Typographic hierarchy and legibility research

Twyman, M (1981) 
‘Typography without words’, 
in Visible Language, XV no. 1, 5–12
Spencer, Herbert (1969) 
The visible word 
London: Lund Humphries/Royal College of Art
Typographic hierarchy
Legibility research

Twyman 1981
A notation system to guide discussion and design decisions
Notation that describes function rather than exact form
(making use of the technical limitations of a typewriter)
Spatial grouping (Gestalt psychology): vertical and lateral
spatial cues
To show the typography is a modular system
About the relationship between levels of heading and
paragraphs of continuous text

Which examples would be ‘reasonably unambiguous in visual terms’?
A
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
D
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
B
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
E
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
C
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
oooo xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooo xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
F
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
oooo xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooo xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo

largest ethnic group in East Asia. Other languages
also use variant forms of Hanzi: Kanji (Japanese),
Hanja (Korean), and Chữ Nôm (Vietnamese).
The Chinese language
There are eight main varieties of speech in China
thataredistinctlydifferentfromeachotherinterms
of pronunciation and vocabulary, though they are
often referred to as ‘dialects’ rather than languages.
Linguistic aspects of Hanzi
Chinese characters are classified as logographic,
meaning that each character represents a mor-
pheme, the smallest unit of meaning. It is often
said that Chinese characters are pictographic; this
is only partly true.
A B
D E
✔
✔

Linguistic
aspects of Hanzi
The Chinese
language
C
F

Which example articulate the text as clearly as possible?
A
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
B
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
C
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
D
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Continuous prose in Chinese is customarily set
justified left and right. This is true even in clas-
sical poetry, where phrases have set number of
characters. The fact that Chinese characters are
monowidth makes flush left, ragged right align-
ment impractical.
Spacing and layout
As mentioned earlier, spacing in Chinese typefaces
is achieved internally within each character, by
way of defining a surface frame that is a smaller
percentage than the body frame (em square). This
internal spacing is the optimal spacing under most
circumstances.Columnwidths(hencelinelengths)
are calculated by number of characters.
Since Chinese is monowidth, and that column
widths are measured by fixed numbers of charac-
ters, spacing should be an easy matter. But this
is not the case. There are three factors that make
justification a complex issue: line-beginning and
line-ending rules; the insertion of proportional
width characters, such as Latin glyphs, symbols
or figures; adjustments of spacing around certain
punctuation marks.
ment impractical.
Spacing and layout
widths are measured by fixed numbers of char-
acters, spacing should be an easy matter. But this
punctuation marks.
A B

ment impractical.
Spacing and layout
punctuation marks.
ment impractical.
Spacing and layout
C D
✔

moulds to mass produce individual types, which is an essential criteria for
the development of typefaces.
Chinese (Hanzi)
Chinese is currently the most widely used language in the world, used by
1302 million people (Lewis et al 2016). The Chinese language is written
in Hanzi, where Han refers to the dynasty (202 BC–220 AD) as well as the
largest ethnic group in East Asia. Other languages also use variant forms
of Hanzi: Kanji (Japanese), Hanja (Korean), and Chữ Nôm (Vietnamese).
The Chinese language and the Hanzi script
There are eight main varieties of speech in China that are distinctly dif-
ferent from each other in terms of pronunciation and vocabulary, though
they are often referred to as ‘dialects’ rather than languages.
Chinese characters are classified as logographic, meaning that each char-
acter represents a morpheme, the smallest unit of meaning. It is often said
that Chinese characters are pictographic; this is only partly true.
Traditional and Simplified Chinese There are currently
two forms of Chinese orthography: Traditional Chinese and Simplified
Chinese. Simplified Chinese characters were derived from the traditional
forms by reducing the number of strokes, and were first proposed during
the Republic of China era in 1935.
Anatomical characteristics of Chinese characters
Chinese characters are customarily monowidth; they sit within a notional
square. In typesetting, this notional square is defined as the em square,
How many orders of heading?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
ooooo
iiii
iiii xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ooooo
1
2
3
4

