Abstract
Design education has presented me with “essential typographical rules” (Jury, 2002 p.144). As a result I find myself “perpetuating the stereotypes” (Swann, 1991 p.55). If we concur with Pavlov and Skinner, I am helping to ‘mould’ my environment, shaping it by typographical “association” thus “reinforcing” beliefs through repeated use of a visual system. But if we (as designers) are actively creating a visual system based on stereotype or cliché shouldn’t we question any apparent validity? Clichés and stereotypes are characterized values arguably founded on unsubstantiated prejudices. Repetition or perpetuation of these I would claim would not necessarily make them accurate or appropriate.
Type selection is fundamentally subjective and relies heavily upon the designers sensitivity and awareness of types semiotic, linguistic and rhetorical values relative to the society around them to make what can be termed an ‘appropriate’ choice. Any perceivably inappropriate choice might arguably result in any ‘message’ being undermined, confused or de-valued.
In January 2003, the UK government White Paper, “The Future of Higher Education”, called for “an expansion of the higher education system”, which “had not yet extended to the talented and best from all backgrounds”, by widening participation (WP). As a designer, I’ve questioned how we can best serve th WP audience, communicating any message using typography accurately and appropriately to support its content. Could design contribution seek to motivate prospective WP into a university education and thus support government strategy? Could any preferred ‘style’ be identified in this context? If “typefaces are loaded with references” (Peacock (Visard), 2005) what ‘references’ should be called upon here?
During my current employ with the Workers’ Educational Association, I’ve learned that the use of serif-type be deemed “wrong” and wholly “inappropriate”; this style in my employers opinion highlighting a ‘social divide,’ ‘reminding learner’s of what they were not instead of what they could become’. This debate has subsequently fuelled my research; I challenge that this apparently aspirational quality should also be seen as a positive attribute where education “hands on beliefs and standards” (Curzon, 1976 p. 4); anything less could arguably ‘dilute’ a learners perception of their learning and their provider. During a presentation to WEA Council however, a serif-type logo proposal was deemed a “deterrent” suggesting the ‘old-school’ with the possibility of previous negative learning experience which could be “traced to a history of punishing consequences” (Skinner, 1974 p. 162). Effectively a serif logotype in their opinion was neither aspirational, nor motivational; instead it could be likened to that of a barrier to education. I understood and recognized the justified reasoning, but wondered what WP learner’s themselves would make of the design-decision.
This research uses the vehicle of ‘WP and university education’ to challenge type convention and relevance in a HE context. It examines university serif and sans-serif logotype trends, as well as further and higher education (FE, HE) college communications design and contests that serif-type (could) make a positive contribution to the governments wider participation strategy.
Introduction
If serif-type’s latter-day social evolution – in both a HE sense as well as any wider cultural tide presents a question of whether it is appropriate to appear in a context from which it previously grew, then “New technology brings with it a renewed air of urgency and willingness to question accepted parameters” (Jury, 2002 p. 6). If “it is reasonable to expect that perceptions of typeface persona would change with time and usage” (Brumberger, 2003), it should also be imperative to compare any presumed type-style perception against its contemporary translation, in order to facilitate effective communication for any current (or future) message. However, very often reality and its time constraints disallows any opportunity or space to challenge any idiom or convention; this course however has allowed me this.
The “new technology” (as noted above) – namely the affordability and availability of desktop publishing and design tools – have brought design to all. And during times (as now) of funding cuts, I’ve found that those without design training (usually development workers’) are being tasked with publicity production, something which perhaps is beyond their scope – and which perhaps in turn undermines any message therein (see the blog’s Virtual Exhibition for two examples of this).
Where designers are employed – be they internal or through external agencies – the design piece (whether this be print or web) seems to be rarely researched prior to its submission, resulting with the educators being at the mercy of subjectivity – (not proven objectivity) in the end ‘classification’ – of whether the net product is ‘liked or disliked’. Where proposals are based on stereotype and/or cliché, it could be argued that when viewed as a whole the results are chaotic and based without any known foundation regarding the intended viewer.
