TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR MEDIAGESCHIEDENIS - Vol 19, No 2 (2016) – Ann Bessemans 1

DOI: 10.18146/2213-7653.2016.268

Typefaces for Children’s Reading

Ann Bessemans

ABSTRACT
This article deals with the contrasting views of designers, best for beginner readers, but also for the develop-
educationalists and scientific legibility researchers con- ment and design of new, concrete and functional
cerning children’s typefaces. Guidelines about typefaces typefaces and guidelines.
and their legibility for beginner readers remain incon-
clusive due to these different perspectives. The article
first discusses the opinions of each of these parties on
children’s typefaces. Educationalists’ views are often
based on prejudices and forces of habit. Designers
tend to follow the views of their potential clients and
scientific legibility researchers often lack typographical
knowledge for creating valid test material. To conclude,
a new perspective on a need for collaboration between
the different parties within typographic design research
Figure 1. From top to bottom: Helvetica, Arial, Gill Sans.
is suggested. This approach might be able not only to
acquire a deeper understanding and explanation of
the question which typefaces are best for children, but
also for the development and design of concrete new,
A HISTORY OF ASSUMPTIONS
functional typefaces and/or guidelines. Historically, the assumptions of educationalists and
teachers have been based on intuition, practical use
and tradition. Type designers tend to follow these
INTRODUCTION established practices to ensure sales. As a result,
Contemporary educational and reading books are most choices of appropriate typefaces for beginner
interesting material to study typefaces for beginner readers remain hypothetical because they are not
readers. Most of them are set in large sans serif based on any fundamental scientific research.
typefaces and, within the Dutch-speaking areas, Teachers tend to have strong views about type-
often in Helvetica or Arial and, to a lesser extent, faces for children’s books.2 According to them, type-
the Gill Sans or another typeface.1 Unfortunately, faces in children’s educational and reading books
there is almost no consensus in the existing litera- for primary education should be set in large corpses
ture regarding typefaces that are best for beginner because of their clarity. In addition, they tend to
readers. To date, discussions about typefaces for prioritise sans serif typefaces, as these are believed
children and the legibility thereof remain incon- to be simpler looking than are serif typefaces, but
clusive. Designers, educationalists and legibility even more so because sans serifs originally intro-
researchers have contrasting views about the (prop- duced the use of ‘infant characters’, letterforms
er) use of children’s typefaces, and educationalists’ that are believed to be easier for children to read
views are often based on prejudices and on the due to their formal similarities to written charac-
force of habit. Designers tend to follow the views ters.3 These views are based on tradition and on the
of their potential clients, and legibility research- force of habit.
ers often lack a professional approach to layout in The teachers’ preferences for the simplicity of
their experiments. Based on typographic approach sans serif typefaces has historical roots. Sans serif
a review of these contrasting views, this article typefaces, hailed by modernists during the inter-
argues that design research, and particularly the bellum, received an extra amount of attention after
collaboration between the type designer and the WWII when there was a need to break away from
scientific legibility researcher, is crucial. Such a the national connotations regarding the blacklet-
new collaborative approach in typographic design ter.4 This was incorporated into type in an extreme
research might allow not only for a deeper under- manner, and sans serif started to dominate printed
standing and explanation of which typefaces are material. For modernist typographers the sans serif
 2 TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR MEDIAGESCHIEDENIS - Vol 19, No 2 (2016) – Ann Bessemans

