18x24 final output

November, 2014 US $1.00 EUR $1.00

What Happens In Our Brains As We Read?

The Science of Typography Are we really concious?

Rob Carter Ben Day Phillip Meggs

S y ne r gy

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey Published simultaneously in Canada

This book is printed on acid -­free paper Copyright ©2007 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.

Rondanini Pietà–Michelangelo “Every block of stone has a sculpture inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it”

ISBN 0-­471-­78390-­0 (pbk. acid-­free paper) Printed in United States of America

Thinking with Pure Shapes 22-­25

Thinking with Pure Shapes 16-­20

The Images of Thought 13-­15

The Science of Typografy 9-12

What happens in our brain as we read 5-8

Foreword 4

Contents

Illustration by Paul Klee, “The Human Heart” used with permission of the Paul Klee-­Stiftung, Kunstmuseum, Bern and SPADEM.

The first seven lines of “One the Marriage of a Virgin’ from the Colected Poems of Dylan Thomas, copyright 1943 by the New Direction Corporation, are reprinted by permission of New Directions Publishing Corporation The passage [pp. 248-­49, bellow] from Albert Camus’s “The Adulterous Woman” in Exile and the Kingdonm, copyright 1958 by Alfred A Kopf, Inc., is reprinted by permis-­ sion of the publisher.

Foreword

In an attempt to sculpt the image out of a letter form, as scupltor to stone, designer is to type. This publication seeks to interpret not only the semiotics

and semantics of a writen word, but the writen word embeded in pictural codification. Migelagelo, known for creating masterpieces out of ordinary

stones, bought to live the comun imaginary of his society. With a sense of aesthetics superior to his peers, movement, weight, and emotion could be

Zik^\bmZm^] bg abl h[c^\ml' Khg]Zgbgb ib^mZ% bl ma^ Zgmbma^lbl h_ Zee ma^ phkd \k^Zm^] ]nkbg` Z eb_^mbf^% bm l [^^g mhe] mh [^ ma^ n`eb^lm ib^\^ ^o^k \k^Zm^]

by him. But this not to be taken negatively, it represents a strive to change paths, from the expected and accepted, and move forwad ceptually in the

representation of forms that go along with the most decadent and obscure personal moment of the artist life, yet, it is the most expresive for its

n`erg^ll% h_ paZm Fb\a^eZg`^eh l fbg]l^m l^^d^] bg abl eZlml ]Zrl

I l l us t r a t i o ns b y Paul Klee.

W r i t e n b y Annie Murphy Hall

What Happens in our Brain as we Read

s

quawk

Amid the s digital devices

pings pings of pings pings

and

our

pings But new support for the value of fiction is arriving from an pings pings unexpected quarter: neuroscience

t h e

j o u r n a l

an emotional exchange between characters.

Stories, this research is showing, stimulate the brain and even change how we act in life.

N e u r o I m a g e ,

Researchers have long known that the “classical” language regions, like Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area, are involved in how the brain interprets w r i t t e n w o r d s .

r e s e a r c h e r s

What scientists have come to realize in the last few years is that narratives activate many other parts of our brains as well, suggesting why the experience of I n

a

2 0 0 6

s t u d y

p u b l i s h e d

i n

t h e

Words like “lavender,” “cinnamon” and “soap,” for example, elicit a response not only from the language-processing areas of our brains, but also those devoted to dealing with smells.

w i t h

n e u t r a l

w o r d s ,

w h i l e

t h e i r

b r a i n s

w e r e

b e i n g

s c a n n e d

b y

a

f u n c t i o n a l

m a g n e t i c

r e s o n a n c e

i m a g i n g

( f M R I )

pings

Brain scans are revealing what happens in our heads

pings when we read a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n , pings pings an e v o c a t i v e m e t a p h o r or

a l o n g

pings

The way the brain handles metaphors has also received extensive study; some scientists simply

have contended that figures of speech like “a rough day” are

as

words

and

no

more

so familiar that

they are treated

Last month, however, a team of researchers from Emory University reported in Brain & Language that when subjects in their laboratory read a metaphor involving

m o r e . Last

texture, the sensory cortex, responsible for perceiving texture through touch, became -­

month, however, a team of researchers from Emory University reported in

Brain

&

Language

that when subjects in their laboratory read a metaphor involving read a metaphor involving texture, the sensory cortex, -­responsible for perceiving texture through touch, became active.

