International TypoGraphics Magazine

When invited to review this title it’s arrival was awaited with anticipation, but sadly has disappointed. It is based upon a PhD ‘affiliated’ with The Royal College of Art, London; so one would expect it to provide a coherent account of the topic. Regrettably it does not. It does provide an entertaining collection of examples; and is the result of combing through the research literature. Sofie Beier has also had the benefit of access to the former archive of the Graphic Information Research Unit, now at Reading University. The author starts with the assertion (note, not the ‘hope’) that ‘This book will … help type designers create legible typefaces … and “help graphic designers determine the optimal typeface for a given project”’ (p.7). The intention is commendable, but I wish it did. The cover provides a fair indication of the content, by presenting the sub-title more legibly than the title.

The book is structured into 15 chapters; the first two ‘Test methods’ and ‘Understanding reading’ provide an appetising introduction to the science of legibility testing. Unhappily this is marred by a lack of any discussion of the issue of large appearing founts in test material. The hungry reader must wait until page ?? for an introduction to this key issue. Later (p.127) Beier cites Ole Lund’s review of research on sans serif as opposed to seriffed faces revealing that the research findings lack ‘internal validity’ due to inconsistent test material. This exemplifies a general characteristic of the book, namely the absence of consistent treatment of the relevant issues. One would expect an author with an interest in the subject to introduce the influencing factors in legibility testing; such as type design, choice of typeface, size, roman, italic, capitalisation, inter character space, inter line space (leading), and line length. Additionally one would expect a clear statement of whether the intention was to cover printed, screen based, or wayfinding applications. While these are all mentioned to some extent, they are not done so in a ‘legible’ manner. That is to say, despite the numerous chapters and topics, they do not present a coherent treatment of the subject. The issues are subtle, and therefore demand clear exposition.

Beier concludes the chapter on ‘Understanding reading’ by stating that ‘the collective research suggests that the functions of letter, word, and context detectors support each other by approaching the reading matter from different angles. Although highly dependent on the other detectors, the function of identifying the individual letter comes across as the strongest single factor’. This contradicts the value of word shape as a major factor in legibility. However, if one consults the original research cited immediately preceding this¹ one is prompted to question the form in which the test material was presented. (One would welcome sight of this. While there is a partial description, no specific examples are included to allow a professional opinion). Assuming this example is typical of the research, then one is tempted to question both its validity, and the author’s interpretation of its significance. ...