represented type design in its fundamental form

because it resembled the ‘bare bones’ of the alphabet. 5
The association with the skeletal form of the letters
can be attributed to an (almost) even weight of line
(resulting in low or no contrast between thick and
thin parts of a letter) and the application of many
interchangeable components (such as the bowls in
‘a’, ‘g’, ‘b’, ‘p’, ‘d’ and ‘q’)
Because of its simple letter shapes, sans serif
was seen as the modern letter par excellence.6 The
triumph of Helvetica (1957) and Univers (1957)
added tremendously to the popularity of sans serif
typefaces. Due to this simplicity, teachers have pre- Figure 2. The bare bones of the one another, a common shape
ferred sans serif typefaces to the present for chil- alphabet. Letters are made up comes to the foreground. This
dren’s reading books because they presumed that of letter parts. Each letter has can be understood as a common
a particular generic skeleton, skeleton. Adrian Frutiger, Eine
sans serif was more closely related to the letterforms which is the result of a unique Typografie (Solothurn: Vogt-
children learn to write than were serif typefaces. set of design decisions. There is a Schild-Verlag, 1981), 16, 17.
unique structure that one knows
Designers created alternative letter shapes, even and recognises in the design of Figure 3. Interchangeable
for serif typefaces, to meet the demand of teachers each letter. When different components.
who intuitively preferred handwritten character- typefaces are placed on top of
istics in typefaces for beginner readers.7 These
specially designed letter shapes are thus directly re-
lated to children’s handwriting and are called ‘infant
characters’. Infant characters were first introduced
around 1920 and became more popular around 1930
with the introduction of infant characters in sans
serif typefaces such as the Gill Sans. Infant charac-
ters are characterised by the single storied ‘a’ and
‘g’, the shapes of the letters ‘l ’ and ‘t ’, the capital ‘I’
and the figure ‘1’ and some other numbers.
Teachers were of the opinion — and some still
are — that double storied a’s and g’s created difficulty
in reading. Infant characters would provide a greater
distinction between letter shapes and would align
the letterforms for reading and writing.8 Teachers Figure 4. The writing method D’haese versus sans serif type-
faces Helvetica (top) and Futura (bottom). Mariëlla Hageman,
and educationalists perceived the use of infant Werkschrift Handschrift D’haese 2. Nieuwe methode (Wommelgem:
characters in books for beginner readers as benefi- Uitgeverij Van In, 2005), 11.
cial because the letter shapes look similar to hand-
written characters. Sassoon, an expert in teaching
handwriting to children, stated that infant charac-
ters have a positive influence on the unexperienced
reader because recognition is a dominant factor
when learning to read.9
This assumption was translated into the design Figure 5. Double storied ‘a’ and ‘g’.
of letter shapes by introducing rounded terminal
strokes, the addition of flicks (the upwards exit
strokes on the baseline), long ascenders and descen-
ders, which are believed to aid the identification of
word images. Due to the overall roundness of the Figure 6. Regular versions compared to the versions with infant
characters. Gill Sans versus Gill Sans Schoolbook.
letter shapes, infant characters were considered
to feel friendlier.
It is clear that most of the assumptions re-
garding typefaces for children by type designers
and teachers were based on tradition and pop- Figure 8. Regular versions compared to the versions with infant
ularity, and were uncritically adopted by many characters. Plantin versus Plantin Schoolbook.
TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR MEDIAGESCHIEDENIS - Vol 19, No 2 (2016) – Ann Bessemans 3

