Typeface personality impacts the rhetorical effect of students' documents, yet it receives little attention in textbooks. Technical writing students should stand the definition of “appropriate” in relation to typeface selection, the difference between type's functional and semantic properties, the difference between type family and personality, the effect of a typeface's history, and the contribution of a typeface's anatomy to its personality. Understanding these, students can make informed decisions about typeface appropriateness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BertramD., The Perception of Semantic Quality in Type: Differences between Designers and Non-Designers, Information Design Journal, 3, pp. 38–50, 1982.
2.
StrizverI., Type Rules!, North Light Books, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2001.
3.
BurmarkL., Visual Literacy: Learn to See, See to Learn, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia, 2002.
4.
KumpfE. P., Visual Metadiscourse: Designing the Considerate Text, Technical Communication Quarterly, 2, pp. 401–424, 2000.
5.
BensonP. J., Writing Visually: Design Considerations in Technical Publications, Technical Communication, 32, pp. 35–39, 1985.
6.
KostelnickC., Visual Rhetoric: A Reader-Oriented Approach to Graphics and Designs, The Technical Writing Teacher, 16, pp. 77–88, 1989.
7.
KostelnickC., The Rhetoric of Text Design in Professional Communication, The Technical Writing Teacher, 17, pp. 189–202, 1990.
8.
KostelnickC., From Pen to Print: The New Visual Landscape of Professional Communication, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 8, pp. 91–117, 1994.
9.
KostelnickC., Supra-Textual Design: The Visual Rhetoric of Whole Documents, Technical Communication Quarterly, 5, pp. 9–33, 1996.
10.
RosnerM., Theories of Visual Rhetoric: Looking at the Human Genome, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 31, pp. 391–413, 2001.
11.
KoppleVande W. J., Metadiscourse and the Recall of Modality Markers, Visible Language, 22, pp. 233–272, 1988.
12.
BurtC., A Psychological Study of Typography, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1959.
13.
PoffenbergerA. T. and FrankenR. B., A Study of the Appropriateness of Type Faces, Journal of Applied Psychology, 7, pp. 312–329, 1923.
14.
BrumbergerE. R., The Rhetoric of Typography: Five Experimental Studies of Typeface Personality and Its Effects on Readers and Reading, unpublished dissertation, New Mexico State University, 2001.
15.
BrumbergerE. R., The Rhetoric of Typography: The Persona of Typeface and Text, Technical Communication, 50, pp. 206–223, 2003.
16.
BrumbergerE. R., The Rhetoric of Typography: Typeface Appropriateness, Technical Communication, 50, pp. 224–231, 2003.
17.
RoweC. L., The Connotative Dimensions of Selected Display Typefaces, Information Design Journal, 3, pp. 30–37, 1982.
18.
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.
19.
RudeC., Technical Editing (3rd Edition), Longman, New York, 2002.
20.
KostelnickC. and RobertsD. D., Designing Visual Language: Strategies for Professional Communicators, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1998.
21.
PattowD. and WreschW., Communicating Technical Information (2nd Edition), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1998.
22.
GurakL. J. and LannonJ. M., A Concise Guide to Technical Communication, Longman, New York, 2001.
23.
HoupK. W.PearsallT. E.TebeauxE., and DraggaS., Reporting Technical Information (10th Edition), Oxford University Press, New York, 2002.
24.
WooleverK. R., Writing for the Technical Professions (2nd Edition), Longman, New York, 2002.
25.
ReepD. C., Technical Writing: Principles, Strategies, and Readings (5th Edition), Longman, New York, 2003.
26.
McMurrayD. A., Power Tools for Technical Communication, Harcourt College Publishers, Fort Worth, Texas, 2002.
27.
VanAlystineJ. S. and TrittM. D., Professional and Technical Writing Strategies (5th Edition), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2002.
28.
WilliamsR., The Non-Designer's Type Book, Peachpit Press, Berkeley, California, 1998.
29.
JuryD., About Face, RotoVision, Mies, Switzerland, 2002.
30.
BerleantD., Does Typography Affect Proposal Assessment?Communications of the ACM, 43, pp. 24–25, 2000.
31.
TracyW., Legibility and Readability, in Typographers on Type, McLeanR. (Ed.), Norton, New York, pp. 170–172, 1995.
MacKiewiczJ., Online Writing Labs: The State of Their Art and Their Relevance to Professional Writing, forthcoming in Internet-Based Workplace Communication: Industry and Academic Applications, St. AmantK. and ZemlianskyP. (eds.), The Idea Group Publishers, Hershey, Pennsylvania, 2005.
45.
MacKiewiczJ., What Technical Writing Students Do Know and Should Know about Typography, in IPCC 2003: The Shape of Knowledge, proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, Piscataway, New Jersey, pp. 209–222, 2003.
46.
RileyK. and MacKiewiczJ., Globalizing Plain English: Can Plain Be Polite? in The World within the Words: Business Practice in Plain Language, proceedings of the 2003 Association for Business Communication Conference, pp. 13–21, 2003.
47.
MacKiewiczJ., Which Rules for Online Writing Are Worth Following?: A Study of Eight Rules in Eleven Handbooks, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46, pp. 129–137, 2003.
48.
JensonJ.MacKiewiczJ., and RileyK., Human Subjects Research by Business Communication Students: From Red Tape to Learning Opportunity, Business Communication Quarterly, 66, pp. 9–22, 2003.
49.
RileyK. and MacKiewiczJ., Resolving the Directness Dilemma in Document Review Sessions with Non-Native Speakers, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46, pp. 1–16, 2003.
50.
MacKiewiczJ., The Technical Editor as Diplomat: Linguistic Strategies for Balancing Clarity and Politeness, Technical Communication, 50, pp. 83–94, 2003.
