It has been somewhat disappointing to be unable to find any clear indications that scientific
efforts have added much to the craft of the typographer. It undoubtedly has to some extent;
even if it only caused typographers to become more critical of their own work, motivated by
the desire not to be corrected. Moreover, nobody will deny the usefulness of comparative
studies of legibility. It is a fact, however, that the conclusions from behavioral research
studies are far from practically useful; up to now, no one has provided designers with a list of
facts, based on the latest findings, telling them when certain conditions apply and how
particular design decisions can be expected to influence the usability of the design. The
reader of the three previous chapters might have wondered: "how can the findings that have
been discussed be applied?" Perhaps the most important change necessary is that the
conclusions of scientific reports will be carried further than has been done in the past.
Carrying conclusions further means speculating on the practical implications of the research
results; making a kind of translation. Of course, speculation introduces a higher degree of
uncertainty, which is something scientists want to avoid. A trade-off should be made between
scientific precision and practical usefulness. Research results will be found more useful when
they are presented in practical terms. Presenting the findings in practical terms means
indicating which design choices will cause or prevent an unwanted effect on the reader. If
researchers choose to keep their results abstract, however, they run the risk that the
designers will leave the research reports on the shelf. Thus, there appears to be only one
alternative left for the scientist; becoming more practical.
The aim of typographic research is to improve the usability of typography. Put
differently, the sole reason for doing typographic research is to support those who practice
typography and who want to make the reading of print as efficient and as pleasant as
possible. It is understood that designers only need support where experience and
craftsmanship fall short. It seems that there are two ways in which typographers (and, in the
end, the readers) would in the future best be served by research . One way is to adopt a more
practical approach. The second option, which is a consequence of adopting the first, is to
adopt an integral approach. What does this mean for the everyday practice of a typographer?
