perception of typefaces @typecon 2012

32
Perception of typefaces: A quantitative visual methodology Beth E. Koch, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Design University of Minnesota Duluth

Upload: beth-koch

Post on 27-Jan-2015

109 views

Category:

Design


3 download

DESCRIPTION

Slides from Beth E. Koch's presentation, "Perception of Typefaces: A Quantitative Visual Methodology" at SOTA's TypeCon, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, August 5, 2012

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

Perception of typefaces:!A quantitative visual methodology

Beth E. Koch, Ph.D. !Assistant Professor of Design !University of Minnesota Duluth

Page 2: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012
Page 3: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

Brain

Page 4: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

“Ultimately the key to understanding !all visual communication lies in the !neurological workings of the brain”

(Barry, 2005).

Page 5: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

Not much is empirically known !about how people comprehend !

visual systems such as !graphic design and typography.

Page 6: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

People seem to intuitively decipher !the meaning of typefaces

(Van Leeuwen, 2005)

Page 7: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

Designing Emotions!!

Pieter Desmet, Industrial Design Professor !Delft University of Technology

Page 8: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

”I wonder if we need to temporarily !put aside our talk of brand, strategy !

and execution, and consider !our power to influence emotion.”

!Eric Karjaluoto smashLAB

!

Page 9: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

People respond emotionally … to art (Wittgenstein, 2005),

to design (Norman, 2004), and to products (Desmet, 2002). !

To begin to understand how people respond emotionally to individual design features, this !study investigated how people interpreted different typestyles (alphabet designs).

Page 10: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012
Page 11: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

Q1: Does viewing specific typefaces produce! emotional responses? Q2: When viewing typestyle designs, do all people ! feel the same emotions? Q3: Are certain emotions predominantly associated! with the formative design features of typefaces—! differences in classification (serif or sans serif), ! terminal construction (angular or rounded), ! character width (condensed or extended), and ! weight (light or bold)?

Page 12: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

OM C

Page 13: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

STUDIES ABOUT THE !MEANING OF TYPEFACES

Page 14: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

What are we studying?

Congeniality (adjectives)

Personality characteristics

Emotional connotation

Connotative messages

Emotional meaning

Dress

Descriptions

Page 15: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

✔  ✔  

✔  

✔  

✔  

Product emotion research !Desmet (2002)

Page 16: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

No common presentation format:

Introduction to the Declaration of Independence!— Poffenberger &Franken (1923)

“Now is the time for all good men… ” — Davis & Smith (1933)

Artificial languages “ere sasesuth wid oteren bo” — Weaver (1949)

Format to approximate English — Wendt (1968)

Alphabets (ABC… abc… ?+!@...) — Kastl &Child (1968), !Tannenbaum et al. (1964), Benton (1979)

“Lorem ipsum” greek —Morrison (1986)

Typeface sampler — Koch (2011)

Page 17: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012
Page 18: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012
Page 19: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012
Page 20: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012
Page 21: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012
Page 22: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012
Page 23: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

Participants

Page 24: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

Analysis!and!

Findings

Paired t-Tests α = .05 People respond to type designs !with emotion. !Certain emotions are associated !with the formative design features !of typefaces.

!

Page 25: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

1.  People responded to type designs !with emotion rather than indifference.

2.  People agreed about the emotions !associated with specific typefaces.

3.  Certain emotions were associated with!the formative features of typefaces.

4.  Of the six positively-valenced emotions, !no significance was found for pride or hope.

5.  Of the six negatively-valenced emotions,!no significance was found for shame.

Page 26: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

1.  People responded to type designs !with emotion rather than indifference.

2.  People agreed about the emotions !associated with specific typefaces.

3.  Certain emotions were associated with!the formative features of typefaces.

4.  Of the six positively-valenced emotions, !no significance was found for pride or hope.

5.  Of the six negatively-valenced emotions,!no significance was found for shame.

Page 27: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

1.  People responded to type designs !with emotion rather than indifference.

2.  People agreed about the emotions !associated with specific typefaces.

3.  Certain emotions were associated with!the formative features of typefaces.

4.  Of the six positively-valenced emotions, !no significance was found for pride or hope.

5.  Of the six negatively-valenced emotions,!no significance was found for shame.

Page 28: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

IMPORTANCE OF THE METHOD

Avoids problems of self-report!Allows report of multiple feelings and!

co-occuring feelings!Avoids problems with cognition of !

language and reading!Forms keystone with emotion research

Page 29: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

IMPLICATIONS

For individuals For practitioners

For society

Page 30: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

It is increasingly important for all people !to have some degree of design understanding, !

not only to decipher messages, !but to reciprocate with !

visually appropriate responses.

Page 31: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

IMPLICATIONS

For design researchers

Page 32: Perception of Typefaces @typecon 2012

CONCLUSION