educational publishers. Some popular fonts such

as Century Schoolbook, Bembo and Plantin even
added infant characters to their fonts.10
This shows that these views had an enormous
impact on the typeface industry, and still do to the
present day. To increase sales, even a type foundry
such as Monotype extended many digital typeface
families to include infant characters and added
the suffix ‘schoolbook’ to their names in the 1990s.
Specially designed typefaces for children, such
as Sassoon, designed by Rosemary Sassoon and
Adrian Williams in the 1980s, Fabula, designed by
Vincent Connare in 1999-2000, and Twinkl Sans,
designed by TypeTogether in 2015 (published in
Figure 7. Flicks in typeface Sassoon Primary. 2016), were designed with the reading-writing
needs of beginner readers in mind.11
Other typefaces specifically aimed at children,
such as FF Schulbuch by Just van Rossum (1991),
Fiendstar by Nicholas Garner (2006) and FS Me by
Fontsmith (2009) have implemented the handwriting
style by designing a sans serif font.
One of the dangers of the implementation of
infant typefaces is that, because they translate
writing visually, they do not have the overall
appearance of conventional typefaces for reading.
Consequently, they do not familiarise children
with the type conventions of reading, as serif type-
faces are used in most reading books. Familiarising
pupils with printed typefaces is precisely one of the
purposes of teaching children to read. In other
Figure 9. Sassoon Primary (top) and Fabula (Bottom). Sue words, specially designed typefaces may not be the
Walker, The Songs the Letters Sing: Typography and Children’s Reading right answer.12 Although teachers favour the use of
(Reading: National Centre for Language and Literacy / The sans serif typefaces because (1) they reflect handwrit-
University of Reading, 2005), 12, 13.
ing qualities, (2) appear more simple, and (3) are
supposedly easier to read, the practical experience
of type designers teaches us something completely
different.13 However, the choice of simple-looking
sans serif typefaces, which are supposed to enable
better communication, is in fact based more on
‘atmosphere’ and association than it is on research
into their legibility.14 Although sans serif typefaces
appear simpler, this seems unlikely from a typo-
graphical point of view of legibility.15 The legibil-
ity of words, in fact, depends more on the letters
being decipherable and recognisable. Words are
more legible when each of the individual letters is
Figure 10. Twinkl Sans. TypeTogether, Twinkl specimen. made more recognisable.16 In sans serif typefaces
for instance, the letter shapes are more homogene-
ous, and thus less distinguishable from each other,
making them less legible. On the other hand, letters
that are too different from each other make a text
too visible, with the result that the focus shifts
from reading to viewing, which slows the reading
process down.
Figure 11. Top to Bottom: FF Schulbuch, Fiendstar, FS Me.
 4 TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR MEDIAGESCHIEDENIS - Vol 19, No 2 (2016) – Ann Bessemans

to read, or whether infant characters should be

used, thus remain inconclusive.18
Contrary to what many people think, legibili-
ty does not have a definitive or absolute meaning,
which leads to much confusion. Legibility, in fact,
includes many different aspects of reading, such
Figure 12. Frankenfont. Eben Sorkin, “Legibility”. Lecture at as cognitive, visual, motoric, pedagogic, neurologic,
workshop Ala Ma Fonta, Katowice, 2011. typographic, subjective and linguistic aspects. Each
research study must therefore formulate its own
Teachers’ views, which tend to dominate the type definition of legibility.
design scene for beginner readers, are thus highly As stated previously, most of the research on
intuitive and strengthened by tradition. The educa- legibility was conducted somewhat intuitively,
tional system, in addition to educational publishing and is problematic from a typographical point of
houses and type designers, seems to follow their view. Surveys amongst teachers about the most
views. Educational publishers follow the prevailing important features of type for beginner readers, for
mind-set within the educational system, which instance, revealed that teachers favoured the
creates a vicious circle. Publishers keep publishing use of sans serif type throughout infant school.19
new material according to the teachers’ views and According to Burt, the opinion that sans serif
traditions, while the teachers keep getting the same typefaces reflect handwriting qualities better than
kind of material and have no idea about alternative do serif typefaces due to the uniform letter strokes
options. It is remarkable that non-educational pub- still holds true.20 Griffing and Franz equated the
lishers are less bound by the preconceptions about legibility of a typeface with its structure.21 The
letters for children and provide a larger variety of simpler the structure (for example, sans serif), the
typographic designs for children’s books. It seems more legible the typeface. The more complex (for
evident that research on legibility could provide example, serif or blackletter), the less legible it was
more information about ways to develop better considered to be.
reading materials. However, as will be argued be- The question of whether sans serif is more legi-
low, most of the existing legibility research is not ble than is serif for a beginner reader has occupied
well adapted to the reading practices of children. researchers to date. Although the research question
is relevant, most of the results remain inconclu-
sive due to the test setups and test materials.22 For
IN SEARCH OF OPTIMAL LEGIBILITY FOR example, these neglect the fact that many design
TYPEFACES FOR BEGINNER READERS variables come into play, and that the presence or
Most of the research into reading material for absence of serifs is not necessarily the only factor
beginner readers that has been conducted shows causing legibility effects. Overall, very little formal
little awareness of design issues affecting fonts, research on the question of which typefaces may best
as well as classroom practices.17 Researchers have suit young readers in various age groups has been
not differentiated between a font for testing and conducted.23 Walker stated that established typefaces
the fonts that children normally read. Furthermore, for children’s reading should have generous ascenders
they tend to provide answers for other scientists and descenders, making a clear distinction between
and not to typographers. The available literature characters that are sometimes confused. An equally
on such research focuses more on issues such as well-suited approach to typeface selection might be
methods, content, motivation, experience and the absence of quirky or unusual characters. With
styles of teaching than it does on the effect of regard to the debate between serif and sans ser-
typography on legibility. Moreover, the research if, the discussion continues. In the event of using
often intuitively supports the views of the teachers, infant characters, there seems to be good evidence
pedagogues and educational publishers, who that these special characters are not always as legi-
are not aware of the importance of type design. ble as they are asserted to be. In contrast to printed
The few studies in which both design issues and typefaces, connected scripts and handwriting re-
practice were taken into account were inconclusive flect psychomotoric properties. This could be prob-
regarding the validity of the views of the teachers. lematic, because writing and reading are different
In other words, no consensus concerning which activities in the brain that rely on different skills.
visual attributes of text may best suit the legibility Moreover, scientists have rarely consulted
of typefaces for beginner readers exists. Debates designers in the design of their legibility/reading
regarding whether serif or sans serif type is easier studies. The studies by Walker, and by Beier and
 TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR MEDIAGESCHIEDENIS - Vol 19, No 2 (2016) – Ann Bessemans 5