Research
The sourcing and collation of data that records any learner attitude or feelings towards design for adult education, is critical to this research. One of the ‘tools’ of this research to date has been Carl Roger’s Self-Theory, where born from experiences and feelings about the self, we create our “perceptual reality” and live in our own “subjective” phenomenological world. To understand the personality requires entering into the subjective world of a person empathizing or understanding the person from his or her own subjective reality. Rather than inquire “into the manner in which this reality is constructed” (Berger and Luckmann, 1966, p.30) for WP learners, my question is what is the reality experience? And in turn how does this translate into type appropriation.
With such emphasis, I have been ultra sensitive to my own abilities and limitations as a researcher, and in order to prepare for the planned learner / student interview sessions (to take place at the beginning of the academic year 2010/2011) – and in a bid to address potential shortfalls – I have piloted three methods of data collation.
Firstly I’ve developed a questionnaire based on a 4-point Likert scale (see Appendix 1) where its aim is to reveal any level of type design awareness within the learner and how this could translate into any encouraged / discouraged action to pursue any advertised course. The questionnaire also focuses on how the reader perceives education as a ‘life-journey’ – essentially whether an education can be seen to be a positive or negative influence on their lives. There are many factors as to why an individual would seek to learn (as the NIACE website would attest), and the aim of this is not to reveal any motivational factors within the learning, rather the questionnaire seeks to underpin whether any motivational qualities exist within type design. Can the claim that serif type is akin to ‘a barrier to learning’ be justified or conversely can serif type be seen as a useful tool in the designers’ armoury which shouldn’t be overlooked or dismissed? Outcomes to this provide a foundation for interview discussion around ‘aspirational learning’. The questionnaire is to be presented to learners prior to the interview so that this is completed in readiness for the one-to-one interview which would follow immediately afterwards.
Having piloted an interview scenario, according to ‘guinea-pig’ candidates, it’s been noted that although the interviewees can be briefed on the subject matter, the questionnaire does help to focus their minds much better than an aural summation which in turn sets an easier transition between this and the interview itself.
The second pilot area is the interview. Suffice to say that I am continuing to pilot this aspect of the research due solely to my wish to attain a level of consistency between interviewees and achieve “stimulus equivalence; that is that the respondents understanding of the question or task will be the same as that of every other respondent” (Oppenheim, 1993, p.86-87). I have developed an interview strategy form (see Appendix 2), which, as with the questionnaire, is subject to supplementary work (and is not the finished article), but this has provided me with an insight into the challenges that this presents. I’ve found that to realise any level of consistency between respondents sometimes requires explanation of a theme; it is keeping this aspect under control without erring on the side of leading the respondent that I feel is causing me significant challenges. Given the critical nature of this exercise, it is essential that any method or technique is made appropriate to the situations that present.
Gender issues are also present; my level of self-consciousness rises when I interview a male; but in comparison as the interviewer I feel more at ease with female interviewees – although my ‘guinea-pig’ females are not always comfortable with me! Although this has been far from easy, my objective is to become more at ease with the process while continuing to trial and research this area.
I have also developed an Ethical Agreement Form (see Appendix 4) to provide structure to the process and reassurance to the Respondents. I have researched existing codes of conduct from the Market Research Society, the Social Research Association and the European Commission. Within the agreement form there is a breakdown of terminology as well as a set of guideline principles by which the interviews are to be conducted.
My third piloted method, is the use of type examples (see Appendix 3) to support and stimulate discussion both at the interview stage as well as during work with focus groups where preferred applications would be made together with any reasoning. This is an evolution of my previous method where the word “university” was depicted in different types, with these then being offered to learners where they made their choices in terms of appropriateness and preference. It could be argued that the word “university” does not necessarily constitute anything more than that: a word. In Saussure terms I was unsure that the word itself signified a consistent concept for all learners, however I’ve since felt that using this word has the potential to lead the individual with their choices; as a result the word is no longer offered as a means of initiating type preference or appropriation and in its place are full sets of type characters including the western (English) alphabet and numbers for five given fonts.
As with my previous research, where university logotypes were analysed for any trends and distinctions, I’ve now looked to the colleges sector of Wales to distinguish whether any identifiable styles can be noted. Using prospectus guides artwork to define a colleges ‘projected style’, sans serif type features in all but two of the course guide documents. This would suggest to me that the sector has a visible style trend (using sans serif type) and this style together with the findings from the university logo types will be used during focus group meetings and observational work.