Metaphors like “The singer had a velvet voice” and “He had leathery hands” roused the

sensory cortex, while phrases matched for meaning, like “The singer had a pleasing voice” and “He had strong hands,” did not.

In a study led by the cognitive scientist Véronique Boulenger, of the Laboratory of Language Dynamics in France, the brains of participants were scanned as they read sentences like

“John grasped the object” and “Pablo kicked the ball.”

The

scans

revealed

activity

in

the

motor cortex, body’s movements

coordinates

which

the

.

What’s more, this activity was concentrated in one part of the

motor cortex when the in another part when

movement described was arm-related the movement concerned the leg.

and

In a study led by the cognitive scientist Véronique Boulenger, of the Laboratory of Language Dynamics in France, the brains of participants were scanned as they read sentences like

“John grasped the object” and “Pablo kicked the ball.”

The

scans

revealed

activity

in

the

motor cortex, body’s movements

coordinates

which

the

.

What’s more, this activity was concentrated in one part of the

motor cortex when the in another part when

movement described was arm-related the movement concerned the leg.

and

much of a disbetween reading

The brain, it seems, does not make

tinction

experience and encountering it in real life; in each case, the same neurological regions

an emeritus professor are stimulated. Keith Oatley,

of cognitive psychology at the University of Toronto

(and a published novelist), has proposed that reading produces a

, o n e t hat “runs o n minds o f re aders j us t as c omputer s imulations run on c om-‐ p u te rs. ” Fict io n — wit h it s redolent details , imaginative met aphors and atten -‐ ti ve de script io ns of pe o ple and t he ir ac tions — of f ers an es pec ially ric h replic a.

I n d e e d, in o ne re spe ct no ve ls go be y o nd s imulating reality to give readers an e xp e rience unavailable o ff t he page :

The novel, of course, is

an unequaled medium for the exploration of human social and emotional life.

And there is evidence that just as the brain responds to depictions of smells and textures and movements as if they were the real thing, so it treats the interactions

among

fictional characters as something like real-life social encounters.

about an

synergy / pause

<p style="text-align: left; font-family: Gotham, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-left: 30px; margin-right: 30px; color: #505050;"> <by> Ellen Lupton

lacitirc a etaerc ot stroffe cioreh etipseD ,delur sniamer dleif ruo ,ngised rof esruocsid ni detseretnI .noitiutni dna noitnevnoc yb ,ylegral ot tuo tes yltnecer I ,sedutitta evitanretla .yhpargopyt no erutaretil cifitneics eht enimaxe ,tneserp eht ot yrutnec htneetenin etal eht morF ,ygolohcysp—sdleif suoirav morf srehcraeser ,)ICH( noitcaretni retupmoc namuh ,scimonogre .ycneiciffe cihpargopyt detset evah—ngised dna gnicitcarp ot nwonk elttil ,hcraeser sihT hguoht—suorogir ylgnihserfer a sekat ,srengised -pa—evisulcnocni yletamitlu dna suoidet netfo sdrow nettirw ot dnopser elpoep woh ot hcaorp .neercs dna egap no sderdnuh hguorht gniggols morf nrael I did tahW morf dedaolnwod ro deipocotohp segap fo noitamrofnI dna roivaheB ekil seltit htiw slanruoj fo lanruoJ lanoitanretnI dna ygolonhceT .tol a dna elttil a htoB ?seidutS enihcaM-naM selbairav niatrec stset dna setalosi yduts hcaE .).cte ,ezis neercs ,htgnel enil ,elyts tnof( si ssecorp siht ,cifitneics dna lanoitar hguohtlA tcaretni selbairav cihpargopyt sa ,citamelborp osla eht fo trap eno no llup a—rehto hcae htiw roF .erehwesle snoissucreper sah metsys .A seliM dna nosretaP .G dlanoD 9291 ni ,elpmaxe trap—sezis epyt fo sisylana na dehsilbup rekniT tiusrup ni dehcnual yeht seiduts fo seires a fo ,-6 ni tes erew stxeT 1”.gnidaer fo eneigyh eht“ fo yduts ehT .epyt tniop-41 dna ,-21 ,-01 ,-8 eht si stniop 01 taht dedulcnoc yllacitahpme tluser a—gnidaer tneiciffe rof ”ezis mumitpo“ a ta tes stxet rof ylno ,revewoh ,tnaveler ralucitrap a ni ,)mm 08( htgnel enil ralucitrap v.)desolcsid ton( ecafepyt lebaK fires snas eht sa llew sa secaf defires ,lanoitidart gnidulcni ,stnof tnereffid net detset rekniT dna nosretaP yb yduts rehtonA