Larson, who are involved in design and classroom only very recently have started to do so in one of
practices, are an exception.24 In studies in which two ways. They have either chosen to collaborate
designers were not involved, the text material often closely with a scientific researcher, or they have
seems typographically invalid.25 The studies provide decided to merge both positions — that of the
little or no information about how the visual test researcher and type designer — in one person. This
material was presented. The test material itself is kind of research could be characterised as design
often described in the text, but it raises multiple studies, because it combines scientific and artistic
questions from the perspective of a type designer.26 survey methods.28 As a design researcher, one tries
Even when the study provides images of the test ma- to combine the objectivity of scientific research
terial, most studies are almost always typographically with the sensibility of design, which is based on
incorrect. Hence, it is necessary to seek an interdis- creativity, intuition and visual judgment. In other
ciplinary perspective on legibility research in which words, the design researcher aims to connect an ar-
typographic design and scientific research collaborate tistic reflective attitude with a scientific analytical
(or share their mutual expertise). approach.

CROSSING DISCIPLINARY BORDERS

Of all the skills a human being can acquire, reading
is one of the most complex. Although most of us
are under the impression that reading is simple and
effortless, it requires years of practice to learn this
skill. Because letters are not seen consciously, read-
ing is done automatically and unconsciously, and
only the content of the text is enjoyed consciously.27
The only readers who see letters as letters are typo-
graphers and font designers who design the typefac-
es everyone reads. Unfortunately, type designers are
usually not involved in the design of the test materi-
al for reading or legibility research. Over the last five
centuries, type designers have always been designing
type and have always been interested in improving
typefaces to provide a better reading experience,
but have had little or no knowledge about legibility Figure 13. The graphic designers, typographers, editors and
research. publishers prevent the type designer from having direct access
Type design is a solitary profession, which to readers’ feedback. Bessemans, “Letterontwerp voor kinderen
met een visuele functiebeperking” (PhD thesis, Leiden Universi-
means that type designers have little or no contact ty and Hasselt University, 2012), 68,
with their readers. They supply typefaces to edi-
tors, publishers and graphic designers who mediate
between the type designers and the readers. Al-
though scientists do have more contact with read-
ers and receive some kind of feedback from them,
the test material is, as argued above, often typo-
graphically incorrect. Moreover, because they do not
take real-life environments such as classroom prac-
tices into account, their work is of little use to type
designers and other stakeholders.
Therefore, legibility research is mainly con-
ducted by scientists who do not have sufficient
knowledge of typography on one hand, and type-
faces are designed by typographers lacking feedback
from the readers on the other. Why not combine the
knowledge and experience of both expert groups to
strengthen both legibility research and the design of
suitable typefaces for beginner readers? Designers
who have embarked on scientific legibility research
 6 TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR MEDIAGESCHIEDENIS - Vol 19, No 2 (2016) – Ann Bessemans

