Calibri: not so woke after all

 

One reason for maintaining my blog is that it keeps me in touch with friends in many different places, who often know more about a topic than I do. Toby Bainton wrote the following to me about the question of the Calibri and Times New Roman typefaces prompted by Secretary Marco Rubio’s designation of Times New Roman as the official typeface of the State Department, suggesting that the adoption of Calibri had been a wasteful DEIA initiative of the Biden administration:

 

“I have a strictly amateur interest in typography. Stanley Morison designed Times New Roman fulfilling a commission from The Times, which wanted, not surprisingly, a type which is legible in newspaper columns at very small sizes. The design is brilliant for that purpose. It is also very good as a normal-sized type for letterpress work, and was for many years the standard type used by HMSO.  It is pretty useless as a display face, for example in very large sizes, such as on the side of an aircraft. In those instances it looks bland and lacking in style. That's because it was designed for a quite different purpose.

Sans serif faces are nowadays generally preferred for reading on a computer screen. This has less to do with the serifs themselves than with the gradations of width in the appearance of letters with serifs. You only need to take a look at a lower case e in Times New Roman to see that it has marked variations in the thickness of the letter-form across its curves. This helps legibility on the page but causes problems once computers come in.

In computer-based work, typefaces are routinely blown up or shrunk down optically. If you do this with a thick-and-thin serif type, you get less legible results than with the more uniform cross-section of sans serif type. This is because when you enlarge or shrink something optically, the height and breadth of the letter may be (for example) doubled or halved, but if you double or halve the x-height, the *area* of shading on the thick-and-thin strokes then increases or decreases by a factor of four. This is simple arithmetic but it makes a crucial difference to the appearance of the letter.

Personally my ideal when reading is a serif type in good crisp letterpress. Very rare these days. Sans serif types are generally best as display faces (for example, the ubiquitous Gill Sans is fantastically successful as a display face but quite tiring to read in small sizes as a text face). But sans serif faces have their value in text on the screen for mathematical reasons. You can get away more easily with optical re-sizing, with less apparent distortion to the letter form.

 

So my conclusion regarding Times New Roman versus Calibri is that in the computer-based text age, Calibri is (unfortunately) better for everyone, whether visually-impaired or not. This has nothing to do with wokery – you just have to do the math.”

 

Another friend, Colin Ridler, a colleague from Thames & Hudson days, commented:

 

“In fact, Ian, serifs are there to AID readability because they hold the eye on the line left to right.
As for T[hames] & H[udson], while I agree the best designers consider readability, much depends on leading and typesize as well as typeface. Often designers, who come from graphic design courses, are trained to think about pictures on a page, with text readability a secondary concern. Moreover, some designers are not READERS and set text too small or with too long a line length. But in your field of textbooks, readability is emphasized more. “

 

Lastly, I discussed serif and sans serif with my brother-in-law, a former graphic designer.  He said that his designs maintained a consistent look (including typeface) across the different elements of a campaign (ad, brochure etc.). For his work, serif was generally selected for work that referred to tradition and history. Sans serif conveyed a sense of modernity.