UK company Message Digital Design Ltd recently launched an online legibility survey about reading text on the web. The survey consists an online tool which enables the user to dynamically select and change text preferences for font (web safe), size, line height and column width until they arrive at their preferred setting. The survey has already received 3,500 replies which is a very good response and clearly demonstrates the need for factual information in the area of on-screen legibility. However, although this survey appears so simple, its results may prove inconclusive given that the profile of participants is so open and uncontrollable (eg. unknown reading ability and reading conditions etc). From a quantitative perspective independent of context, it will be interesting to see what is the preferred web font and at what size etc. However, optimum text sizes are difficult to measure due to the varying x-heights of different typefaces. Optimum line height and column width (line length) are also dependent on font and size choice. Whatever the outcome, it will provide an insight into web readers favourite text preferences. Whether or not these will provide definitive answers to web legibility questions remains open to further debate. The results will be published later in the summer.

Kevin Larson has an article about eye strain in the current issue of Eye, his empirical methods for studying legibility factors on screen have been impressive to date (though he does have the backing and resources of Microsoft behind him!).

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 know these have been around for a while, but I thought it was important to record links to them. They provide a good overview of the culture of the web and are useful to show students when introducing them to web design for the first time. Although these pieces are smaller productions when compared to traditional documentary type films, they have become very popular because there isn’t a huge amount of mainstream material available that explains what the Internet is, or that provides insightful commentary about the experience of using it. Anyway, large budget productions made by traditional broadcasters tend to go out of date before they even get aired! Perhaps, that is why these little films have gained large audiences online? They capture and record what is happening now, and it’s happening so fast that it is impossible to keep up! It is also worth pointing out, that the textual emphasis, apparent in these visions of the Internet and our interaction with it, is interesting considering many cultural commentators believe we are moving from a culture of the written word to a predominantly image-based world.I really like Michael Wesch’s piece Web 2.0…The Machine is Us/ing Us, though it is a little bit long. Its a slick edit of what happens almost unconsciously on a day to day basis on most people’s desktop.

Epic 2015 by Robin Sloan and Matt Thompson, is loaded with the history of Google’s world domination. There are some really great prophecies here. Its a shame that sometimes the visuals plod a little to the dramatic voice over, but the narrative is still really interesting and the simple interference adds to the sense of a guerilla broadcast!

The other film that springs to mind in this category, though its old now (relative to web time) and one which I very much enjoy is Richard Fenwick’s 51st State. His other films in the RND# series for Ideo are also very smart.

I am also adding Justin Cone’s film Building on the Past, which is a ‘little romp through the land of intellectual property’ and a winning entry in a competition sponsored by Creative Commons.

Finally, here is a link from Aido yesterday, the web 2.0 aesthetic applied to well known brands, no doubt these will soon look very out of date!

The response to my previous post about this has turned into a very interesting discussion not here but on typophile. I may yet eat my words and revise my opinion.