vision make fewer reading mistakes when the serif

typeface DTL Documenta was used. At first, this
result seemed somewhat atypical, since children
mainly read sans serif typefaces in daily classroom
practice. Although the subjective legibility research
showed no significant results, the dialogue with the
children revealed other relevant information. The
subjective legibility research showed that beginner
readers were conditioned by their daily reading ma-
terial quite early, and that children did not describe
serif and sans serif in terms of the ‘feet’ at the top
or bottom of the letters. They associated sans serif
with writing and serifs with reading (for example,
books and newspapers). From their perspective,
they thought that serifs were difficult to reproduce.
With regard to infant characters, I found results
comparable to those of Walker.32 Children did not
seem to have problems with non-infant characters
in type. An innovative conclusion of my PhD thesis
was that we should study typefaces with and with-
Figure 14. Type designers who become design researchers out serifs in terms of the rhythm of the typeface. In
receive immediate feedback from their readers. Bessemans, general, the rhythm in serif or sans serif typefaces
“Letterontwerp”, 68.
is presented with the help of a stripe pattern that is
formed by the successive vertical letter strokes.33
One advantage of this kind of research is that it It was revealed that sans serif typefaces are heteroge-
bridges the gap between the type designer and the neous (more distinct) in rhythm and homogeneous
reader. Another advantage is that design research is in their letter forms (because of possible mirroring),
able to construct the basis for proper design decisions whereas serif typefaces are more homogeneous in
via accurate and controllable research results. rhythm and are more heterogeneous in terms of
Very little design research has yet been con- the letter forms. The fact that the letter shapes of
ducted within the context of typefaces for children’s a serif typeface are more distinguishable from each
reading. It is my personal aim to become a design other may explain why children with normal vision
researcher who combines the approaches of the make fewer reading errors.
type designer with those of the scientific legibility
researcher. Working closely with different stake-
holders in my PhD research on the legibility of
typefaces for children with low vision made me
aware that it is necessary to reflect on natural read-
ing environments in the test setups to the greatest
degree possible.29 The studies that I designed aimed
at developing specialised typefaces that could func-
tion as the starting point for further exploration of
and in-depth research into typefaces for beginner
readers. I used several typefaces and conducted both
experimental (quantitative evaluations) and subjec- Figure 15. Illustrating letter and rhythm heterogeneity. The heter-
tive (qualitative evaluations) legibility research to ogeneity within the letter shape is based on the serifs and the con-
trast of the serif typefaces. The heterogeneity within the rhythm
study the reading skills and reading experiences lies within the rhythmical pattern formed by the sans serifs. Ann
of visually impaired children.30 I selected children Bessemans, “Matilda, a Typeface for Children with Low Vision,”
in Digital Fonts and Reading, ed. Mary Dyson and Ching Y. Suen
with low eyesight, as well as children with normal (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2016), 19-36.
eyesight, who were between five and ten years of
age. This experimental legibility research showed Since children did not describe the differences
that a sans serif typeface (Frutiger), when com- between serif and sans serif in terms of the ‘feet’
pared to a serif typeface (DTL Documenta), was of the letters, it might be valid to conclude that
not necessarily more legible for beginner read- the rhythm is more relevant. Normally sighted
ers with normal eyesight.31 Children with normal children performed better with a homogenous
 TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR MEDIAGESCHIEDENIS - Vol 19, No 2 (2016) – Ann Bessemans 7

