Almost immediately without our last Type Tuesday interview well-nigh wieldy fonts in classrooms, The U.S. State Department announced they’re replacing Times New Roman with Calibri to make government documents increasingly legible. Of course, the utterance came with many opinions. To get a largest sense of the inner workings of the waffly typefaces, we recently sat lanugo with Tom Rickner, Creative Type Director at Monotype.
Rickner has worked in type diamond and font production for over three decades, including designing some of the first Multiple Master fonts for Adobe and TrueType GX Variations fonts for the Font Bureau and Apple.
So what does he think well-nigh the typographical change? Read on to find out.
Can you explain why the State Department moved yonder from Times New Roman and towards a sans-serif typeface like Calibri?
The shift certainly appears to be well intentioned, with the driving gravity stuff the Secretary’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion’s interjection that Calibri is a increasingly wieldy typeface than Times New Roman.
As type designers and typographers, we fathom the stated desire of making their written communications increasingly accessible.
In your opinion, is Calibri a increasingly wieldy typeface? Why or why not?
It’s a unconfined question, and one that I think would require some very research to discern. My follow-up to your question is, “more wieldy to whom?” Who is in the sample we are measuring? Are we talking well-nigh people with wordless vision, people with corrected vision, or perhaps a neurodivergent population? As type designer Zuzana Licko once said, “We read weightier what we read most.” I would stipulate with that, and the opinion is supported by unrepealable eye tracking studies published in The Journal of Eye Movement Research.
There are some measurable nature which one might think make Calibri a largest choice. The x-height, which contains the zillion of information in a Latin typeface, is only well-nigh 2% larger than Times New Roman, but it is bigger. Combined with increasingly unshut proportions and larger default leading (that is the vertical space between the lines of type) all make for a font that appears larger. And size is the biggest single factor in making something increasingly accessible. But put these two faces side by side in unrepealable print environments, and I’m not convinced Calibri will universally write-up Times New Roman in reading speed or reading comprehension.
What does the future of wieldy type squint like in a corporate setting?
This topic is coming up increasingly and increasingly often from our customers looking for type out of our library, or those engaging Monotype to create a custom type for them. As an example, I’m often asked well-nigh what typefaces are ADA compliant. That isn’t a thing. ADA compliance is really focused on the typography— that is, the use of the type, not the type itself. Currently we have no touchable measures that determine whether a typeface is or is not accessible. Increasingly research is needed, and with a broader regulars than simply people who fit in the middle of a normal distribution in terms of visual acuity.
Why do you think people wilt so upset over what should be an inclusive change, expressly with something like typography?
Type can invoke a strong emotional response. We’ve known this for some time, and our research with Neurons last year confirmed that.
Can you explain how point size of a typeface can be as accessible, if not increasingly accessible, than the font transpiration itself?
As I said earlier, size matters. We are now living in a world where pinch to zoom is taken for granted. We can customize the default type and typography in our devices to meet our own needs. But there is still content we as users and readers of type can’t control. Printed State Department briefings are just one example. Increasing the size of the type in their communications is the worthier takeaway for me.
In your opinion, what is the most wieldy typeface and why?
I don’t think there is one most wieldy typeface. I’m unrepealable that there is a wholesale distribution of responses to any typeface. And while this switch to a sans like Calibri may work for many, I still prefer serifed typefaces. And of course, I’m partial to the faces I’ve worked on and know so well.
Are there any typefaces you think shouldn’t be unliable in unrepealable settings? If so, what are they and why?
This could hands get me in trouble naming specific fonts, a couple come to mind that many would like to pile on and mutter about. I’ll simply say that it is hair-trigger to first know your regulars and the goals of the specific communication. From there, one can make some informed decisions well-nigh what typefaces may be most towardly for the circumstances. There is a type for every occasion.
