Technical communicators need to select typefaces that match the tone that they intend for a document. Rather than relying on intuition or personal preference, technical communicators can use a research-driven approach to analyze objectively the extent to which a typeface's personality meshes with the intended tone of a document. This study describes how technical communicators can analyze a typeface's uppercase J and its lowercase a, g, e, and n letterforms—letterforms that are dense with anatomical information—to gauge the extent to which a typeface will contribute a friendly or a professional personality to a document. Technical communicators—both professionals and students—who are armed with this knowledge can move beyond “safe” typefaces like Times New Roman and Helvetica, selecting instead typefaces whose anatomical features generate different kinds of personalities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrumbergerE. R., The Rhetoric of Typography: The Persona of Typeface and Text, Technical Communication, 50, pp. 206–223, 2003.
2.
BrumbergerE. R., The Rhetoric of Typography: The Awareness and Impact of Typeface Appropriateness, Technical Communication, 50, pp. 224–231, 2003.
3.
MacKiewiczJ., What Technical Writing Students Do Know and Should Know about Typography, in IPCC: The Shape of Knowledge: Proceedings of the 2003 International Professional Communication Conference, Piscataway, New Jersey, pp. 209–222, 2003.
4.
MacKiewiczJ., What Technical Writing Students Should Know about Typeface Personality, The Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 34, pp. 113–131, 2004.
5.
StrizverI., Type Rules!North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2001.
6.
CraigJ. and BevingtonW., Designing with Type: A Basic Course in Typography (4th Edition), Watson-Guptill, New York, 1999.
7.
EarlsD., Designing Typefaces, Roto Vision, Mies, Switzerland, 2002.
8.
GaleN., Type 1: Digital Typeface Design, Universe Publishing, New York, 2002.
9.
RudeC. D., Technical Editing (3rd Edition), Longman, New York, 2002.
10.
BrintonJ. E., The ‘Feeling’ of Typefaces, CA Magazine, 3, pp. 43–45, 1961.
11.
BurtC., A Psychological Study of Typography, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1959.
12.
RoweC. L., The Connotative Dimensions of Selected Display Typefaces, Information Design Journal, 3, pp. 30–37, 1982.
13.
WalkerP.SmithS., and LivingstonA., Predicting the Appropriateness of a Typeface on the Basis of Its Multi-Modal Features, Information Design Journal, 5, pp. 29–42, 1986.
14.
KostelnickC. and RobertsD. D., Designing Visual Language: Strategies for Professional Communicators, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1998.
15.
WalkerS., Typography and Lanauage in Everyday Life: Prescriptions and Practices, Pearson Education, Essex, England, 2001.
16.
BrumbergerE. R., The Rhetoric of Typography: Effects on Reading Time, Reading Comprehension, and Perceptions of Ethos, Technical Communication, 51, pp. 13–24, 2004.
17.
GoodmanA., The 7 Essentials of Graphic Design, How Design Books, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2001.
YoonT.LeeS.KimJ., and ShinJ., Experimental Typography: Number of Typefaces: Conclusions, Newsletter of the ATypi Conference, Copenhagen, Germany, 2001. 29 April 2004. <http://www.atypi.org/30_past_Conferences/50_copenhagen>.
21.
RiordanD. G. and PauleyS. E., Technical Report Writing Today (8th Edition), Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 2002.
22.
PfeifferW. S., Pocket Guide to Technical Writing (3rd Edition), Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2004.
23.
HoupK. W.PersallT. E.TebeauxE., and DraggaS., Reporting Technical Information, (10th Edition), Oxford University Press, New York, 2002.
24.
GordonB., Making Digital Type Look Good, Watson-Guptill, New York, 2001.
25.
SpiekermannE. and GingerE. M., Stop Stealing Sheep and Find Out How Type Works (2nd Edition), Adobe Press, Berkeley, California, 2003.
26.
SimsB. R., Technical Communication for Readers and Writers (2nd Edition), Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 2003.
WilliamsR., The Non-Designer's Type Book, Peachpit Press, Berkeley, California, 1998.
30.
SchriverK. A., Dynamics in Document Design, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997.
31.
MacKiewiczJo and RileyKathryn, The State of Online Writing Labs: Have They Fulfilled Their Potential?Internet-Bailed Workplace Communication: Industry and Academic Applications, St. AmantK. and ZemlianskyP. (Eds.), The Idea Group Publishers, Hershey, Pennsylvania, pp. 211–230, 2005.
32.
MacKiewiczJo, The Effects of Tutor Expertise in Technical Writing: A Linguistic Analysis of Writing Tutors' Comments, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47, pp. 316–328, June 2005.
33.
MacKiewiczJo, What Technical Writing Students Should Know about Typeface Personality, The Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 34, pp. 113–131, 2004.
34.
JensonJillMacKiewiczJo, and RileyKathryn, Human Subjects Research by Business Communication Students: From Red Tape to Learning Opportunity, Business Communication Quarterly, 66, pp. 9–22, 2003.
35.
RileyKathryn and MacKiewiczJo, Resolving the Directness Dilemma in Document Review Sessions with Non-Native Speakers, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46, pp. 1–16, 2003.
36.
MacKiewiczJo and RileyKathryn, The Technical Editor as Diplomat: Linguistic Strategies for Balancing Clarity and Politeness, Technical Communication, 50, pp. 83–94, 2003.