Despite heroic efforts to create a critical discourse for design, retirwepyT—stnof owt tsal eht ylnO 2.kcalB retsiolC laveidem-oen ,detaroced ylesned eht dna ,retirwepyT naciremA decapsonom eht ,etiL yllauqe era esu nommoc ni ]cis[ secaf epyT“ :noisulcnoc ’srohtua ehT .deeps gnidaer ni pid tnacifingis yna desuac—retsiolC dna our field remains ruled, largely, by convention and intuition. .eciohc tnof fo smret ni aes ta ssel ro erom rengised eht sevael ecneicS .)316( ”elbigel dna nosretaP yb yduts rehtonA ,stnoInterested in alternative attitudes, I recently set out to examine f tnereffid net detset rekniT -icsidretni nA .dekil yeht dias yeht tahw dna demrofrep sresu woh neewteb stcilfnoc delaever neercs eht no stnof gnitset yduts 8991 A secaf defires ,lanoitidart gnidulcni eht hguohtlA 3.neercs eht rof dengised tnof fires a ,aigroeG htiw namoR semiT derapmoc ytisrevinU nolleM eigenraC ta maet yranilp lebthe scientific literature on typography. From the late nineteenth aK fires snas eht sa llew sa dnoces A .daer ot reisae dna ,gnisaelp erom ,reprahs degduj yeht hcihw ,aigroeG derreferp sresu ,ecnereffid evitcejbo on dnuof maet naciremA decapsonom eht ,etiL thgils a desserpxe sresu ,esac siht nI .gniweiv neercs-no rof dengised ecaf fires snas a ,anadreV htiw aigroeG derapmoc tset ylesned eht dna ,retirwepyT century to the present, researchers from various fields—psy-­ . e d i u g evitinifed on htiw sedulcnoc yduts eht ,niaga ecnO .aigroeG gnidaer retteb demrofrep yeht tub ,anadreV rof ”ecnereferp evitcejbus“ retsiolC laveidem-oen ,detaroced owt tsal eht ylnO 2.kcalB chology, ergonomics, human computer interaction (HCI), and ,)maxe eye na ni sa( dezingocer eb nac drow ro rettel a hcihw htiw esae eht snrecnoc ”ytilibigeL“ ?degduj ycneiciffe cihpargopyt si woH dna retirwepyT—stnof tnac ifingis yna desuac—retsiolC design—have tested typographic efficiency. This research, little ’srohtua ehT .deeps gnidaer ni pid ni ]cknown to practicing designers, takes a refreshingly is[ secaf epyT“ :noisulcnoc ”elbigel yllauqe era esu nommoc rengirigorous—though often tedious and ultimately inconclu-­ sed eht sevael ecneicS .)316( fo smret ni aes ta ssel ro erom sive—approach to how people respond to written words on .eciohc tnof page and screen. eht no stnof gnitset yduts 8991 A

