This is the first article in a series that we hope will always anticipate the releases of our library. The idea is to expose and present some of the concepts that shape our projects. The fonts we showcase here will often stem from visceral inspiration, not market trends. Therefore, I believe their existence needs to be justified. In this first series of articles, I want to talk about legibility research, as it’s one of the main motivations behind the development of Tiphares, the first typeface in our library.
I might say this often in the near future, so here’s the first time: I have a PhD from the University of Copenhagen on legibility, but I don’t feel like it gives me any authority, nor do I write with the intention of exercising it. I consider myself simply a person with a well-informed point of view on the matter. So don’t expect to find ‘the truth’ here; only strong, solid opinions, but also someone open to being contradicted and challenged. That’s exactly why I prefer this platform over a scientific paper or a book. This is my space, and I’ll write what I want, how I want. After five years bound by academic rigor, my mind needs this. And yes, I might even cite without referencing. Oh, the unforgivable sin!
Typography and science have historically struggled to go hand in hand. Already in 1969 (!) Karol Wrolstad, editor of Visible Language,1Wrolstad, M. E. (1969). Letterform Research Needs Definition and Direction. Visible Language, 3(2). complained that the major problem with typographic research is that it rarely translates into actionable solutions for designers. This is an argument I still hear from respected designers even today (allow me not to quote anyone here ;) ). After five years of study, I can confirm this view… partially.
Researchers usually don’t have deep enough knowledge of typography to formulate questions in a way that’s interesting or relevant to designers. Designers, on the other hand, are action-oriented; we love creating, moving quickly—so slowing down to the pace of research can be hard. That said, there are great recent exceptions, which we’ll explore in future articles.
However, there’s one thing science has done much better than us designers in the last decades. It has accepted that there is no absolute notion of legibility or readability. Rather than being the end goals of research, they’ve become generic concepts around which very specific experiments are built. We now know that the factors affecting how we read are multiple—physical, cognitive, typographic, lighting conditions, etc.—so universal answers are no longer sought. Researchers have replaced these abstract entities with measurable concepts like critical letter size, word recognition speed, and reading speed, reducing their value as overarching benchmarks.
In contrast, I often find myself on the websites of type designers, where legibility is mentioned without much explanation about their projects, as if their authority alone validates the claims. I believe a good designer must be able to explain, when designing a specific typeface, what the advantages are and in what scenario they apply.
This reflection on type design is crucial for one reason: aside from adjusting letter contrast and providing generous apertures, there is nothing, N-O-T-H-I-N-G, you can do to a typeface to improve its performance in one specific scenario without compromising it in another. Weight, width, x-height ratio to ascenders and descenders, the introduction of distinctive features… (even changing its size!) all can contribute to performance at some point and be insufficient or excessive at another.
The reasons for this are physiological and cognitive, and we’ll delve into that another day, but it’s essential to remember: our reading processes are dynamic and largely depend on the visual angle of the text. In other words, we don’t use the same mechanisms to read small, medium, or large text.
Acknowledging this as a designer is actually a very positive thing. In a market saturated with typefaces, you’re not aiming to contribute a supposedly superior design but rather a highly specialized one, capable of performing optimally in a specific context. This approach may not be the most commercially savvy, but intellectually, I think it’s the most honest. And when in doubt about how to articulate your argument, I suggest replacing ‘legibility’ with ‘performance improvement’.
To graphic designers and type users, I encourage you to be critical. Type designers are usually brilliant, knowledgeable people, and we spend a lot of time crafting our fonts to make them excellent products. But we’re not infallible, and when we talk about our typefaces, we’re selling (of course, we will too!). If there are no rigorous data or experiments, evaluate what you see, challenge it, and ask questions. Don’t buy into every sales pitch. Let’s end the BS.
Want to share your thoughts on this post? Tag me on X (@octaviopv) using the hashtag #NoMoreLegibilityBS, comment on the post entry in our Instagram account, or send me an email at hello@pathfinders.rocks with the post title in the subject line.