is therefore important that justification is done via Chinese justification
rules rather than Latin ones to ensure good spacing.
Code-mixing
Code-mixing is a term borrowed from linguistics. It is referred to the in-
sertion of words and short phrases from another script into the text flow
of the main script.
Explanation or disambiguation
Chinese translations of technical or specialised terms may be ambiguous
because they are little known or non-standard. This may also be true for
names of places and foreign people.
Parallel typesetting
Text extent
A passage translated from English into Chinese is usually shorter. This is
due to the fact that Chinese is a more concise writing system.
Typesize
The anatomical differences between Chinese and Latin characters make
them appear different in size even when they are both set in the same
point size. Chinese characters appear larger, as they occupy the em square
more fully than Latin characters.
Weight and density Chinese characters can have anywhere
between one to more than 30 strokes, making their densities vary quite
considerably. A page of Chinese text can therefore appear rather spotty
Which is the second order of heading?
ooooo
iiii
ooooo
ooooo
iiii
iiii xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Content structure
The norm: the main text
elements above
the norm
elements below
the norm
eg chapter headings 
subheads 
images 
introductory text 
pull quotes 
etc . . .
eg footnotes 
captions 
margin notes 
page numbers 
headers and footers 
etc . . .
continuous text 
body text

Typographic variations for headings: diﬀerentiation from the norm
Continuous text: roman
Heading: italic
Heading: small caps
HEADING: ALL CAPS
Heading: bold
Heading: another typeface
Heading: colour
Heading: size

Heading diﬀerentiation: line break and space above
each glyph, with a slightly smaller square defining the margin within which
the character sits, referred to as the ‘surface frame’ (Lu and Tang 2016:111).
Typeface designers define surface frames as percentages of the body frame.
The larger this percentage, the more tightly spaced the typeface appear.
Units of measurement
The Western point system was brought into China along with the in-
dustrialised process of printing with moveable lead type in 1859–60 by
Presbyterian missionary William Gamble. A modular size system with nu-
merical labels were subsequently adopted for Chinese lead type, with nine
related sizes which were mapped onto points. The most common size for
continuous text was number 5, equal to 10.5 point. Latin characters were
casted in this size for the purpose of code-mixed setting. Chinese digi-
tal typesetting now adopts the Western system of points and picas. The
concept of the em is important in Chinese typesetting, as column widths,
spacing and indents are defined using fractions or multiples of the em,
which is the point size of the current type used.

Heading diﬀerentiation: equal space above and below (not ideal)

Heading diﬀerentiation: closer to paragraph below than above

Heading diﬀerentiation: now bold

Heading diﬀerentiation: bold and left indent

Heading diﬀerentiation: larger and left indent

Heading diﬀerentiation: larger and left indent (smaller line spaces)

Diﬀerentiation of heading: larger and outdent

may occur when words run together. This should be avoided when writing
and editing the text. Punctuation and typographic treatments can also be
used to avoid ambiguity.
Anatomical characteristics of Chinese characters
Chinese characters are customarily monowidth; they sit within a notional
square. In typesetting, this notional square is defined as the em square,
referred to as the ‘body frame’. Spacing between Chinese characters are
defined internally within each glyph, with a slightly smaller square defin-
ing the margin within which the character sits, referred to as the ‘surface
frame’ (Lu and Tang 2016:111). Typeface designers define surface frames as
percentages of the body frame. The larger this percentage, the more tightly
spaced the typeface appear.
[paragraph]
[heading 1]
[paragraph]
[heading 2]

Spencer 1969
Review of literature on legibility research of over 100 years
Empirical studies conducted by researchers outside the
typography discipline
Controlled experiments in lab situations
Studies that guided typographic design

Spencer 1969
Distinctiveness of characters
Legibility of typefaces
Importance of x-height rather than point size
Capitals, lowercase, bold, italics, numerals, punctuation
Interrelationship of type size, measure and leading
Indication of paragraphs and alignment (line endings)
Congeniality, atmosphere value and typographic allusion

Legibility research: methods
Distance
Speed of perception (tachistoscope)
Eye-movement
Blink-rate
Visual fatigue
Peripheral vision
Focal variation
Visibility
Heart-rate measurement
Haploscope (stereoscope)
Shaking table
Rate of work