neewteb stcilfnoc delaever neercs tahw dna demrofrep sresu woh nA .dekil yeht dias yeht eigenraC ta maet yranilpicsidretni semiT derapmoc ytisrevinU nolleM tnof fires a ,aigroeG htiw namoR 3.neercs eht rof dengised on dnuof maet eht hguohtlA sresu ,ecnereffid evitcejbo yeht hcihw ,aigroeG derreferp dna ,gnisaelp erom ,reprahs degduj tset dnoces A .daer ot reisae a ,anadreV htiw aigroeG derapmoc rof dengised ecaf fires snas ,esac siht nI .gniweiv neercs-no thgils a desserpxe sresu rof ”ecnereferp evitcejbus“ demrofrep yeht tub ,anadreV ,niaga ecnO .aigroeG gnidaer retteb Another on htiw sedulcno c ydutsstudy eht by Paterson and .edTinker iug evitested tinifed ten different fonts, including traditional, serifed faces ycneiciffe cihpargas opywell t si as wothe H sans serif Kabel American eht snrecnoc ”ytilibLite, igeL“ the ?degmonospaced duj Typewriter, drow ro rettel a hcihw htiw esaand e the densely decorated, neo-medieval Cloister Black.2 Only the last two fonts—Typewriter and Cloister—caused any significant dip in reading speed. The authors’ conclusion: “Type faces [sic] in common use are equally legible” (613). Science leaves the designer more or less at sea in terms of font choice.

What did I learn from slogging through hundreds of pages photocopied or downloaded from journals with titles like Behavior and Information Technology and International Journal of Man-­Machine Studies? Both a little and a lot.

Each study isolates and tests certain variables (font style, line length, screen size, etc.). Although rational and scientific, this process is also problematic, as typographic variables interact with each other—a pull on one part of the system has repercus-­ sions elsewhere. For example, in 1929 Donald G. Paterson and Miles A. Tinker published an analysis of type sizes—part of a series of studies they launched in pursuit of “the hygiene of reading.”1 Texts were set in 6-­, 8-­, 10-­, 12-­, and 14-­point type.

The study emphatically concluded that 10 points is the “optimum size” for efficient reading—a result relevant, however, only for texts set at a particular line length (80 mm), in a particular typeface (not disclosed).

A 1998 study testing fonts on the screen revealed conflicts between

how users performed and what Another study by Paterson and Tinker tested ten different fonts, they said they liked. An including traditional, serifed faces as well as the sans serif Kabel interdisciplinary team at Carnegie Mellon University compared Times Lite, the monospaced American Typewriter, and the densely Roman with Georgia, a serif font designed for the screen.3 decorated, neo-­medieval Cloister Black.2 Only the last two Although the team found no objective difference, users fonts—Typewriter and Cloister—caused any significant dip in preferred Georgia, which they judged sharper, more pleasing, and reading speed. The authors’ conclusion: “Type faces [sic] in easier to read. A second test compared Georgia with Verdana, a common use are equally legible” (613). Science leaves the sans serif face designed for on-screen viewing. In this case, designer more or less at sea in terms of font choice. users expressed a slight “subjective preference” for Verdana, but they performed better reading Georgia. Once again, the study concludes with no definitive guide.

A 1998 study testing fonts on the screen revealed conflicts between how users performed and what they said they liked.

How is typographic efficiency judged? “Legibility” concerns the ease with which a letter or word

ytpography

Despite heroic efforts to create a critical discourse for design, our field remains ruled, largely, by convention and intuition. Interested in alternative attitudes, I recently set out to examine the scientific literature on typography. From the late nineteenth century to the present, researchers from various fields—psychology, ergonomics, human computer interaction (HCI), and design—have tested typographic efficiency. This research, little known to practicing designers, takes a refreshingly rigorous—though often tedious and ultimately inconclusive—approach to how people respond to written words on page and screen.

What did I learn from slogging through hundreds of pages photocopied or downloaded from journals with titles like Behavior and Information Technology and International Journal of Man-Machine Studies? Both a little and a lot.

