[Sigia-l] Re: large font use

[Listera]

"InfoArchitect" wrote:
> As far as ‘uneducated’, I’m sure the following people (the authors of
> the preliminary study) are suitably educated:

Memo to myself, "Next time I want to have surgery make sure the people
operating on me are not academics on health care, but real surgeons!"

I'm willing to bet that not one of these distinguished academics ever
designed a font, ever studied typography, ever designed a website larger
than 3 1/2 pages, has knowledge/recognition of fonts beyond the dozen or so
one finds bundled with Windows, has ever sat at a desk and studied, oh,
about a couple of hundred children books of various genres with an eye
towards type usage, and probably ever read to children every night for
several years.

"Suitably educated"? Writing about restaurants doesn't qualify one as a good
cook.

> It doesn’t matter how good a designer is.  They could never tell me
> what a child’s preference is – only the child could.

So you think designers who design children's books don't observe/talk to
children? Just what do you have against (design) professionals?

> I concur – Courier New is not a font that I would normally associate
> with children’s text, but Comic Sans is.  But what IS a common serif
> font for children’s texts?

Actually, if you look at *illustrated* children's books, most of the text is
neither serif or sans serif body text. It's often a display font, large
x-height, full of flair, frequently hand-drawn. In other words, not the kind
you'd see in the body portion of a non-illustrated adult book. Certainly
nothing you'd find in the meager (and awful) selection you'd get bundled
with Windows, including Comic Sans.

> Personally, I feel that it is a bad use of wording, but then again, I’m not an
> expert in child psychology, so I must defer my opinion to those that are
> qualified in the area.

It's just shoddy, pseudo science. Your instinct are better than their
methods.
 
>> Sorry, this just doesn't rise above *anecdotal* for me.
> Subjective studies aren’t meant to reflect anything more than
> preference.

Yet you'd take the word of these three characters who (I strongly believe)
know as much about type as I know about Didgeridoo playing, over (type)
designers who dedicate their lives to it? Strange.

> So, how do designers know which font to use for say, the elderly, or
> children, or people with English as a second language, or people with
> visual difficulties, or anyone other than themselves?

I'm a little perplexed by your unfamiliarity with the design profession. You
know, people get graduate degrees in design (various specialties), they
apprentice for years, they experiment, conduct blind tests (most commonly at
ad and direct marketing agencies), they observe, they study, they go to
professional seminars, they read/write books...
  
>> Do you really think designers just close their eyes and pick a font out of
>> the dark recesses of their presumptions?
> Not at all.  The problem is, anyone can (and seems to these days) call
> themselves a ‘designer.

So? We have people calling themselves usability 'engineers' too. We have
charlatans in every profession. I hope this doesn't come as a surprise to
you.

> Yes, many designers are great at picking/designing something that is
> aesthetically pleasing – but it may not be a usable design and/or suit the
> target market.  

This is so biased and uneducated that I won't touch it.

> This lesson was learned after the dot-com shakedown, and has been reflected in
> numerous studies.  Aesthetics are only one facet of good design.

That's a straw man argument I never made. If you read this list you should
know I've been one of the harshest critics of the dotcom ethos and Skip
Intro pretenders. But (professional) designers do not solely dwell on
cosmetic, surface arrangements. Structure and context are the backbones of
design, and any designer worth a nickel knows it and practices it.

Best,

Ziya