We read in series of jumps along a line
Javal 1878
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog. Five boxing gymnasts jump
fixations (pauses): where perception occurs
94% of reading time devoted to pauses
each pause ¼ second
saccades (jumps)

x-height is as important if not more important than size for legibility
Poulton 1955
Handgloves
HandglovesGill Sans: smaller x-height
Helvetica: larger x-height

x-height is as important if not more important than size for legibility
Poulton 1955
Gill Sans 170pt
Helvetica 150pt
Handgloves
Handgloves
x-heights have been equalised

Lead type
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Plantin_letterpress.jpg

Serif and sans serif typefaces equally preferred by readers and read
Hartley & Room 1983, Tinker 1963, Gould et al 1987, Zachrisson 1965
Legibility research in printing is
concerned with the efficiency of the
visible word. So, too is the practice
of typographical design. During the
past century both researchers and
designers have put forward
proposals for making printed letters
communicate more efficiently. This
report describes and illustrates some
of the more significant of these
proposals.
report describes and illustrates
some of the more significant of
these proposals.
Serif faces may be easier to read in continuous text than sans serif faces
Burt 1959, Hvistendal & Kahl 1975, Robinson, Abbamonte & Evans 1971,Wheeldon 1995

All capitals setting slows down reading speed by 13–20%
Breland & Breland 1944
proposals.
LEGIBILITY RESEARCH IN
PRINTING IS CONCERNED
WITH THE EFFICIENCY OF THE
VISIBLE WORD. SO, TOO IS THE
PRACTICE OF TYPOGRAPHICAL
DESIGN. DURING THE PAST
CENTURY BOTH RESEARCHERS
AND DESIGNERS HAVE PUT
FORWARD PROPOSALS FOR
MAKING PRINTED LETTERS
COMMUNICATE MORE
EFFICIENTLY. THIS REPORT
DESCRIBES AND ILLUSTRATES
SOME OF THE MORE
SIGNIFICANT OF THESE
PROPOSALS.

Word shapes are more distinctive in upper- and lowercase setting
Ireland 1944; Paterson and Tinker 1928, 1940; Starch 1914
Handgloves
HANDGLOVES

Top halves of lowercase letters easier to recognise than lower halves
Messmer 1903
Handgloves
Handgloves

Italic in continuous text can reduce reading speed substantially
Foster & Bruce 1982, Tinker 1955
proposals.
visible word. So, too is the practice of
typographical design. During the past
century both researchers and
designers have put forward proposals
for making printed letters
proposals.

Readers preferred faces ‘approaching the appearance of bold face type’
Paterson and Tinker 1940
proposals.
proposals for making printed
letters communicate more
eﬃciently. This report describes
and illustrates some of the more
significant of these proposals.

1–4 points of leading read faster than set solid (no leading)
Becker, Heinrich, van Sichowsny & Wendt 1970, Bentley 1921, Paterson & Tinker 1932
proposals.
proposals.

Lower contrast oblique axis (Minion) / high contrast vertical axis (Didot)
Minion (left), Didot (right) / Wiggins 1967 (Anisson 1790s)
proposals.
concerned with the efficiency of
the visible word. So, too is the
practice of typographical design.
During the past century both
researchers and designers have
put forward proposals for
making printed letters
communicate more efficiently.
This report describes and
illustrates some of the more
significant of these proposals.

Seriﬀed typefaces with oblique axis of contrast tend to be more legible
Minion (top), Didot (bottom)
Handgloves
Handgloves

Non italicised words stand out within an italic text
Glynn, Britton & Tillman 1985
Legibility research in printing is concerned
with the eﬃciency of the visible word. So,
too is the practice of typographical design.
During the past century both researchers
and designers have put forward proposals
for making printed letters communicate
more eﬃciently. This report describes and
illustrates some of the more significant of
these proposals.

Weight changed noticed more than typeface change
Spencer, Reynolds & Coe 1975
proposals.
proposals.

