Hello folks,
Firstly, I'd like to boast about this (
https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5150/3/1/1) peer-reviewed publication about the overestimation of horizontal thickness, which, by the way, mentions typedrawers as a source. I know it's not your typical read for a type nerd, but I hope you can enjoy it.
Secondly, I'd like to ask: Do you think experimental science can make a valuable contribution to type design? And: What concepts from type design could be interesting scientifically?
All the best,
Jasper
Edit: Of course I should have started with: happy new year everyone!
Comments
All these compensations we use are actually demonstrating how optical perception departs from reality. Vertical/horizontal stems, different diagonal stems, adjust in strokes that cross diagonals, ink traps, contrasts, white areas and so on. It is great to have researchers taking a look on this.
Jasper: thank you very much for the topic. The article is a great finding! And my answers to your questions is (1) yes and (2) optical compensations, readability, white areas, relation of heights, and influence of type on speed and quality of understanding.
One danger of scientific research has been the tendency to over-generalize, either by the researchers or the media. Scientists and lay people sometimes do not understand the diversity of type design, so you get an experiment that shows Courier and Times being easier to read than Helvetica or Arial under some particular set of conditions, and people interpret that as meaning that serif fonts are easier to read than sans serif fonts.
This is unfortunate, but it does not mean that research is a bad thing, or even that the research itself is always flawed. (Although in that example, if the intent really was to find out if serif fonts are easier to read than sans serif, then yes, you need a good cross-section of each category, and the experiment certainly did not accomplish that.)
Certainly there could be other factors that influence the magnitude of the illusion. But the statement assumes that the goal of these typefaces is to appear to have zero contrast. This is definitely not always the case; there are many sans serifs that have low contrast, but (deliberately) not zero contrast.
I am curious as to which weights of Futura and Avenir were being considered. The contrast percentage likely varies.
(The reverse of this study would be to tinker with these proportions in a single font and have a suitable large set of subjects pick "the most pleasing". But it might be skewed if people actually prefer higher contrast over "none" – imagined or real. I think I do.)
I think it would be an interesting experiment to take a variable font with a contrast slider, and let the participants adjust that slider until they perceive zero contrast.
One could do this with several different weights, from light to regular to bold to black.
The openness and lack of other details in an o make it in some ways ideal... and in other ways too ideal.
I am also curious about how well the results will generalize across, for example, more vs less condensed fonts.
I should have been clearer: I'm suggesting using a variable font made up of non-letter shapes with adjustable x,y relative contrast.
Scientists do experiments to prove or disprove hypotheses. Type designers do experiments because they think an idea is interesting and might teach them something useful. I think Thomas' idea of an experiment in which test subjects adjust x or y contrast until they appear equivalent is interesting and might teach me something useful.