rhythm, whereas visually impaired children searchers could contribute to improving the typo-
performed better with a heterogeneous rhythm. graphic design of children’s books by merging the
Although it does not seem evident at first sight, perspective and knowledge of type designers with
it might be possible to synchronise scientific method that of legibility researchers. An interdisciplinary
and design research on an on-going basis. Scientific approach may lead to better informed research re-
research is a useful source of information and in- sults for all parties, namely designers and scientists,
spiration for designing the test material, which in as well as for other stakeholders — not least beginner
turn is tested in a scientifically correct manner. In readers, in this case.
my approach, I combined the roles of designer and
scientist. However, it is not always necessary for a
type designer to become a design researcher. The
strength of interdisciplinary work lies in the com-
bination of the two disciplines. The collaboration
between type designers and scientists in the field of
legibility research could yield an equally productive
research design.

CONCLUSION
Reading occurs without a conscious act of seeing.34
Letters (and typography) are unique in that they,
whilst consumed and enjoyed, remain unseen.
The letters themselves are not enjoyed consciously.
On the other hand, type forms are the foundation
of legibility and thus of the reading process. If
the details within the fonts do not matter during
reading, as some reading psychologists believe, it
would be unnecessary to compare different fonts,
because this would yield similar results with regard
to legibility.35 This is, however, not the case. The
visual details and the design of typefaces affect the
legibility of a typeface.36 By integrating typeface
and scientific reading research, a new and produc-
tive relationship between the scientific researcher
and the type designer could be created. This would
be beneficial for scientific research, as well as for
the design of new typefaces.
Much of what we know about typefaces for
children’s reading is based on prejudices and the
force of habit; such knowledge is often quoted
uncritically and is used as a writing guideline for
practitioners. These guidelines are an oversimplifica-
tion of the facts and are based more on feelings and
tradition than they are on typographic knowledge.37
It is, therefore, essential that designers begin to
collaborate with scientists to develop a clear typo-
graphic mind-set. Apart from few exceptions (such
as the studies by Walker), most research on the
legibility of typefaces for children’s reading refers
to questionable experiments and repeatedly extrap-
olates the same doubtful guidelines. Unfortunately,
most of these studies are read and quoted by peo-
ple who are not well-trained in typography. Type
designers follow existing pedagogic clichés in their
design of typefaces for beginner readers. Design re-
 8 TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR MEDIAGESCHIEDENIS - Vol 19, No 2 (2016) – Ann Bessemans

NOTEN Design Journal 1, no. 4 (2011): 254-260, doi: 10.1075/idj.1.4.05cog. Sue Walker,
“Letterforms for Handwriting and Reading: Print Script and Sanserifs in
1. Type size: 12 - 18 pt. Serifs are described as the small lines or feet Early Twentieth-Century England,” in Typography papers 7, ed. Eric Kindel,
attached to the letter endings.
Robin Kinross, James Mosley and Paul Stiff (London: Hyphen Press, 2007),
2. Bridie Raban, “Survey of Teachers’ Opinions: Children’s Books and 111. Sofie Beier and Kevin Larson, “Design Improvements for Frequently
Handwriting Styles,” in Reading: Meeting Children’s Special Needs. ed. Misrecognized Letters,” Information Design Journal 18, no. 2 (2010): 118-137.
Doug Dennis (London: Heinemann, 1984), 123-129. Gerrit Noordzij, De
19. Walker, The Songs, 5-6. Bridie Raban, “Survey of Teachers’ Opinions:
staart van de kat: De vorm van het boek in opstellen (Leersum: ICS Neder-
Children’s Books and Handwriting Styles,” in Reading: Meeting Children’s
land B.V., 1991), 53-54. Sue Walker, The Songs the Letters Sing: Typography
Special Needs, ed. Doug Dennis (London: Heinemann, 1984), 123-129.
and Children’s Reading (Reading: National Centre for Language and
Literacy/The University of Reading, 2005) 5. 20. Cyril Burt, A Psychological Study of Typography (London: Cambridge
University Press, 1959), 3-18.
3. Infant characters, such as ‘a’s and ‘g’ s’ etc. were first introduced
around 1920 – a more detailed explanation of infant characters follows 21. Harold Griffing and Ivory Franz Shepherd, “On the Conditions of
below. Fatigue in Reading,” Psychological Review 3 (1986): 513-530.

