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


Author

Karel van der Waarde studied information design in the Netherlands (The Design Academy, Eindhoven) and in the UK (De Montfort University, Leicester, and the University of Reading). In 1995, he started a design–research consultancy in Belgium specializing in testing of information design. Most of the projects are related to information about medicines for patients, doctors and pharmacists. His research focuses on the effects of visual information. Karel van der Waarde frequently publishes and lectures about information design. Van der Waarde is a board member of International Institute for Information Design (IIID, Vienna, Austria) and the International Plain Language Federation (IPLF), and editorial board member of Information Design Journal, Journal of Visual Communication, The Journal of Visual Political Communication, and Visible Language.

Dr. Myra Thiessen is a researcher in the Design Health Collab at Monash University and is the program coordinator of the Communication Design program in the Faculty of Art, Design, and Architecture. She has rounded expertise as a design practitioner, educator, and researcher with expertise in design for legibility, readability, and usability. Her work focuses on information translation and accessibility, developing communication systems that enable people, including those who may be marginalized due to cognitive differences, to share and use information in healthcare settings and other complex environments. Dr. Thiessen is especially interested in how motivation, context, and environment affect comprehension and decision making, and she specializes in evidence-based design drawing on empirical research methods to test both the preference for and performance of visual materials. As part of the Design Health Collab this interest is applied across a range of user experience design contexts.

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/journal/issue-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)