DRS2012 Bangkok Proceedings Vol 4 - Design Research Society

1872 Conference Proceedings
Typography Matters when Designing Onscreen Reading Materials for Dyslexic Learners
their solutions with the intended audience they are not, as Schriver suggests, ‘taking the
reader seriously’.
This idea of ‘taking the reader seriously’ and including user perspective as a means to
guide the design of literacy materials for children is a novel approach, since it is not
common practice for those creating these objects to test them with the intended
audience. This is a failing in the system not because those generating literacy materials
are not skilled typographic designers but because without asking the children who will be
using that material, and expected to perform difficult cognitive tasks with the aid of it, the
designers are only making their best guess as to what is appropriate for the user. That is
not to say that there are not exceptions and a prime example is the UK publishing
company Barrington Stoke. This publisher produces a range of fiction and nonfiction for
struggling readers. Thomson, the founder of Barrington Stoke, places substantial value
on obtaining feedback from their reader base. Thomson (2003) explains that before each
book is published the manuscript is sent out to a selection of ‘consultants’. These are
children who struggle with literacy development. The children are asked to read the
manuscript and provide feedback, which typically relates to linguistic aspects of the text
such as language, sentence structure, and realistic nature of the characters and their
dialogue. On occasion, however, some of the children provide their thoughts about the
typography. Thomson has been able to use this feedback to produce a range of books
that reflect both the linguistic and typographic concerns, which has enabled Barrington
Stoke to produce a range of books that have age appropriate content (i.e. not too young),
and a typographic presentation that reflect what these children think looks easier to read.
This is a series of books that address the concerns of a specific audience as identified by
that audience.
Empirical methods – standard practice in the social sciences – can be used to inform
typographic research and the development of literacy materials. Traditional quantitative
approaches are not always considered by typographers as a practical way to test graphic
material since the context in which the material is tested often differs dramatically from
how it will actually be used. These testing environments are generally very sterile, the
variables are tightly controlled, and participants isolated from social contexts and
distractions making the test environment and the tested material very different to how
individuals interact with visual communication in ‘real life’. The danger then lies in
whether the data can be reliably generalized from to inform ‘real life’ application or
whether they speak more about the material produced for a specific testing environment,
or the environment itself. Researchers of text design have faced a number of common
critiques of the use of quantitative research methods to understand the impact of visual
communication, such as those outlined in Hartley (2004). Hartley explains the critiques he
has come across in his own work including, first, how difficult it is to isolate single
variables since typographic design is heavily influenced by how each element interacts
with the rest. For example, the effect of line spacing on legibility is influenced by typeface,
type size, and line length. Second, it is difficult to generalize widely from data collected in
specific testing situations. Finally, cognitive capacity and human behavior are rarely
considered. Although a valid concern, this is not sufficient reason to exclude quantitative
methods from typographic research since it is these data that tell us what readers can
read with greater ease and efficiency. It is, however, important to understand that while
data collected during quantitative studies can be used to understand how to improve
legibility generally, this knowledge must be used in combination with a more general
understanding of typographic principles and audience behavior. Experiments can be
designed that are more relevant to typographic investigation, but these are likely to
contain a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. This amalgamation of
techniques is likely to provide a better picture of how to design for children with dyslexia
(Thiessen, 2010).