overview

This profile considers readability theory, tests and ongoing disagreement about fonts. It supplements the guides on Design, Accessibility and Publishing.

     contents of this profile

The profile is under development. The following pages will shortly cover -

theory - an introduction to theories about 'readability', online and off

tests - pointers to major readability tools, such as the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid tests, the Fry Formula, SMOG test, FORCAST and Gunning Fog index

fontwars - highlights of research into online fonts and a perspective on the 'font wars', disagreement about typography that flares up with new technologies such as the rotary press or internet

     readability?

What's 'readability'.

The answer - like 'good design' - is often idiosyncratic, which may account for much of the passion in disagreements about particular products, principles or philosophies.

Broadly, readability embraces -

• content - some content is easier to scan and understand than others: 'conceptual density' should be matched to the user's interest and to the importance of information to be conveyed
  
  
• expression - 'Plain English' (and its equivalent) is easier to read than baroque expression
  
  
• layout - crisp sentences, short paragraphs and subheadings to assist 'scanning', use of white space and attention to contrast or browser limitations (no green text on dark purple backgrounds) assists online reading
  
  
• typography - empirical studies suggest that some fonts (typefaces) are easier to read than others, although much of the vehemence in past disputes about serif versus sans serif seems misplaced

   next page  (theory)