E a c h s t u d y i s o l a t e s a n d t e s t s c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s ( f o n t s t y l e , l i n e l e n g t h , s c r e e n s i z e , e t c . ) . A l t h o ugh rational and scientif-­ ic , t h is p r o c e s s i s a l s o p r o b l e m a t i c , a s t y p o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s i n t e r a c t w i t h e a c h o t h e r — a p u l l o n one part of the system h a s re p e r c u s s i o n s e l s e w h e r e .

Another study by Paterson and Tinker tested ten different fonts, including traditional, serifed faces as well as the sans serif Kabel Lite, the monospaced American Typewriter, and the densely decorated, neo-medieval Cloister Black.2 Only the last two fonts—Typewriter and Cloister—caused any significant dip in reading speed. The authors’ conclusion: “Type faces [sic] in common use are equally legible” (613). Science leaves the designer more or less at sea in terms of font choice.

A 19 9 8 s t u d y t e s t i n g f o n t s o n t h e s c r e e n r e v e a l e d c o n f l i c t s b e t w e e n h o w u s e r s p e r f o r m e d a n d w h a t they said they liked. An interdisciplinar y team at Carnegie Mellon University compared Times Roman with Georgia, a serif font designed for the screen.3 Although difference, pleasing,

users

and

preferred

easier

to

Georgia,

which

they

the

team

judged

found

no

sharper,

objective more

r e a d . A s e c o n d t e s t c o m p a r e d G e o r g i a w i t h Ve r d a n a , a s a n s s e r i f

face designed for on-screen viewing. In this case, users expressed a slight “subjective preference” for Ve r d a n a , b u t t h e y p e r f o r m e d b e t t e r r e a d i n g G e o r g i a . O n c e a g a i n , t h e s t u d y c o n c l u d e s w i t h n o d e f i n i tive guide.

How is typographic efficiency judged? “Legibility” concerns the ease with which a letter or word can be recognized (as in an eye exam), whereas “readability” describes the ease with which a text can be understood (as in the mental processing of meaningful sentences). Designers often distinguish “legibility” and “readability” as the objective and subjective sides of typographic experience.

For scientists, however, readability can be objectively measured, as speed of reading + comprehension. Subjects in most of the studies cited here were asked

estions. (Speed and

to read a text and then answer qu comprehension are factored together because faster reading is often achieved at the expense of understanding content.)

The literature on readability includes numerous articles on whether (and why) paper is preferred over screens. In 1987 researchers working for IBM isolated and tested variables that a f f e c t t e x t o n b o t h s c r e e n a n d p a g e , i n c l u d i n g image quality, typeface, and line spacing.4 W h i l e t h e t e a m h o p e d t o s u c c e s s f u l l y i d e n t i f y t h e c u l p r i t b e h i n d t h e p o o r p e r f o r m a n c e o f the screen, they discovered something else instead: an interplay of factors seemed to be at work, each variable interacting with others. The screen itself proved not to be the root cause of i t s o w n i n e f f i c i e n c y ; f a u l t l a y, i n s t e a d , i n t h e w a y t e x t w a s p r e s e n t e d — i n

short, its design.