Summary and Outcomes So Far
While this research is still evolving, in terms of outcomes I would report that my continued practice reflection presents some notable findings. However until the interviews regarding any appropriation or preference have taken place, I’m unsure as to whether the findings are of any consequence – neither in a negative or positive sense.
Pressure to recognise the Basic / Essential Skills agenda is a key driver when choosing or even discussing font use. For example, I am currently producing a course guide brochure for the Torfaen Adult Learning Partnership (see the blog for details), and following a meeting on 12th May 2010 with Linda Dean, Adult Education Supervisor, Torfaen County Borough Council, the Basic Skills agenda was raised as a key reason for choosing Comic Sans as the font of choice for adult learning provision publicity. When I pursued this, she revealed that her senior management ‘thought that a font which contained an “a” without the bowl and tail (as in “a”) was key to getting this approved” as it followed guidelines set out by the Basic Skills Agency.
There seem to be two things present with the above. Firstly, there appears to be an understanding that guidelines exist in this area; from my own research this does not appear to be the case at all. In addition, the Basic Skills own Readability publication notes the following on font choice and use and does not make any specific font recommendations other than advisory notes:
“There are endless debates about whether serifed or sans serifed types are easier to read and whether those with reading difficulties find it hard to recognise ‘a’ or ‘g’ in the different types. Most people with reading difficulties can recognise and differentiate the letters of the alphabet. Types chosen need to be reasonably clear (Gothic not recommended for example),and distinct (avoid types where ‘rn’ can easily be mistaken for ‘m’,etc.).Much material is set in Century Schoolbook, Plantin or Helvetica, although Comic Sans is also popular. Arial is a good choice for documents created on a word processor”.
(NIACE, 2009, p. 4)
The conversation I had regarding the TALP brochure and font use was not in isolation however it does create an argument that the designer shouldn’t need to make; if guidelines don’t exist then what is it that should be adhered to in terms of font use and application?
There appears to be a popular myth status regarding Comic Sans, and informal feedback from tutors and teachers suggests that very often this is what they were trained to use themselves when they were learning. Given its extensive use amongst educators, this does seem to permeate expectation throughout the sector when designing and producing publications.
Reflective practice also reveals that very often a forced choice of font is made by font availability on the local PC. For example I have found that through producing many documents in a range of languages, to use a PRO version of a font will enable a maximum glyph allowance; this in turn enables all accents and marks contained within all languages to be created. In Wales, there might be more reason than others to consider font use for translation, given the political need to recognise the Welsh language Act and hence publish notable documents in welsh as well as English. Reflection on how development colleagues deal with this (who are not trained in DTP or typography), reveals an insistence on keeping with a font ‘that works’; commonly this appears to be Arial.
In a similar vain to the use of “a” argument listed above is font size. When sourcing the colleges prospectus cover art (see the blog) and having spoken to administrators as well as designers, there is a belief that 14pt Arial is a standard for external and internal reports. I too have had this thought presented to me by my own senior management and in fact they insisted that this format be used for a document produced recently, citing accessibility for those with visual impairment. Much has been recorded regarding screen fonts, where sans serif is highlighted as the preferred style for readability and clarity. According to RNIB’s website, for print documents,
“A reasonable amount of research has been conducted to try and identify an optimum font for legibility and to investigate user preferences for fonts by sighted, blind and partially sighted people. To date this research has produced mixed results, with no single font standing out, but there were some commonalities which may help guide your font choice.
* Choose a clear font with easily recognisable characters
* Avoid ornate fonts, or those simulating handwriting
* Select a medium weight of character – not too thin, but not very thick”
This seems to be the extent of popular and specific advice.
A last reflection; I read a blog entry on ILoveTypography.com which reads, “Do you really think that anybody cares besides you typo freaks?” To which was the reply: “Readers may not care, they might not even consciously notice, but can you say for sure it won’t make a difference in how they feel, perceive and understand what they read?” This research continues.
Next steps will include focusing on writing the noted ice-breakers, planning the interviews and booking venues, creating poster samples for observational work and compiling a framework to initiate the focus group meetings.
To download the above as a pdf (which includes bibliography and appendices) click here.