4. Simon Garfield, Just My Type: A Book About Fonts (London: Profile 22. Ole Lund, “Knowledge Construction in Typography: The Case of
Books, 2010), 130-131. Ruari McLean, The Thames and Hudson Manual Legibility of Sans Serif Typefaces” (master’s thesis, The University of Reading,
of Typography (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1980), 65-68. Until 1999), 247-248.
after World War II, the typefaces used in children’s books usually had 23. Walker, The Songs, 20.
had serifs. Robin Kinross, Modern Typography (London: Hyphen Press,
24. Walker, The Songs. Walker and Reynolds, “Serifs, Sans Serifs”. Beier
1992), 111-112.
and Larson, “Design Improvements”.
5. Ruari McLean, The Thames and Hudson Manual of Typography (Lon-
25. Due to a lack of typographic knowledge, scientists design their own
don: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1980), 66-67. Christopher Burke, Active
test material. However, when looking at the test material, mistakes are of-
Literature. Jan Tschichold and New Typography (London: Hyphen Press,
ten made with regard to optical sizes, leading, spacing, etc. Raban, “Survey
2007), 149.
of teachers’ opinions.” Burt, A Psychological Study. Griffing and Shepherd,
6. Kinross, Modern Typography, 111-112. “On the Conditions.”
7. The teacher Augusta Monteith requested Eric Gill to design infant 26. What type sizes are used? Are the typefaces optically corrected? Is the
characters for his typeface Gill Sans to use in her book The Pink Book leading the same when comparing different typefaces? Is the line length
of Verse. Sue Walker, Book Design for Children’s Reading: Typography, the same when comparing different typefaces? What are the motivations
Pictures, Print (London: St Bride Foundation, 2013), 33. for the typefaces used? How can I use this information as a type designer?
8. Joep Pohlen, Letter Fountain (Roermond: Fontana, 2010), 211. Walker, Etcetera.
Book design, 32. 27. Gerard Unger, Terwijl je leest (Amsterdam: De Buitenkant, 2006), 48.
9. Rosemary Sassoon, “Through the Eyes of a Child: Perception and 28. Nigel Cross, “Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline versus
Type Design,” in Computers & Typography, ed. Rosemary Sassoon Design Science.” Design Issues, 17, no. 3 (2001): 49-55.
(Oxford: Intellect Books, 1993), 158-162, 164-165.
29. Ann Bessemans, “Matilda, a Typeface for Children with Low
10. The original version of the Century Schoolbook, designed by M.F. Vision,” in Digital Fonts and Reading, ed. Mary Dyson and Ching Y.
Benton for children, did not incorporate infant ‘a’s’ and ‘g’s’. Educa- Suen (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2016), 19-36.
tional publishers (mainly in the UK and USA) have favoured Century
30. Test typefaces were designed during this process. The focus was on
Schoolbook (and Gill Sans) in the late twentieth century (Walker, Book
parameter design. Starting with a sans-serif typeface (Frutiger) and a serif
Design). Patricia A. Cost, The Bentons: How an American Father & Son
typeface (DTL Documenta), five different parameters were implemented
Changed the Printing Industry (Rochester, New York: Cary Graphic Arts
for both typefaces. Each of the twelve typefaces was tested and compared
Press, 2011), 197-200.
to the other. In this study, 110 visually impaired children with no addition-
11. From a type designers’ point of view, these are all qualitatively al disorders participated, as did 54 normally sighted children.
excellent typefaces with interesting letter shapes. However, due to
31. A psychophysical method was used in the test. Children were presented
these letter shapes, they fall into the category of infant characters and
with pseudo words in the test typefaces on a computer screen for a short
handwritten qualities, thus supporting the established views of teach-
period and were asked to read the word aloud. The read words were typed
ers and of educational publishing houses.
and the number of word (letter) reading errors was counted using the soft-
12. Walker, The Songs, 13. ware Affect (Spruyt et al., 2010). In order to allow for differences in error
13. Type designers are aware of the fact that sans serif typefaces are rates in different typefaces, the words were followed by a mask and the
not the most legible, and that infant characters have a minimal or no time between the word and the mask and /or the word exposure time was
benefit for the reading material. However, financial reasons and the adjusted for each child in order to obtain a 50% chance of recognition.
large market for these kinds of typefaces often lead them to disregard
this knowledge. 32. Ann Bessemans, “Letterontwerp voor kinderen met een visuele functie-
beperking” (PhD thesis, Leiden University and Hasselt University, 2012),
14. Kinross, Modern Typography, 111-112. 303-305, https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/20032. Walker, The
15. The absence of ornaments, contrast and serifs results in greater Songs, 9, 19.
homogeneity, not only within one typeface, but also within a group of 33. Bessemans, “Matilda,” 25.
sans serif typefaces.
34. Beatrice Warde, The Crystal Goblet: Sixteen Essays on Typography
16. Walter Tracy, Letters of Credit: a View of Type Design (Boston: David (Cleveland and New York: The World Publishing Company, 1956), 11-17.
R. Godine, 1986), 31. Gerard Unger, Typografie als voertuig van de wetenschap (Amsterdam:
17. Walker, The Songs, 6. De Buitenkant, 2007), 12.