a etaerc ot stroffe cioreh etipseD ruo ,ngised rof esruocsid lacitirc yb ,ylegral ,delur sniamer dleif .noitiutni dna noitnevnoc ,sedutitta evitanretla ni detseretnI eht enimaxe ot tuo tes yltnecer I .yhpargopyt no erutaretil cifitneics yrutnec htneetenin etal eht morF morf srehcraeser ,tneserp eht ot ,ygolohcysp—sdleif suoirav retupmoc namuh ,scimonogre evah—ngised dna ,)ICH( noitcaretni .ycneiciffe cihpargopyt detset ot nwonk elttil ,hcraeser sihT a sekat ,srengised gnicitcarp hguoht—suorogir ylgnihserfer yletamitlu dna suoidet netfo woh ot hcaorppa—evisulcnocni sdrow nettirw ot dnopser elpoep .neercs dna egap no gniggols morf nrael I did tahW segap fo sderdnuh hguorht morf dedaolnwod ro deipocotohp roivaheB ekil seltit htiw slanruoj dna ygolonhceT noitamrofnI dna fo lanruoJ lanoitanretnI a htoB ?seidutS enihcaM-naM .tol a dna elttil stset dna setalosi yduts hcaE enil ,elyts tnof( selbairav niatrec .).cte ,ezis neercs ,htgnel ,cifitneics dna lanoitar hguohtlA ,citamelborp osla si ssecorp siht tcaretni selbairav cihpargopyt sa eno no llup a—rehto hcae htiw sah metsys eht fo trap roF .erehwesle snoissucreper nosretaP .G dlanoD 9291 ni ,elpmaxe na dehsilbup rekniT .A seliM dna a fo trap—sezis epyt fo sisylana ni dehcnual yeht seiduts fo seires fo eneigyh eht“ fo tiusrup ,-8 ,-6 ni tes erew stxeT 1”.gnidaer ehT .epyt tniop-41 dna ,-21 ,-01 taht dedulcnoc yllacitahpme yduts ”ezis mumitpo“ eht si stniop 01 tluser a—gnidaer tneiciffe rof stxet rof ylno ,revewoh ,tnaveler 08( htgnel enil ralucitrap a ta tes ton( ecafepyt ralucitrap a ni ,)mm v.)desolcsid

In a second paper the IBM team proved that the efficiency difference between page and s c r ee n could be erased entirely if the screen were made to more closely resemble the “normal” conditions of print.5

This

study

presented

black,

anti-aliased typefaces on a light, high-resolution screen—features that became more or less standard in the 1990s. The IBM research thus established that design conventions evolved for print effectively translate to the realm of the screen.

While such work confirms the commonality of design for page and screen, other research defies some of our most cherished assumptions. Consider the burning typographic questions of line length and the appropriate number of characters per line. The Swiss modernists have long promoted short, neat lines as ideal for reading, from Josef Müller-Brockman (seven words per line) to Ruedi Rüegg (forty to sixty characters). Such rules of thumb have become basic instinct for many designers.

Science, however, tells a different tale. One study determined that long line lengths are more efficient

HTML

than shorter ones, concluding that columns of text should fill up as much screen real estate as possible. 6 (Grotesque images swim to mind of marginless, unstructured pages of

, expanding to fill the screen with one fat

column.)

Another study compared texts with 80 characters per line to texts with 40 characters per line.

lines

The 80-character

were created—get this!—by collapsing the width of each letter, thus jamming more text into the same space.7

Despite this unforgivable crime against typography, the study found that subjects could read the denser lines more efficiently than lines with fewer—albeit normally proportioned—characters. U g l i n e s s , w e l e a r n , d o e s n o t a l w a y s c o m p r o mise function.

Upsetting assumptions is not a bad thing. Although the research cited here may not tell us exactly how to set type, its conclusions could be useful in other ways. For example, it was once progressive to promote the use of “white space” in all things typographic. P e r h a p s i t i s t i m e t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e v a l u e o f d e n s i t y , f r o m p a g e t o s c r e e n t o urban environment. Down with sprawl, down with vast distances from a to b, and up with greate r r i c h n e s s , d i v e r s i t y, a n d c o m p a c t n e s s a m o n g i n f o r m a t i o n a n d i d e a s , p e o p l e a n d p l a c e s .

What we might expect from the

science of type

is a seamless web of rules.

Such is not forthcoming. In its drive to uncover fixed standards, the research has affirmed, instead, human tolerance for typographic variation and the elasticity of the typographic system. Science can help ruffle our dogmas and create a clearer view of h o w v a r i a b l e s i n t e r a c t t o c r e a t e l i v i n g , b r e a t h i n g — a n d , y e s , r e a d a b l e — t y p o g r a p h y.

