Letter and symbol misrecognition in highly legible typefaces (2015)

Re:Letter and symbol misrecognition in highly legible typefa... by hackuser on Thursday April 13, 2017 @02:07PM (#14109446)

If you are a professional in the field of typography, what is the/an authoritative source on (mis)recognition of characters - if that is even the correct term and if I am asking the right question? (Maybe typeface only has a tiny effect, for example.)

It interests me and I pick it up in bits and pieces as I come across it, but that's slow, leaves holes in my understanding, and it's unreliable: I'm never sure of the quality of what I'm reading - is it just some person's opinion? A fringe theory? etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Letter and symbol misrecognition in highly legible typefa... by Someone on Thursday April 13, 2017 @05:53PM (#14111192)

Typeface can have huge effects, as fraktur/blackletter show (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Calligraphy.malmesbury...., via https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackletter, is a nice example)

However, even that diminishes with experience.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Letter and symbol misrecognition in highly legible typefa... by accountyaccount on Thursday April 13, 2017 @03:22PM (#14110135)

You have to look for studies that actually tested these theories (formally or informally) and consider their methodologies (just like any other scientific research).

There are a ton of opinions that aren't backed up by fact because type design so often sits on the edge of art and design.

If all else fails, find some people unrelated to what you're working on and ask them some objective questions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Letter and symbol misrecognition in highly legible typefa... by wodenokoto on Friday April 14, 2017 @04:11AM (#14113239)

This article seems fairly well sourced. Of course there could be bias in the selection, but checking out the sources might be a good place to start.

[ Parent | on HN ]