Oh woke is me?

 

Typography does not often make headlines, but shortly before Christmas, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, unwittingly reminded me a good friend from my publishing past. Richard Garnett was the son of David (“Bunny”) Garnett, a novelist, publisher and member of the Bloomsbury Group. Richard was born into this set of bohemian, in some cases bisexual, writers and artists. He recalled playing in the garden with Virginia Woolf.

 

I first met Richard when he was the editorial director of The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (a new version of a classic and much-revered reference work). We later worked together on The Dictionary of Art (published in 1996), the largest art history publishing venture of the 20^th century. Richard was a fine editor, author and typographer. 

 

Cover of Richard's Jack of Dover

 

When Mr. Rubio reminded me of Richard, I hunted on my bookshelf for a book, Jack of Dover, published in 1966 by Rupert-Hart Davis, that he had given me many years ago. Richard had written it for his son, Oliver, then ten years old. My copy is inscribed “For Christopher [my eldest son, then aged four] in due course from Richard Garnett Christmas 1987.” I can’t tell you what the typeface is, but it is set throughout in a readable serif typeface (serif type has, my dictionary says, “a slight projection finishing off a stroke of a letter”). I don’t know whether Richard chose the typeface, but it is likely that he did, since he worked for Hart-Davis. Illustrations are by Graham Oakley, a name familiar to all my sons since I read Oakley’s witty and engaging (for child and adult) Church Mice books, published by Macmillan, to them at bedtime many times.

A spread from Jack of Dover.

I must confess that typography is a publishing skill that was not my forte, but I recall Richard lamenting declining standards of typography in an age of computer typesetting. On the other hand, when I worked at Thames & Hudson, typography and overall design, for readability, elegance and appropriateness were the subject of considerable attention and discussion.

 

It was in connection with typography that Mr. Rubio reminded me of Richard. Shortly before Christmas Mr Rubio changed the State Department’s official typeface to Times New Roman from Calibri. Times New Roman had been the official typeface previously, but was changed to Calibri by Mr. Rubio’s predecessor Anthony Blinken, on the grounds that Calibri is more accessible to readers who are visually impaired and generally more accessible in a digital age. Calibri is a san-serif typeface and is the default used in Microsoft Windows. According to its designer, who was interviewed BBC Radio 4, Calibri was designed to be easily read on screen and to cause few errors when using text-to-speech and optical character recognition tools.

 

Media coverage of the decision quoted Mr. Rubio as saying that Times New Roman conveys an appropriate clarity and formality in State Department communications, but also characterized the change as ending a wasteful DEIA (diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility) initiative. I found this emphasis on DEIA questionable, possibly silly.

 

However, full text of Mr. Rubio’s reasoning is at a site called Daring Fireball:

https://daringfireball.net/2025/12/full_text_of_marco_rubio_state_dept_directive_times_new_roman. The author of this site criticizes the coverage of the decision in the New York Times for distorting Mr, Rubio’s reasoning by placing undue emphasis on his reference to DEIA.

 

Now, it is true that the statement that justifies the decision is lengthy and reasoned. Mr. Rubio observes that the Foreign Affairs Handbook states that a serif typeface is “appropriate to the Department’s dignity and position as a senior cabinet-level department.” Further, he argues that serif typefaces originate from Roman antiquity, and that other government bodies use a serif typeface, for example the White House, the Supreme Court. Furthermore, President John F. Kennedy chose a serif typeface for the words “United States of America” on the fuselage of Air Force One.

 

Mr. Rubio, further justifies restoring the use of a serif font by noting that “the number of accessibility-based document remediation cases at the Department of State was the same in the year after adopting Calibri as in the year before (1,192 cases in FY2024 versus 1,193 cases in FY2022).” And that “the costs of remediation actually increased by $145,000 in that period – nearly a 20% jump.” Technical remediation refers to work required to ensure that files are compatible with assistive technologies such as screen readers. It is worth noting that the annual budget of the State Department is $58.8 billion, so a $145,000 does not constitute large scale waste. It should also be noted that such cases are one very narrow measure of accessibility; there may well have been instances of visually impaired people finding documents in Calibri easy to read and not reporting their experience to the State Department for the simple reason that there was nothing to report, no remediation, only success that involved no cost or labour. Moreover, those who benefit from accessibility include not just the visually impaired who use assistive technology, but, for example, dyslexic people who require simple, readable type: as the father of a dyslexic son I am especially aware of their requirements. So Mr. Rubio’s case may not be proved at all.

 

I wondered whether Mr. Rubio’s assertion that the adoption of a san serif typeface was inherently wasteful, really stands up to scrutiny. General Services Administration Services Administration guidelines state that “For people with good vision, a typeface with serifs is slightly easier and faster to read than one without serifs. Typically, for people with low vision, the serifs significantly degrade legibility. The importance of using a sans serif typeface is especially important for digital content since it is typically read on-screen and not in hardcopy print.” The GSA further states that other factors, such as colour, contrast, the ability to resize text, reflow and text spacing contribute to readability (think dyslexics here). The accessibility guidelines of the Royal National Institute for the Blind in the UK recommend the use of san serif. However, some brief browsing online led me to studies and opinion pieces that suggest that serif typeface may not be inherently less accessible than san serif, and that other design factors affect readability. It seems that that matter is not settled, but one hopes that Mr Rubio considered the people behind his decision, rather than the politics.

 

Just before Christmas I read the obituary of a typographer, John Morgan, who designed the books of Common Worship of the Anglican church. Morgan introduced an elegant, appealing design with plenty of white space and Gill Sans type, chosen for its fresh and clear appearance. The design was also intended to be easy to read, including by visually impaired worshipers. His obituary noted that the books are often used in dimply lit churches, so ease of reading was key for all worshipers.

 

Thames & Hudson, where I worked for the last thirteen years of my publishing life, pays particular attention to typeface. The criteria for selecting types include clarity, accessibility, elegance and appropriateness. DEIA was never discussed. In the books I published, serif type was used for the main body of the text, but good san serif typefaces were selected (often but not always) for elements such as headings, captions, special features, and the like to distinguish them typographically from the main text. The interests of the reader were always the criterion for the use of typefaces.

 

I also noted that the UK Foreign Office’s official typefaces for both print and online use are san serif. The type selected for print use is Helvetica Neue, which is said to reflect heritage and modernity.

 

My own view on this minor typographical controversy, is that Mr. Rubio’s decision is not entirely unreasoned. However, his remark that “although switching to Calibri was not among the Department’s most illegal, immoral, radical, or wasteful instances of DEIA [under the previous administration] … it was nonetheless cosmetic” is not proved by the evidence he provided. Moreover, his remark reveals a predisposition to consider efforts to improve accessibility wasteful, especially if implemented by the previous administration. In short accessibility is inherently suspicious, if not bad, and especially if it was the work of the Biden administration.

 

I am left wondering what Richard Garnett would have said about the matter. Whatever he might have decided, his judgement would have been wise and well informed. I wonder if that is true of Mr. Rubio.