/7 for a solution now!
Kansas Missouri Johnson Co. Independence
913-696-0351 816-241-1405 913-631-7130 816-478-8212
Commonly Treated Pests:
Termites Ants Rodents Spiders Flies Hornets Fleas Cockroaches
Strongest
Guarantee in
the Business!
Recommended