The Influence of Serifs on 'H' and 'I': Useful Knowledge from Design-Led Scientific Research

ABSTRACTThe typographical naivety of much scientific legibility research has caused designers to question the value of the research and the results. Examining the reasons underlying this questioning, the paper discusses the importance of designers being more accepting of scientific findings, and why legibility investigations have value. To demonstrate how typographic knowledge can be incorporated into the design of studies to increase their validity, the paper reports on a new investigation into the role of serifs when viewed at a distance. The experiment looks into the identification of the lowercase letters 'j', 'i', 'l', 'b', 'h', 'n', 'u', and 'a' in isolation. All of the letters originate in the same typeface and are presented in one version with serifs and one version without serifs. Although the experiment found no overall legibility difference between the sans serif and the serif versions, the study showed that letters with serifs placed on the vertical extremes were more legible at a distance than the same letters in a sans serif. These findings can therefore provide specific guidance on the design of individual letters and demonstrate the product of collaboration between designer and scientist on the planning, implementation, and analysis of the study.INTRODUCTIONA review of the published material on experimental legibility research demonstrates that a lack of typographical understanding among many researchers with a background in science can make these findings irrelevant to designers. This paper will offer an account of how this lack of understanding is manifested in the methodological detail of the studies, and suggest a direction for the field of legibility research. Through an example of new empirical research following the recommended approach, the paper shows how experimental investigations can inform the work of practicing designers.According to Nigel Cross ( 2001 ) the discussion of science and its relation to design has a 40-year circle, first appearing in the 1920s, and then again in the 1960s. The impact of this relationship has been thoroughly covered by a number of authors ( e.g. Cross, 2001; Heylighen et al. 2009 ). A scientific work process is often described as being driven by a search for evidence, where assumptions are tested aiming at some form of answer. The skill of designing, on the other hand, is often described as a creative operation that is strengthened by a design process acquired by craftsmen through practice. Harold Nelson and Erik Stoltenman ( 2003 ) see the design approach as having two major cognitive components: one is that of ima- gination, intuition, emotion and instinctive thinking; the other is that of reasoning containing both synthetic and analytic thinking. According to the authors, analytic thinking - here similar to science - is a reductive way of thinking where you separate parts for investigation. Yet, only when the elements are brought back into a context that recognizes the complexity of the matter, will the analytic thinking create productive knowledge.Although the underlying bases of the work process of scientists and designers have their differences, the two approaches can benefit significantly from the contributions of the other. Receptiveness from academic researchers towards incorporating design expertise in the development of test material in legibility investigations can help validate the research findings; the investigation will not only inform the discipline of the researcher, but also create findings that can be usable for the practicing designer. If designers on their part are more open to scientific findings, such research can provide an informed influence on their work. With greater awareness of the empirical work process, designers can further benefit from implementing this process in their designing.In recent years, a growing interest in strengthening the connection between the two different ways of working is emerging, with various research institutions encouraging interdisciplinary work. …