Type on Maps: All the Little Things that Actually Matter

Type on Maps: All the Little Things that Actually Matter

Elaine Guidero
Penn State University
#nacis2015

Bbaf1d0def6e102c6defedbb84537a2f?s=128

Nathaniel V. KELSO

October 15, 2015
Tweet

Transcript

  1. Six All the little things that actually matter Type on

    maps Elaine Guidero NACIS 2015 Minneapolis, MN
  2. Six So...we’re mapping Prince

  3. Six

  4. Six

  5. Six

  6. Six

  7. Six Typeface tones—different semantic effects The lazy dog and quick

    fox both took a nap. The lazy dog and quick fox both took a nap. The lazy dog and quick fox both took a nap. The lazy dog and quick fox both took a nap. The lazy dog and quick fox both took a nap.
  8. Six A font anatomy lesson

  9. Six Microaesthetics Univers Baskerville Adobe Jenson Pro

  10. Six Microaesthetics terminal Univers Baskerville Adobe Jenson Pro

  11. Six Microaesthetics Univers Baskerville Adobe Jenson Pro spur

  12. Six Microaesthetics Univers Baskerville Adobe Jenson Pro

  13. Six Microaesthetics serif Univers Baskerville Adobe Jenson Pro

  14. Six Microaesthetics stroke contrast Univers Baskerville Adobe Jenson Pro

  15. Six Microaesthetics Univers Baskerville Adobe Jenson Pro

  16. Six Microaesthetics ear Univers Baskerville Adobe Jenson Pro

  17. Six Microaesthetics story 1 2 2 Univers Baskerville Adobe Jenson

    Pro
  18. Six Looking for microaesthetics Uppercase letters: Q, &, J, G,

    W, A, K, C, R, M, E, P, S, T, F, B, N, O, U, X, Y, D, H, Z, L, V, I. Lowercase letters: g, a, j, y, k, t, f, r, q, w, e, b, s, c, d, p, m, u, x, o, v, h, n, i, l, z. Mackiewicz (2005) Perfect & Rookledge (1983)
  19. Six Cartographic research on type aesthetics is inaccurate

  20. Six Why? Label properties ≠ typeface attributes Labels: describe features

    have properties external to the typeface Typefaces: have a coherent design have inherent properties that drive perception of personality
  21. Six Label properties (macroaesthetics) 1. spline or tilt 2. kerning/tracking

    3. point size (not x-height) Deeb et al. 2012 Caroga Lake Caroga Lake I t h a c a Ithaca Paisley Park Paisley Park
  22. Six Typeface attributes (microaesthetics) 1. serif style 2. terminal style

    3. x-height Caroga Lake Ithaca Ithaca Paisley Park Paisley Park Childers & Jass 2002; Koch 2012 Caroga Lake
  23. Six So how do you choose a typeface? Use microaesthetics,

    not macroaesthetics, to identify semantic effect & determine tone Inductive research to establish guidelines
  24. Six User study 1. Expert cartographers (you) chose typefaces 2.

    Expert users (typographers) evaluate designs on their semantic effect 3. Context of national mapping
  25. Six 8 semantic effects bland modern cheap neutral corporate serious

    friendly whimsical
  26. Six 36 typefaces—name them all

  27. Six Arial Linotype Avenir FF Bau Cabin Camphor Std Adobe

    Caslon Pro Century Schoolbook Chaparral Pro Cisalpin PF DIN Farnham Text Futura BT Georgia Gill Sans Glypha Std Helvetica Neue ITC Johnston Karmina Sans Basic Klinic Slab FF Meta FF Meta Serif Museo Sans Condensed Myriad Pro Condensed News Gothic MT 36 typefaces Optima LT Std PT Sans Roboto Sans Condensed Sabon LT Std Scala Souvenir BT Tablet Gothic SemiCondensed Titillium Trebuchet Univers Utopia Std Verdana
  28. Six Preliminary results (n=5) most bland most cheap most corporate

    most friendly most modern most neutral most serious most whimsical Meta Serif Chaparral Pro Futura Arial Sabon LT Std Trebuchet Titillium Tablet Gothic SemiCondensed
  29. Six Preliminary results (n=5) Sabon LT Std Sabon LT Std

    Sabon LT Std Souvenir BT Glypha Std least bland least cheap least corporate least friendly least modern least neutral least serious least whimsical
  30. Six Identify letters and earmarks Jaegk Qufyc Jaegk Qufyc

  31. Six Bland Jaegk Qufyc most: Meta Serif least: Chaparral Pro

    Sabon LT Std Futura Jaegk Qufyc Jaegk Qufyc Jaegk Qufyc
  32. Six Jaegk Qufyc Jaegk Qufyc Friendly most: Chaparral Pro least:

    Glypha
  33. Six Final thought Letterform elements, not label properties, contribute to

    typeface tone
  34. Six xkcd.com

  35. Six References & resources Childers, T. L., and J. Jass.

    2002. All dressed up with something to say: effects of typeface semantic associations on brand perceptions and consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12 (2): 93–106. Deeb, R., K. Ooms, and P. De Maeyer. 2012. Typography in the Eyes of Bertin, Gender and Expertise Variation. The Cartographic Journal 49 (2): 176–185. Koch, B. E. 2012. Emotion in typographic design: an empirical examination. Visible Language 46 (3): 206–227. Mackiewicz, J. O. 2005. How to use five letterforms to gauge a typeface’s personality: a resarch-driven method. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 35 (3): 291–315. Perfect, C., and G. Rookledge. 1983. Rookledge’s International Type-Finder. London, UK: Sarema Press. Raisz, E. 1962. Principles of Cartography. New York: McGraw-Hill. http://thetypestudio.com/type-talk/the-anatomy-of-a-character/
  36. Six Palette Texta Regular Texta Light R255 G255 B255 R245

    G144 B152 R238 G36 B60 R90 G0 B231 R102 G97 B97 R12 G10 B10