Poynter just launched the results of their recent study EyeTrack07 about the nature and comparison of reading a newspaper in print versus online. Some of the main findings appear surprising at first:

A larger percentage of story text was read online (77%) than in print (62%).

63% of online readers read their selected stories to completion compared with 40% in print.

Alternative story forms – like Q&A’s, timelines, short sidebars and lists – help readers understand.

When you consider these findings in the context of the general explosion and prevalence of the weblog in all its forms, and the sharp increase in ‘community’ related content in the last couple of years, perhaps they are not so surprising after all.

I recently attended the Future of Web Design (FOWD) conference in London and almost every speaker referred to their audience not as readers, but predictably as users, and more interestingly as members. Bearing this in mind, when I read about the EyeTrack07 study, it makes sense that readers on screen want to interact with the text and the stories they are reading, and how this interactivity provides a spur on to further or deeper reading. In terms of the typographic design and layout of text on screen, it is clear that designers need to engage in stronger critical analysis of textual matter, in conjunction with editors and writers, in order to determine what interactive strategies can be best employed to create both an engaging and easy to use reading experience. Perhaps these concerns are just as important for designers of screen texts as tradition formal design decisions relating to typographic expression and hierarchy.

The other interesting aspect of this study is in the empirical methods it employs. Here is the beginning of some hard data providing key information about the nature of how we read on screen, which is a relatively new experience when compared to centuries of a culture of print reading. Although this is still a relatively new field of research, Poynter and other key researchers such as Mary Dyson and Kevin Larson are making significant contributions which will help designers and content creators working with on screen textual material in the same way that ground breaking research from the likes of Miles Tinker and Herbert Spencer influenced design for print.

I have begun updating my list of noteworthy typefaces designed for screen use. It is by no means exhaustive but contains some of the best ones created to date. Included are links to information about the typefaces and the designers who created them. I will continue to update this list and I plan to present the information in a more readable visual format shortly. I am looking for additional screen typeface recommendations and links to examples or information about them.

Understanding the relevance of traditional typeface classification is difficult in a contemporary context. Students often glaze over with boredom when the subject comes up and it can be difficult to explain why understanding typeface classification is directly applicable to design practice. If you consider the choice of typeface akin to the selection of raw materials, quality and appropriateness for the job at hand are key. The critical ability to make the best selection is invaluable. In the context of screen typography, where the range of other factors that affect publication on screen are so complex (platform, resolution, software compatibility, licensing etc), this initial design task is a crucial one.

The Vox Classification (1954) was the first really comprehensive attempt at classifying a diverse and ever increasing range of typefaces. Developed by French typographic historian Maximilien Vox, it was later adapted in the development of the British Standard of Typeface Classification (1967). Other more simplified versions can be found in the numerous typography handbooks published in the last decade, for example in John Kane’s Type Primer and Ellen Lupton’s Thinking with Type.

The addition of typefaces designed for all types of screens, from early examples such as Wim Crouwel’s New Alphabet to Cornel Windlin’s Dot Matrix, has prompted some rethinking in the area of classification. Most notable is Catherine Dixon’s PhD research which developed a new framework for typeform description that ’seeks to provide a comprehensive but expandable method for describing all typeforms, both historic and contemporary’. Though it is yet unpublished, Phil Baines and Andy Haslam incorporate it into their book Typography, in the section on type classification. Dixon’s proposed method seems to make a lot of sense, it is based on description, on the formal attributes of type design, rather than on categorisation. It more accurately reflects the subtleties of type design practice, rather than an abstract theoretical system that seems divorced from practical use. Dixon’s approach certainly seems applicable – I plan to use it in the course of my research. It respects the existing classification but creates a flexible framework that builds on past experience and accommodates new additions without creating gimmicky categories for ‘computer’ or ‘digital’ typefaces.

I recently came across an MA project from Nick Sherman, also looking at new possibilities for typeface classification. Interestingly, like Dixon, he attempts to create a software tool to facilitate access and understanding to the proposed new system.