Research-led counterpoint to blanding?

KP Mawhood

Came across the idea of “desirable difficulties” in learning theory – the notion that a bit of perceptual friction (e.g. slightly harder‑to‑read material) can encourage slower, more deliberate reading and deeper processing. It feels like a compelling counterpoint to blanding: when legibility becomes monotonous, it may actually become harder to process meaningfully.

One blog I read even mentioned “repetition blindness” – our tendency to slip into autopilot when nothing perceptually significant changes. It reminds me of Hyndman’s work (e.g. Why Fonts Matter), but I don't remember this explicitly addressing cognitive effort in the sense learning theory does.

Curious what others think, and whether there’s related research that explores this tension between legibility, ease, and depth.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11409-015-9149-z

Thomas Phinney

I have run across this with regards to font choice. The idea was that a harder-to-read font would enhance memory of the material. This was realized in the form of a typeface, “Sans Forgetica.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sans_forgetica)

Initial research was promising (sample size 300-400), but more extensive studies with larger samples all showed that Sans Forgetica either had no effect or occasionally made things worse.

See: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/ku5bz_v1

also https://www.newswise.com/articles/previously-claimed-memory-boosting-font-sans-forgetica-does-not-actually-boost-memory / https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09658211.2020.1758726