ID,P,PS+portfolio.compressed

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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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!

Documents

ID,P,PS+portfolio.compressed