T h e l i t eoa rbnai tlr uietrayed inonuucm l u d e s e r s a r t i cw l e s o n h e t h e r (w a n d h y ) ppf ear repr-eerd i s osI ncv re1er9e n8 s7 . rse eer -sa r c h w o r k i n g fia sonordl Ia B M t e d tva ebasrl tei e-sd tat hef xfa ett cot n bsa cno rdt eh e n pci m al ugadegi,en ign qtf yaucpaeel ,-i t y , asi npn gad .c4l- i n e

synergy / pause

Page numbers in italics denote illustrations.

3 Deep Design 13 3D displays 106

account handlers 19 Adbusters magazine 45 additive primaries 156–7 aesthetics 14, 120 agencies 17–18, 20, 56, 145 analogies 178 annual reporting 23, 115 anti-­consumerism 45 appropriation 70–1, 178 art

commissioning 102–7

graphic design as 26–7

influencing design 78 art direction 96–7 art papers 174–5 asymmetrical grids 61, 178

baseline, grids 63 belly bands 165, 178 beta versions 101 binding 162, 163–5, 178, 179 bitmap files 160–1, 178 blackletter typefaces 43 Blast designs 75, 81–2, 85, 87 bleed 179 blogs 144 boldface type 42 bolt-­on brands 52 bottom-­up problem-­solving 83 bound portfolios 146, 147 brand development 52–3 brand guidelines 55 branded identities 46, 53 branding 44, 46–55

the brief 14, 19, 74–5 brightness 157 broadside text 179 built environment 31, 78–9 Büro X 23, 49, 114, 134, 169

calibration of colour 158 calliper of stocks 179 CDs 144, 152 centrefolds 63 charity work 56, 57 choice 44–5, 76–7 chunking 83 clients 16–17, 19, 44, 56, 145 clustering 83 CMYK colour space 156 cognition 68, 69 collages 179 collectives 21 colour 81, 156–9,

179, 181, 186, 188 colour fall 179 colour spaces 156 columns, grids 63 commissioning work 26, 27, 102–7 communication 15, 19, 26, 76–7, 125

eclectic design 115 electronic communications 144–5 empirical problem-­solving 83 endorsed identities 46 endpapers 176, 180, 181, 186 engraved illustrations 27 environmental design 126–37 EPS files 161 ethics 56–7 exhibition design 100, 134–5 experimentation 92–5 ‘exquisite corpse’ 181 extended typeface 42 extent of publication 181 external storage 159

Faydherbe/De Vringer 17, 33, 164,

166, 170, 180, 182

Garamond font 43, 184, 188, 189 GIF files 161 glyph switching 37

index direct 116–17 electronic 144–5 internal 112 public-­facing 113 company profiles 74 condensed typefaces 42 consumerism 32, 44–5 conventions of design 15 counter space 180 craft 24, 25, 26–7, 47, 92 creative thinking 84–5 creep 180 cultural influences 78 culture jamming 45 curators 134 cutting mats/rules 150 De Vringer see Faydherbe/De Vringer deconstruction 14, 15, 24 denotative meanings 68, 69 design brief 14, 19, 74–5 design choices 76–7 design conventions 15 design groups 16–19 detailing 176, 188 development of designs 92–5, 103 die-­cutting 162, 180 digital files 152, 160–1 digital type foundries 35 digital typefaces 34–7 direct mail 116–17 drawing skills 94 drawing tablets 153, 159 duotone images 180 duplexing 180 DVDs 144, 152

file formats 152, 160–1 finishing 162–76, 181 first impressions 140 flaps 181 flexography 168 flipping 37 flood colour 114 foil-­blocking 162, 181 folding 181 fonts 34–43, 59, 68, 184, 188, 189

see also typefaces/typography formal brief 74 found items 70 four-­colour black 181 freelance work 20, 21 French curves 152 Frutiger, Adrian 59

hero images 97 hierarchical structures 18–19, 182 homage 87 HTML mailers 144–5 hue 157 human form in design 126 humour 86–9, 108, 109

icons 66, 67, 118, 119 identity 40, 46–55 idents 123, 124 illustration commissions 104 images 22, 71, 160, 161, 180 Imaginary Forces designs 123 imposition plans 182 indexes 66, 67 individual responsibility 57