Student Answers 01: On Legibility
On Legibility.
I guess first I’d like to throw up the quote by David Carson that informs a lot of my work; ‘Don’t mistake legibility for communication’. I think that’s basically a dissertation condensed down to five words. A quote which I actually began my dissertation with 9 years ago was by Massimo Vignelli who said that ‘[Graphic Design is] the communication of information in an appropriate visual manner’ and it’s armed with both of these ideas that I charge into most of my projects and commissions.
Defining legibility: The dictionary definition of illegible is a text that’s ‘impossible to read’ and I think the word ‘impossible’ is really key there. I’ve done a lot of work which might require a longer look but I don’t think I’ve ever done anything that’s ‘impossible’ to read.
The goal with all of my work is to make the words work harder and to load them with more meaning. I like to peel away the layers and get down to what exactly needs to be communicated and do so in a manner that’s appropriate to the subject. It’s not just making the word ‘cold’ out of ice – though I have been asked to do stuff like that before – it’s more about reading the words and, where they need it, inject more meaning and visual cues as to help convey the idea. It’s never about abstracting and jumbling type for the sake of it and if that’s the case with a piece of work then it’s failed.
I think another problem and misconception is the idea that you should project a style onto a piece of work so people know that it’s yours. I try and approach every brief individually and I’d point anyone back to Vignelli’s quote there and say that, if you’ve received a brief and you kind of know roughly how it’s going to look before you begin – whether you always use these colours or that typeface or a certain kind of grid – then, I kind of think, what’s the point? You’ve already made decisions about something that may not be relevant to the brief so you are now mis-communicating or doing things that may be irrelevant. There’s a video doing the rounds online that a lot of people seem to be falling over themselves about:
…and I’d really argue that nothing he does after 16 seconds in – where the type is set in Avant Garde and left aligned on 4 lines – actually makes the type better. Flashier, yes but better? More communicative? It’s really a very good example of style graphics and people forgetting what it’s meant to be about.
Another thought that underpins my work is the idea that type should make you WANT to read it… If you lay out some type in a clear and crisp fashion that doesn’t attract anyone’s attention then it’s kind of failed. If you, I don’t know, say you grow some type out of vines and a few people pause and squint and then get it then I think it’s a more successful piece of communication than the first example. In a lot of cases it’s better to present information in a way that 25% of passers by will want to read and will take the time to do so rather than put something out there that 100% of people can read but don’t want to and don’t bother. That’s why so much advertising etc just recedes into the background and get’s ignored.
Of course there are instances when type absolutely has to be completely legible and clean and clear. Public information, road signs, writing for the visually impaired; abstracting the type in these cases is inconsiderate and pointless. Theres also a skewed idea of what type needs to be treated. I’ve recieved briefs where someone has wanted an entire paragraph of type treating a certain way and I’ve had to turn them away. A lot of times – most of the time in fact – just the type is enough.
The point at which type becomes an illustration I think can be traced back to either that point where you’ve decided to stamp a style on it that’s not perhaps relevant or have decided to abstract the type beyond being legible and then it becomes just a composition or an image. That’s something I try not to let my type become unless that’s the aim of the brief.
I’d argue what is wrong with making type “flashier” and being seen as “better” by many? I personally prefer stripped back type, elegant and simple typefaces. But with 155K views and 3.5K likes – you have to take note of that.
I’m sure any celebrity sex tape will get 100 times the views, but that doesn’t mean it’s ‘good’. The masses are into ‘bread and circuses’, distraction, novelty… I like the animation, but not because it’s cute or novel or ‘kawaii’!? or whatever but because there is a nice message at the end of it: Going from ‘I am going to make it better’ to ‘you’re going to make it better’ to ‘we’re going to make it better.’ Nice editing, nice montage. The friendly music and animation actually lead to a meaningful message. The typefaces… work more as symbols and images in this animation rather than text to be read. And let’s not forget type came from symbols and pictures… So it’s only fair letters should be allowed to morph back into them!
So, for the record all these posts are opinion not gospel but, agreed Mike, even I was surprised by how popular that particular piece has been. I really just take from those figures that 3500 people were impressed by the animation itself, not the sentiment of the message. The animation is solid – very slick, that’s not in question – but I think it’s mis-communicating big time as a piece of typography. And this shouldn’t be a popularity contest: the most viewed videos on YouTube are always of the stupidest shit.
Totally agree on all points but I think it’s slightly unfair to say that he is actually trying to make the type itself better although I do agree it is probably miss-communicating that idea. The first time I saw the piece a few weeks ago I took the message that he is trying to “evolve something” and has used type to do that. I personally don’t think his goal was ever to set out and make the typography better, I believe it was to push himself and see how he could expand on using default faces and the tag line of “Make It Better” is the real miss communication. Not necessarily the idea behind the concept.
Anyway, that made sense in my head! Not sure how well I communicated it but always great to see how we take things in and really think about them and have discussions like this. Maybe your love-affair with typography is getting the better of you here so thats why you aren’t one of the 3500
hehe.
Congrats on the talk at OFFF last year by the way, yourself and Hillman Curtis were the standouts for me.
Thanks Mike, pleased you enjoyed the talk, it was terrifying!
With regards to the animation, I think if typography is the sole element to your animation then it should really be relevant to the message, no? Maybe I’m missing the point. The sentiment is pure but the execution falls short.