Nineteen Questions to Evaluate Typographic Research: Chaff and Wheat

Nineteen Questions to Evaluate Typographic Research: Chaff and Wheat

Karel van der Waardea and Myra Thiessenb

a: Graphic Design – Research, Elewijt, Belgium; and Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Lucerne, Switzerland; b Art, Design, and Architecture, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
b: Corresponding author: Karel van der Waarde (waarde[at]glo.be)

Abstract: The number of experiments that investigate the “readability” or “legibility” of texts is very substantial. Literature reviews of these studies appear regularly, and many publications refer to these experiments to suggest evidence for claims. Some of these claims have led to usable recommendations. However, most of these recommendations are often hard to apply and unhelpful. When we are teaching typography, we struggled to explain why the recommendations are difficult to use, why many reviews are uncritical, and why experiments rarely provide reliable evidence to support design decisions. A literature review, guided by experience in both commercial practice and university level education, lead to a list of themes and issues. There are at least 19 reasons why the results of many typographic experiments need to be questioned. This article provides 19 guidelines that could be used to evaluate experimental research into the ways in which texts are read. This list of reasons can be used as a checklist to assess and guide new typographic experiments. We hope to make sure experiments are worthwhile, future reviews are based on reliable sources, and recommendations are effective.

Keywords: legibility; readability; research methods; typographic research; typography

Download PDF

Browser-based article display to come.

Author

Mary Dyson started by studying experimental psychology with a PhD in perception. She then moved into the Department of Typography & Graphic Communication, University of Reading, UK, teaching and researching theoretical and empirical approaches to typography and graphic communication. After retiring from her full-time position in Typography & Graphic Communication, she has written a textbook on legibility and has found time to reflect on her academic career and question some of her own assumptions. She is also enjoying developing scholarly collaborations with former students, colleagues and friends, and is currently Senior Visiting Research Fellow in the School of Arts and Communication Design, University of Reading.

Download PDF

Cite this article:
van der Waarde, K., & Thiessen, M. (2025). Nineteen questions to evaluate typographic research: Chaff and wheat. Visible Language, 59(1), 77–99. https://www.visible-language.org/59-1/nineteen-questions-to-evaluate-typographic-research-chaff-and-wheat

First published online April 27, 2025. © 2025 Visible Language — this article is open access, published under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.

https://www.visible-language.org/journal

Visible Language Consortium:
University of Leeds (UK)
University of Cincinnati (USA)
North Carolina State University (USA)