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.
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)
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
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
Six So how do you choose a typeface? Use microaesthetics, not macroaesthetics, to identify semantic effect & determine tone Inductive research to establish guidelines
Six User study 1. Expert cartographers (you) chose typefaces 2. Expert users (typographers) evaluate designs on their semantic effect 3. Context of national mapping
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
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
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
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/
nvkelso
yukinobaba
bernhardsvt
cbtlibrary
kaityo256
signer
tam07pb915
2720japanoke
cm_manaus
bkeepers
danielanewman
maltzj
panda_program
tanoku
jasonvnalue
denniskardys
aki_iinuma
phodgson
jakevdp
erikaheidi
philnash