Ambiguous letters
Burt 1959
C G
easily mistaken for
J f
h bGaramond italic
Baskerville
Imprint
Caslon italic
Plantin
easily mistaken for
easily mistaken for

Ambiguous letters
Ovink 1938
a
both acceptable g
t
amore legible than
g
tmore legible than

Ambiguous letters
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois

Ambiguous letters
III Ill 111
III Ill 111
III Ill 111
Gill Sans
Baskerville
ITC Oﬃcina Sans

Ambiguous letters
Illinois 111 millilitre Richard III
Gill Sans
Baskerville
Helvetica
Transport
ITC Oﬃcina Sans
Verdana

Medium or bold versions better in reverse
Wheildon 1995
concerned with the eﬃciency of
put forward proposals for making
printed letters communicate more
concerned with the eﬃciency of
put forward proposals for making
printed letters communicate more
Reversed continuous text may reduce
reading speed up to 15%
Holmes 1931,Taylor 1934
Readers may dislike it
Paterson & Tinker 1932

Measures: wide measures (long line lengths) cause regression
Continuous prose in Chinese is customarily set justified left and right. This is true even in classical poetry, where phrases have
set number of characters. The fact that Chinese characters are monowidth makes flush left, ragged right alignment impracti-
cal. Flush left alignment can only be achieved satisfactorily when line breaks are manually forced.
As mentioned earlier, spacing in Chinese typefaces is achieved internally within each character, by way of defining a sur-
face frame that is a smaller percentage than the body frame (em square). This internal spacing is the optimal spacing under
most circumstances. Column widths (hence line lengths) are calculated by number of characters.
Since Chinese is monowidth, and that column widths are measured by fixed numbers of characters, spacing should be
an easy matter. But this is not the case. There are three factors that make justification a complex issue: line-beginning and
line-ending rules; the insertion of proportional width characters, such as Latin glyphs, symbols or figures; adjustments of
spacing around certain punctuation marks.

Measure: wider leading helps, but not much if the type is too small
Continuous prose in Chinese is customarily set justified left and right. This is true even in classical poetry, where phrases have
set number of characters. The fact that Chinese characters are monowidth makes flush left, ragged right alignment impracti-
cal. Flush left alignment can only be achieved satisfactorily when line breaks are manually forced.
As mentioned earlier, spacing in Chinese typefaces is achieved internally within each character, by way of defining a sur-
face frame that is a smaller percentage than the body frame (em square). This internal spacing is the optimal spacing under
most circumstances. Column widths (hence line lengths) are calculated by number of characters.
Since Chinese is monowidth, and that column widths are measured by fixed numbers of characters, spacing should be
an easy matter. But this is not the case. There are three factors that make justification a complex issue: line-beginning and
line-ending rules; the insertion of proportional width characters, such as Latin glyphs, symbols or figures; adjustments of

Measure: still too wide
Continuous prose in Chinese is customarily set justified left and right. This is true even in classical
poetry, where phrases have set number of characters. The fact that Chinese characters are monow-
idth makes flush left, ragged right alignment impractical. Flush left alignment can only be achieved
satisfactorily when line breaks are manually forced.
As mentioned earlier, spacing in Chinese typefaces is achieved internally within each character,
by way of defining a surface frame that is a smaller percentage than the body frame (em square).
This internal spacing is the optimal spacing under most circumstances. Column widths (hence line
lengths) are calculated by number of characters.
Since Chinese is monowidth, and that column widths are measured by fixed numbers of char-
acters, spacing should be an easy matter. But this is not the case. There are three factors that make
justification a complex issue: line-beginning and line-ending rules; the insertion of proportional
width characters, such as Latin glyphs, symbols or figures; adjustments of spacing around certain
punctuation marks.

Measure: just right (60–70 characters)
Continuous prose in Chinese is customarily set justified left and right.
This is true even in classical poetry, where phrases have set number of
characters. The fact that Chinese characters are monowidth makes flush
left, ragged right alignment impractical. Flush left alignment can only be
achieved satisfactorily when line breaks are manually forced.
As mentioned earlier, spacing in Chinese typefaces is achieved inter-
nally within each character, by way of defining a surface frame that is a
smaller percentage than the body frame (em square). This internal spacing
is the optimal spacing under most circumstances. Column widths (hence
line lengths) are calculated by number of characters.
Since Chinese is monowidth, and that column widths are measured
by fixed numbers of characters, spacing should be an easy matter. But this
is not the case. There are three factors that make justification a complex
issue: line-beginning and line-ending rules; the insertion of proportional
width characters, such as Latin glyphs, symbols or figures; adjustments of

Measure: still ﬁne but a bit narrow
ment impractical. Flush left alignment can only
be achieved satisfactorily when line breaks are
manually forced.
As mentioned earlier, spacing in Chinese
typefaces is achieved internally within each
character, by way of defining a surface frame
that is a smaller percentage than the body frame
(em square). This internal spacing is the optimal
spacing under most circumstances. Column
widths (hence line lengths) are calculated by
number of characters.
Since Chinese is monowidth, and that col-
umn widths are measured by fixed numbers of
characters, spacing should be an easy matter.
But this is not the case. There are three factors
that make justification a complex issue: line-be-
ginning and line-ending rules; the insertion of
proportional width characters, such as Latin
glyphs, symbols or figures; adjustments of spac-
ing around certain punctuation marks.

Measure: too narrow
Continuous prose in
Chinese is customarily
set justified left and
right. This is true even
in classical poetry,
where phrases have
set number of char-
acters. The fact that
Chinese characters
are monowidth makes
flush left, ragged right
alignment impractical.
Flush left alignment
can only be achieved
satisfactorily when
line breaks are manu-
ally forced.
As mentioned
earlier, spacing in
Chinese typefaces is
achieved internally
within each character,
by way of defining a
surface frame that is
a smaller percentage

Paragraph division: pilcrows
Continuous prose in Chinese is customarily set justified left and right. This
is true even in classical poetry, where phrases have set number of charac-
ters. The fact that Chinese characters are monowidth makes flush left, rag-
ged right alignment impractical. Flush left alignment can only be achieved
satisfactorily when line breaks are manually forced. ¶ As mentioned earlier,
spacing in Chinese typefaces is achieved internally within each character,
by way of defining a surface frame that is a smaller percentage than the body
frame (em square). This internal spacing is the optimal spacing under most
circumstances. Column widths (hence line lengths) are calculated by num-
ber of characters. ¶ Since Chinese is monowidth, and that column widths
are measured by fixed numbers of characters, spacing should be an easy
matter. But this is not the case. There are three factors that make justifica-
tion a complex issue: line-beginning and line-ending rules; the insertion
of proportional width characters, such as Latin glyphs, symbols or figures;
adjustments of spacing around certain punctuation marks.

Paragraph division: pilcrows
¶ As mentioned earlier, spacing in Chinese typefaces is achieved internally
within each character, by way of defining a surface frame that is a smaller
percentage than the body frame (em square). This internal spacing is the
optimal spacing under most circumstances. Column widths (hence line
¶ Since Chinese is monowidth, and that column widths are measured by
fixed numbers of characters, spacing should be an easy matter. But this is
not the case. There are three factors that make justification a complex issue:
line-beginning and line-ending rules; the insertion of proportional width
characters, such as Latin glyphs, symbols or figures; adjustments of spacing
around certain punctuation marks.

Paragraph division: ﬁrst-line indent (using leading value)
As mentioned earlier, spacing in Chinese typefaces is achieved internally
Since Chinese is monowidth, and that column widths are measured by

Paragraph division: line breaks only
is true even in classical poetry, where phrases have set number of characters.
The fact that Chinese characters are monowidth makes flush left, ragged
right alignment impractical. Flush left alignment can only be achieved satis-
factorily when line breaks are manually forced.
Since Chinese is monowidth, and that column widths are measured by fixed
numbers of characters, spacing should be an easy matter. But this is not
the case. There are three factors that make justification a complex issue:

Paragraph division: line breaks only (ﬂush-left, ragged right)
not the case. There are three factors that make justification a complex is-
sue: line-beginning and line-ending rules; the insertion of proportional
width characters, such as Latin glyphs, symbols or figures; adjustments of

Paragraph division: hanging indent (or called outdent)
Continuous prose in Chinese is customarily set justified left and right. This is
true even in classical poetry, where phrases have set number of characters.
Asmentionedearlier,spacinginChinesetypefacesisachievedinternallywithin
each character, by way of defining a surface frame that is a smaller percent-
age than the body frame (em square). This internal spacing is the optimal
spacing under most circumstances. Column widths (hence line lengths) are
calculated by number of characters.

Paragraph division: line space (full line)

Paragraph division: line space (half a line)

Paragraph division: line space and ﬁrst-line indent (redundant)

Typographic hierarchy and legibility research

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Typographic hierarchy and legibility research

Similaire à Typographic hierarchy and legibility research (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Typographic hierarchy and legibility research