18. Sue Walker and Linda Reynolds, “Serifs, Sans Serifs and Infant 35. Frank Smith, Understanding Reading (Mahwah, New Jersey, London:
Characters in Children’s Reading Books,” Information Design Journal Lawrence Erblaum Associates Publishers, 2004). Stanislas Dehaene,
11, no. 2/3 (2003): 199, doi: 10.1075/idj.11.2.04wal. Vera Coghill, “Can Reading in the Brain (New York: Viking Penguin, 2009), 18-25.
Children Read Familiar Words Set in Unfamiliar Type?”, Information
 TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR MEDIAGESCHIEDENIS - Vol 19, No 2 (2016) – Ann Bessemans 9

36. Keith Rayner and Alexander Pollatsek, The Psychology of Reading

(New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989).
37. Phil Baines, “Designing for the Partially Sighted: Misguided Guide-
lines. The End of Typography: Slow Death by Default,” Eye magazine 51,
no. 13 (2004): 76-79.

BIOGRAPHY
Dr. Ann Bessemans is a graphic designer, working
as a legibility specialist within her research group
READSEARCH at PXL-MAD and Hasselt University. At
the same institute she also teaches typo-graphy and
type design. Her work contributes to legibility research
and international type design. It provides the practice
of typeface design with a scientific foundations and
provides interesting data, by which type designers can
better accommodate to the wishes of the reader, both
normal as well as impaired. Bessemans received sev-
eral grants from Microsoft Advanced Reading Technol-
ogies (USA). Ann was a finalist in in the ‘New Scientist
Wetenschapstalent 2015’ and is an elected member
of the Young Academy. Bessemans is frequently work-
shop leader and lecturer at international typographic
and interdisciplinary conferences.

KEYWORDS
- Beginner readers
- Legibility
- Type design
- Sanserif
- Serif
- Design research