Books Deaf

Rgrant

Description

• cours - matière potentielle : for the deaf
• exposé
• cours - matière potentielle : activities

Updated 08/2011 NH Family Voices Lending Library Books for Parents and Children about being Deaf or Hearing Impaired NH Family Voices toll free in NH: 1-800-852-3345 X 4525 or [phone]

• sign language
• sign-language
• hearing loss
• deaf
• signs
• books
• parents
• activities
• children
• child

Sujets

• Exposé
• Hopkins
• Russell
• Silent
• Animal

Informations

• Publié par: phios
• Nombre de lectures: 29
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

J. TECHNICAL WRITING AND COMMUNICATION, Vol. 35(3) 291-315, 2005
HOWTOUSEFIVELETTERFORMSTO
GAUGEATYPEFACE’SPERSONALITY:
ARESEARCH-DRIVENMETHOD
JO MACKIEWICZ
University of Minnesota Duluth
ABSTRACT
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 pro-
fessionals 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.
TYPEFACE PERSONALITY AND DOCUMENT TONE
Recent research has pointed out that technical communicators should carefully
choose typefaces because typefaces substantially contribute to the visual, as
opposed to the verbal, language of documents. Typefaces do this through the
different “personalities,” or tones, that they convey [1-4]. As Strizver writes,
“Every typeface has a different personality, and the ability to convey different
feelings and moods. . . . [Typefaces] can evoke strength, elegance, agitation,
silliness, friendliness, scariness, and other moods” [5, p. 43]. Craig and Bevington
291
2005, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.292 / MACKIEWICZ
agree, writing that “typefaces have personalities and convey different moods.
While a single, well-drawn typeface can be utilized for a variety of jobs, there
are occasions when specific projects seem to dictate a particular typeface...”
[6, p. 98]. It is important, then, that both professionals and students working
in technical communication consider the extent to which typefaces contribute
to and reinforce the tone that they intend for their documents.
Although typographers like Strizver, Craig, and Bevington recognize the
importance of typeface personality to document tone, books about typography—
intended to initiate typography students to the profession or to inspire established
typeface designers—are often limited in their discussion of typeface personality.
They tend toward vague characterizations of a few select typefaces. For example,
Earls writes that the typeface Lithium has a “modern, technological, electronic
style, while retaining a humane sensibility” [7, p. 41]. Gale writes that the typeface
Zero “was based on the pre-structured rhythms of music” [8, p. 91]. Neither
author explains how the typeface conveys these qualities.
Besides looking to books by and for typographers for answers, however,
technical communicators should make decisions about typeface personality that
are research-driven. As Rude writes, “Using type well is an art, but the principles
underlying the uses of type are also based on research" [9, p. 409]. Unfortunately,
little empirical research has examined typeface personality. A few older studies
found that people differentiate among typefaces and the personalities that those
typefaces convey [e.g., 10-13]. These studies, however, don’t investigate why
people assessed typefaces to have different personalities.
Recent research in technical communication also demonstrates that people
differentiate among typeface personalities. Brumberger studied people’s per-
ceptions of typefaces and texts in order to examine the appropriateness for and
impact of on texts [1]. Mackiewicz analyzed technical writing students’
perceptions of typefaces [3] and suggested some guidelines for technical writing
instructors who are introducing their students to typography [3-4]. There remains
a need, though, for research that examines the personality attributes people
assign to typefaces, explores people’s reasons for assigning those attributes to
different and investigates how different typefaces convey different
personalities. That is, there is a need for research that compares typefaces assessed
to have similar personalities to see whether those typefaces have any anatomical
features, or physical characteristics, in common. Such anatomical features likely
contribute to the that typefaces convey.
In this study, I describe how professionals and students in technical com-
munication can analyze the anatomical features of typefaces to gauge the per-
sonality a typeface contributes to a document. By analyzing five letters of a
typeface, technical communicators can better gauge the extent to which a par-
ticular typeface matches the intended tone of a document.
It should be noted at the outset that typeface anatomy is not the only variable
that contributes to typeface personality [4]. People associate typefaces with theGAUGING A TYPEFACE’S PERSONALITY / 293
contexts in which they are often seen, and these contexts lend their tone to
typefaces. For example, many people associate calligraphic typefaces with invita-
tions and copperplate typefaces with engraving. Therefore, many people consider
such typefaces to convey a sense of formality [14, p. 148; 15, p. 46]. In short,
typefaces carry the weight of their history-of-use with them, along with their
anatomical features.
In addition, the reading process melds a typeface’s personality with the per-
sonality of the document that contains it. As Brumberger states, “typefaces
and texts interact during the reading process, countering the notion that a
typeface will lend that personality to any document” [16, p. 22]. In other words,
it is not just that typefaces contribute personality to the documents that con-
tain them; it is also that documents contribute personality to the typefaces
within them. Brumberger goes on to say that “Although a group of readers
may consistently assign particular personality attributes to a particular typeface,
that typeface may not consistently color every text they read in the same way”
[16, p. 22].
Brumberger’s point cannot be disputed, but her insight should not impede the
process of understanding how typeface personality is generated and, conse-
quently, how it can be harnessed to imbue a document with friendliness and
professionalism, some combination of the two, or theoretically, whatever tone
a technical communicator intends. In other words, even though the method
described here is not foolproof, it at least offers a way to use objective analysis,
rather than intuition and personal preference, to gauge typeface personality.
RELYING ON INTUITION AND PERSONAL
PREFERENCE
The task of choosing a typeface that contributes to the intended tone of a
document rather than conflicting with it is not an easy one. Whether or not
a technical communicator has effectively matched a typeface personality to a
document, the personality of the typeface will come through [17, p. 29]. The
challenge, Goodman says, is to assess a typeface carefully in order “to take
advantage of the message(s) that a typeface’s personality offers regarding
the communication of the message” [17, p. 29]. Kunz agrees, stating that “All
typefaces serve fundamentally the same purpose: to communicate. The purpose
behind the communication—for example, to inform, to entertain, or to persuade—
is expressed, in part, by the typeface chosen. As the communication objectives
change, so might the typeface” [18, p. 22].
Until recently, technical communicators couldn’t look to empirical research
in trying to decide on a typeface. Brumberger points out the consequences of
this lack of empirical research: “Unfortunately, faced with a lack of empirical
guidelines, we [technical communicators] typically make design decisions based
on personal preference [or] intuition...” [16, pp. 17-18]. But selecting typeface294 / MACKIEWICZ
based on these methods is becoming increasingly problematic because technical
communicators have access to thousands of typefaces. Over 10,000 TrueType
fonts are available for free on one Website—www.fonts.com—alone [19]. In
addition, there are over 120,000 typefaces for sale [20]. Such a selection leaves
a lot of room for error in selecting an appropriate typeface if the technical
communicator bases the decision on personal preference or intuition. Indeed, as
Kunz writes, “Lacking analytical, consensual terms, decisions become based on
vague notions, ‘gut’ reactions, and unproven authority....The inevitable results
are not only less than optimal but— wanting constructive, critical tools—beyond
repair” [18, p. 9]. Kostelnick and Roberts agree, pointing out that “Text designed
in a style that doesn’t match the message may quickly alienate readers” [14,
p. 150]. Clearly, using personal preference or intuition to select a typeface can
muddle the message of a document.
Unfortunately, technical writing textbooks tend to be of little help, even though
many of them mention typeface personality or at least allude to the idea of
typeface tone. Riordan and Pauley address the issue explicitly, stating that
“Fonts have ‘personality’—some seem frivolous, some interesting, and some
serious and ‘workaday’” [21, p. 143]. Some