Typeface Geometrico. Round without Compromises.

Geometrico
Round without Compromises.

#Geometric

#Reinvented

What if readability is not the primary goal of typography?

Some­times we won­der if read­abil­ity really has to be the cen­ter of every­thing…

We are con­tin­u­ally amazed at how tire­lessly the topic of “read­abil­ity” is debated within pro­fes­sional cir­cles. This fix­a­tion often leaves us feel­ing puz­zled. We would – fol­low­ing Erik Spiek­er­mann – rather say: “The dif­fer­ences in read­abil­ity between the most com­mon type­faces are min­i­mal” – the rest feels like typo­graphic white noise.

We even allow our­selves to think fur­ther: we hold the view that opti­miz­ing read­abil­ity is not the cen­tral task when choos­ing or design­ing a type­face, but merely one of many rel­e­vant design aspects.

The term itself is sur­pris­ingly vague in the indus­try and is often used as a con­ve­nient excuse. Hans Peter Will­berg – a rec­og­nized author­ity – has long since clearly dif­fer­en­ti­ated between dis­tin­guisha­bil­ity, leg­i­bil­ity, and read­abil­ity. And indeed: count­less other fac­tors influ­ence text com­pre­hen­sion far more strongly than the shape of indi­vid­ual glyphs. Pre­sen­ta­tion, lay­out, seman­tic struc­ture, infor­ma­tion hier­ar­chy – all of these often have a greater impact than the lit­eral type­face.

“Those who rely solely on readability rarely read on.”

Nev­er­the­less, a black-and-white mind­set often pre­vails in the typo­graphic envi­ron­ment. In quite a few stu­dios and com­mit­tees, there are groups that effec­tively claim the right to judge the “qual­ity” of type­faces – as if they were some kind of styl­is­tic police author­ity. And of course, read­abil­ity is reg­u­larly mis­used there as a trump card – usu­ally with­out ver­i­fi­able sci­en­tific evi­dence.

By the way, it is not only the “tra­di­tion­al­ists” or “die-hards” who cling to this atti­tude. Many younger typog­ra­phers also move with aston­ish­ing tun­nel vision within the same thought pat­terns, almost as if they had to please yesterday’s ide­o­logues.

We attribute no author­ity to such instances. We advo­cate for max­i­mum typo­graphic diver­sity because, for us, type­face choice pri­mar­ily enables the pro­fil­ing of a brand per­son­al­ity – a visual space for con­tent, iden­tity, and design pres­ence.

“Type is image, image is type”

If a text is not read, it is rarely due to the type­face, but almost always due to unin­ter­est­ing stag­ing, lack of con­trast, weak orga­ni­za­tion, or a dull design grid. A type­face with strong char­ac­ter, on the other hand, can make a con­tent foun­da­tion vis­i­ble, pre­cisely accen­tu­ate it, and open a visual nar­ra­tive.

“Design requires personality.”

We encour­age design­ers to think more boldly, ques­tion com­mon rules, and not be intim­i­dated by the “crows” of the indus­try. Those who take design seri­ously know: read­abil­ity is impor­tant – but never more impor­tant than charisma, atti­tude, and per­son­al­ity. And this is pre­cisely where the self-appointed qual­ity guardians – those back­ward-look­ing “ide­o­logues” – often fail, who appar­ently still believe that typog­ra­phy pri­mar­ily con­sists of par­rot­ing old dog­mas.

Source: Will­berg, Hans Peter & Forss­man, Friedrich: “Lese­ty­pografie”, Ver­lag Her­mann Schmidt Mainz, 2000.