3 ms·

Maybe you will find this interesting: graphic designers have lots of rules about the proper use of typography when laying out a document, like correct kerning,

Maybe you will find this interesting: graphic designers have lots of rules about the proper use of typography when laying out a document, like correct kerning, use of old-style numerals, ligatures, etc. The reason for following those rules has to do with the same principles of harmony and naturalness in this blog post, but when researchers tested the impact of "good" typography vs. "bad" typography, they found no differences in performance measures like reading comprehension or reading speed. They did find differences on other measures - in the good typography condition, participants underestimated the amount of time they had spent reading (a measure of engagement with the task) compared to participants in the "bad typography" condition. But the most interesting finding was when they tested creative cognition - on that test, the "good typography" participants scored much better than the "bad typography" participants. This might explain why we designers insist on good typography (and other design principles). Creativity is a big part of our job, and we want to avoid things that might impair the performance of our creative cognition. But for people in other, "left-brained" professions, enhancing creativity is less important and engaging people is less important, so it makes sense that they would see design rules as irrelevant extra work of little value. Designers rush to judgment when they see "bad" design because it almost literally hurts their brain. But, maybe the person who designed it or the audience for it doesn't have that kind of brain - and that's OK.

scott_s 16y ago
I think high contrast text is good typography. But for people in other, "left-brained" professions, enhancing creativity is less important and engaging people is less important, so it makes sense that they would see design rules as irrelevant extra work of little value. If you assume my work requires no creativity, or that I think design rules are irrelevant, then you are mistaken. I don't like design for the sake of design. I do like design that looks good and enhances a things intended purpose.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  You think it is, why? And what evidence do you have to prove it?
  - scott_s 16y ago
    Because I find it easier to read. I have no evidence other than my own experience. If anyone has done experiments supporting either way, I'd love to see them.
- alsomike 16y ago
  I don't think you're work requires no creativity. But I think you have to explain why visual design that's experimentally shown to impair creative cognition is tolerated and even embraced by people in "left-brained" professions. My explanation is that people just have different needs. Not everyone needs high octane gas, and designers shouldn't assume that they do. "Design for design sake" is just another way of saying you don't share the designer goals of engaging an audience and enhancing creative cognition. There's nothing wrong with that, people have different needs, so "good" means something different to a designer than it does to you.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    Creative cognition related to what? Their own work, or the material presented? I'd have to see the studies themselves - I can't comment on studies that I have not read firsthand. "Design for design's sake" is what I call design that interferes with the purpose of what's being designed for. An example would be a chair that is "creatively engaging" but is uncomfortable to sit in.
  - eagleal 16y ago
    So, you write a paper on a recent physics experiment. You publish it on Science magazine, or your Lab. Both of them have carefully designed templates (science mag specializes in this). Creativity involved. You just compiled your CLI program, and you're testing it's output. You're staring at specialized typefaces and an optimized screen. Creativity involved (you aren't a good programmer if you lack creativity). The other side: you're a store manager, programmer manager, or X manager, you have to make a fast presentation of your key notes. You start PowerPoint, and select some template. (Creativity Involved?)
joe_the_user 16y ago
Yes but it's important to remember; designers != painters. The thing about the original article is that it's a fascinating peaking into the world of full, creative color theory. But it also seems like if what you get out of the page is "don't use black text", you've literally "learned just enough to be dangerous". It is important to keep in mind that if you're a geek who's going to wade in aesthetic theory, learning enough to
kadavy 16y ago
This sounds absolutely fascinating - do you know where I can learn more about this study?
- alsomike 16y ago
  The Aesthetics of Reading: http://affect.media.mit.edu/pdfs/05.larson-picard.pdf http://affect.media.mit.edu/pdfs/05.larson-picard.pdf

scott_s 16y ago

I think high contrast text is good typography. But for people in other, "left-brained" professions, enhancing creativity is less important and engaging people is less important, so it makes sense that they would see design rules as irrelevant extra work of little value. If you assume my work requires no creativity, or that I think design rules are irrelevant, then you are mistaken. I don't like design for the sake of design. I do like design that looks good and enhances a things intended purpose.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
You think it is, why? And what evidence do you have to prove it?
- scott_s 16y ago
  Because I find it easier to read. I have no evidence other than my own experience. If anyone has done experiments supporting either way, I'd love to see them.
alsomike 16y ago
I don't think you're work requires no creativity. But I think you have to explain why visual design that's experimentally shown to impair creative cognition is tolerated and even embraced by people in "left-brained" professions. My explanation is that people just have different needs. Not everyone needs high octane gas, and designers shouldn't assume that they do. "Design for design sake" is just another way of saying you don't share the designer goals of engaging an audience and enhancing creative cognition. There's nothing wrong with that, people have different needs, so "good" means something different to a designer than it does to you.
- scott_s 16y ago
  Creative cognition related to what? Their own work, or the material presented? I'd have to see the studies themselves - I can't comment on studies that I have not read firsthand. "Design for design's sake" is what I call design that interferes with the purpose of what's being designed for. An example would be a chair that is "creatively engaging" but is uncomfortable to sit in.
- eagleal 16y ago
  So, you write a paper on a recent physics experiment. You publish it on Science magazine, or your Lab. Both of them have carefully designed templates (science mag specializes in this). Creativity involved. You just compiled your CLI program, and you're testing it's output. You're staring at specialized typefaces and an optimized screen. Creativity involved (you aren't a good programmer if you lack creativity). The other side: you're a store manager, programmer manager, or X manager, you have to make a fast presentation of your key notes. You start PowerPoint, and select some template. (Creativity Involved?)

joe_the_user 16y ago

Yes but it's important to remember; designers != painters. The thing about the original article is that it's a fascinating peaking into the world of full, creative color theory. But it also seems like if what you get out of the page is "don't use black text", you've literally "learned just enough to be dangerous". It is important to keep in mind that if you're a geek who's going to wade in aesthetic theory, learning enough to

kadavy 16y ago

This sounds absolutely fascinating - do you know where I can learn more about this study?

alsomike 16y ago
The Aesthetics of Reading: http://affect.media.mit.edu/pdfs/05.larson-picard.pdf http://affect.media.mit.edu/pdfs/05.larson-picard.pdf