Cover not available

Article published In: Information Design Journal
Vol. 22:1 (2016) ► pp.3–18

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Investigating typographic differentiation: Italics are more subtle than bold for emphasis

Published online: 28 July 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.22.1.02dys
Text designers are likely to benefit from guidance on how to use typographic differentiation for emphasis. Three experiments use purposely-designed fonts to explore the size and nature of differences in the stylistic characteristics of fonts (weight, width, contrast, italic) which affect letter identification. Results indicate that words set in bold and expanded fonts, when alternated with words set in a Neutral test font, may impair performance, whereas changing to italic does not. Possible explanations are explored through measuring the physical and perceptual similarities of the test fonts.
References (17)
Beier, S. (2012). Reading letters: designing for legibility. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2013). Legibility investigations: controlling typeface variables. Praxis and Poetics: Research through Design, Conference Proceedings (pp. 92–95). Newcastle upon Tyne and Gateshead.
Bringhurst, R. (1992). The elements of typographic style. Point Roberts, WA: Hartley & Marks Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dyson, M.C. (2014). Applying psychological theory to typography: is how we perceive letterforms special? In D. Machin (Ed.), Visual Communication (pp. 215–242). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frutiger, A. (1998). Signs and symbols: their design and meaning. London: Ebury Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gauthier, I., Wong, A.C.-N., Hayward, W.G., & Cheung, O.S. (2006). Font tuning associated with expertise in letter perception. Perception, 351, 541–559. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haber, R.N., & Hershenson, M. (1980). The psychology of visual perception. New York, London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Legge, G.E. (2007). Psychophysics of reading in normal and low vision. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Medler, D.A., & Binder, J.R. (2005). MCWord: An On-Line Orthographic Database of the English Language. [URL]
O’Brien, F., & Cousineau, D. (2014). Representing error bars in within-subject designs in typical software packages. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 10(1), 56–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rastle, K. (2007). Visual word recognition. In M.G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 71–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanocki, T. (1987). Visual knowledge underlying letter perception: font-specific schematic tuning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(2), 267–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1988). Font regularity constraints on the process of letter recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(3), 472–480. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1991a). Intrapattern and interpattern relations in letter recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 171, 924–941. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1991b). Looking for a structural network: effects of changing size and style on letter recognition. Perception, 20(4), 529–541. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tinker, M.A. (1965). Bases for effective reading. Minneapolis: Lund Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walker, P. (2008). Font tuning: A review and new experimental evidence. Visual Cognition, 16(8), 1022–1058. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Spear, Abigail I., Rebecca L. Johnson, Hayley Yun, Jane Ashby & Abigail L. Kleinsmith
2025. To boldly go where no text has gone before: The effects of boldface letters on eye movements in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 87:4 ► pp. 1270 ff. DOI logo
Elbardawil, Shaima
2023. Empirical assessment of the legibility of the Naskh-style typeface used on Arabic road signs. Information Design Journal 28:2 ► pp. 178 ff. DOI logo
Lonsdale, Maria dos Santos, Xiaoxiao Qin, Yun Chen, Heather Green, Maha Algethami & Jiawen Xu
2022. The power of information design in enhancing the organization of information and course material in an online Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). Information Design Journal 27:3 ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Oderkerk, Chiron A. T. & Sofie Beier
2022. Fonts of wider letter shapes improve letter recognition in parafovea and periphery. Ergonomics 65:5 ► pp. 753 ff. DOI logo
Beier, Sofie, Chiron A. T. Oderkerk, Birte Bay & Michael Larsen
2021. Increased letter spacing and greater letter width improve reading acuity in low vision readers. Information Design Journal 26:1 ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Thiessen, Myra, Sofie Beier & Hannah Keage
2020. A Review of the Cognitive Effects of Disfluent Typography on Functional Reading. The Design Journal 23:5 ► pp. 797 ff. DOI logo
Beier, Sofie & Chiron A.T. Oderkerk
2019. Smaller visual angles show greater benefit of letter boldness than larger visual angles. Acta Psychologica 199 ► pp. 102904 ff. DOI logo
Bigelow, Charles
2019. Typeface features and legibility research. Vision Research 165 ► pp. 162 ff. DOI logo
Chow, Kenny K. N. & Kin Wai Michael Siu
2018. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems, ► pp. 303 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue