Legibility: Same for All Scripts!

Subhajit Chandra, Prasad Bokil and D. Udaya Kumar

Abstract This paper aims to identify the appropriateness of various parameters

identified previously to define legibility in the context of Latin script done for the
context of Indic typefaces like Bengali and Devanagari. The analysis is based on
anatomical features, gridlines, letter binding, letter support, direction of stroke,
stroke density, and variance. The paper also discusses various challenges of Indic
scripts in terms of letter identification with respect to visibility and familiarity.
Finally, various design parameters for identification are proposed for measurement
of legibility of Bengali and Devanagari. The insight of the paper is to make type
designers and researchers aware of effective design parameters that are necessary to
understand during the design of Indic typeface.

Keywords Typeface legibility
Letter recognition
Letter features
Indic

typeface

1 Introduction

A script is a visual manifestation of spoken sound and implicitly connected to its

visual form [1]. Throughout the history of human evolution, distinguished sound
quality of human culture introduces a large number of scripts worldwide. Distinct
community or culture uses distinct letterforms based on explicit ideology or phi-
losophy to develop their scripts. The identity of a script is apprehended by its visual
form. Every comprehensive form of a script conveys certain visual grammar [2, 3].

S. Chandra (&)
P. Bokil
D. Udaya Kumar

Department of Design, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati,
Guwahati, Assam, India
e-mail: c.subhajit@iitg.ernet.in
P. Bokil
e-mail: prasad.bokil@iitg.ernet.in
D. Udaya Kumar
e-mail: d.udaya@iitg.ernet.in

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 833

A. Chakrabarti and D. Chakrabarti (eds.), Research into Design for Communities,
Volume 2, Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies 66,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-3521-0_71
834 S. Chandra et al.

Thus, the understanding of the scripts is completely reliant on the script grammar.
Legibility is the comprehensiveness of such script grammar.

2 Legibility of Typeface

Legibility of the Latin script is extensively studied in last century. There are many
definitions of legibility available throughout the literature and these definitions vary
significantly [4, 5]. It happens due to the engagement of different domain like
ergonomics, vision science and psychology etc. that measure legibility based on the
dominating factors in the respective field [4, 5]. The measurement methods com-
monly used in such studies are reading speed, comprehension, visual search task,
eye movement, etc. [4–6]. Each investigation redefines legibility according to the
need of study and such definitions create problematic consequence to define a
standard one. In reality, there are too many variables that influence legibility to
determine the outcome [7]. Now considering typography and type design,
researchers explain legibility in many different ways. The few of the definitions are
given below:
• Legibility is the measure of reading performance in correlation with visual
variables of typeface [8].
• Legibility deals with ‘the effect of different typographical arrangements on the
reader’s ability to carry out the reading task most easily, comfortably and
effectively’ [4].
• The term ‘legibility’ is used to measure the speed of reading, continuous text,
visibility or perceptibility and familiarity of letters. To achieve the maximum
legibility of letters, the varied conditions of such parameters are the major factor
of recognition [5].
• Legibility is the quality of type that controls the perceptibility of a letter in the
continuous text [8]. In other words, the distinctness of letters that makes per-
ception easy to recognize.
• Legibility is the quality of being sharp and clear to recognize [7].
From the above definitions, it is clear that the legibility is the perception of the
letters that deals with the explicable form and distinctive letter-shape. Legibility is
measured by two operational factors such as visibility (recognizability of a single
character) and familiarity (perceptibility or distinctiveness from other letters in the
group). The visual factors like recognizability, distinctiveness, and clear appearance
are the measure of legibility. The measurement of such factors is proven to be
dependent on anatomical features and typographical parameters such as ascenders,
descenders, x-height, contrast, stroke weight and width, counter, stroke path and
etc. [5, 6, 9–11]. Many times such inferences have been adapted to define legibility
of Indic scripts without validation. Such adaptation of framework is required
Legibility: Same for All Scripts! 835

justification to establish the knowledge of legibility with respect to Indic scripts that
may or may not be the same.
The significance of legibility studies is to measure the impact on reading by
maximizing the chance of getting recognized [7]. It is reading research where visual
and cognitive methods deal with typeforms, contextual and cultural factors.
A single letter of a script is nothing but a visual form and the construction of that
letterform is explicit [12]. Each visual form is an association of global and local
features that confines the letter-shape at a certain point. Therefore, approach to the
legibility of the letterforms across all scripts may or may not similar since most of
all letters are a combination of local and global features. Legibility studies need an
investigation considering typeforms across all scripts or based on similar scripts.
Legibility of non-Latin typefaces is not widely discussed topic in the research
community. Most of the rules and regulations are adopted from Latin only. It’s only
in the last few decades that researchers have started empirical research on non-Latin
scripts [13] which is very sparse in literature. Here, Bengali and Devanagari scripts
are taking into account for the study considering the limitation of the paper.

3 Legibility and Visual Form

The visual form of a letter conveys the complete sense of type construction and
communicates a specific sound as its meaning. Visibility is the measurement of
such communication [5, 11]. Every letterform is a collection of certain letter stroke,
also known as letter features [14]. The combination of such features completes the
identity of letters. The process of letter identification follows the Gestalt law of
good continuation that involves grouping of features [15].
The legibility researchers are also argued that if most legible letters of the
different typefaces are considered to create a word structure that might not be the
best solution [16]. The effective legible text may be created by introducing letters
belonging to same typeface family [5]. A comparative visual analysis of groups of
common letterform of any two scripts can provide the insight about the difference
among these scripts. Figure 1 illustrates the groupings of common letterform in
Latin and Bengali scripts. A single group (such as ‘Round forms’ or ‘Diagonal
forms’ in Fig. 1) is not enough for both Latin and Bengali scripts to fit their letters
due to the varied construction of letterforms. A different approach to Bengali like
‘Grouping of Common Structural Letterforms’ (as in Fig. 1) would be more reliable
approach than adopting the existing. Their unlikelihood is raising doubts about the
adaptation of legibility rules of Latin.
836 S. Chandra et al.

Fig. 1 Structural formation of Bengali and Latin

4 Parameters Affecting Legibility

Legibility used to measure by reading speed, visual search task, eye blink and
others few techniques. Such studies majorly have been done in ergonomics, vision
science, and other areas. But, those studies never considered the design variables
like Gridlines, Stroke Width and Weight, Stroke Path and Treatment, Stroke
Density, Terminals, Optical Size, Stroke Contrast, Proportion, Structure, and
Counter [5, 6, 17]. Recent studies are focusing on such factors through tests like
short exposure test and distance threshold test [5]. However, such tests are never
applied to non-Latin to measure legibility. There are different rules for print and
digital Latin typefaces but such rule base varieties are not there for the non-Latin
typeface. This paper will demonstrate the critical issues with these variables with a
comparative study of Bengali, Devanagari, and Latin scripts.

4.1 Unique Features of Indic Scripts

Conjuncts. Conjuncts are the single letterform of two or more consonants and/or
vowels connected vertically and/or horizontally (Fig. 2). The conjuncts of Indic
letterforms are mostly two or more tier design which is uncommon to Latin let-
terforms [18]. The height is a crucial factor considering the multitier structure of
letters. If the vertical or horizontal clearance of letters is not enough, they could
touch the next (or previous) or below (or above) character (as in Fig. 2) which is
also known as ‘Crowding’ [19]. Crowding is a phenomenon when two or more
Legibility: Same for All Scripts! 837

Fig. 2 Multitier letters and ‘Crowding’ occurrence

outlines (of strokes) touch each other. This is one of long standing issue that needs a
solution.
Conjuncts are not similar like Ligatures1 in Latin but to achieve a certain sound.
Sometimes, their combined form may appear in the completely different form.
Therefore, the perception of those conjuncts is completely different than ligatures in
Latin although they appear in a single glyph. Such letterforms need a systematic
study to establish distinctiveness and to achieve legible structure.
Matras. A Matra is a horizontal stroke that confines the letter in case of
Bengali and Devanagari. Almost every letters and conjuncts have Matras from
which the main body of the letter hangs towards below (Fig. 2). This feature is
never considered as a standpoint to analyze these letterforms that may provide
insights about the legibility issues of Bengali and Devanagari.

4.2 Gridlines

In typography, the gridlines are an arrangement of fundamental horizontal lines that

construct the size and vertical proportion of the letters (Fig. 3). The standard Latin
grid system consists of five major lines i.e. ascender, cap-line, x-height, baseline,
and descender. Their parallel distribution (horizontally) ratio defines the purpose of
the typeface. The display typefaces have greater x-height that enables readers to
read lowercase letters more efficiently. Now, such gridlines are used for any

1
Ligatures are the juxtaposed single glyph of two or more letters in case of Latin. It consciously
designs to eliminate the ‘crowding’ of two or more like ‘fi’, ‘ffi’ or ‘ffl’.
838 S. Chandra et al.

Fig. 3 Comparison of gridlines

typeface irrespective of Latin or non-Latin across most of all font development

software. This adaptation of gridlines for non-Latin typeface may not be an
effective approach. Indic scripts do not have any ascender or descender instead they
have ‘Matras’ and dependent vowel signs. Also, they do not have any concept of
uppercase and lowercase letterforms. Thus, the concept of cap-line and x-height is
completely misinterpreted in Indic typefaces that affect the letter proportion and
further the quality of typeface. Therefore, the question of the recognizability or
visibility of such letters can arise.
Naik (1971) proposes a grid system of Devanagari scripts. It identifies seven
different gridlines according to structural formation and body proportion of letters
[20]. But the vertical proportion of the letters significantly varies with respect to
these gridlines (in Fig. 3). The proportion of every letter changes accordingly most
of the time. Thus maintaining a constant ratio among these gridlines is a prob-
lematic one (like Harsh-U’, last one in Fig. 3). In addition, the nature of Latin
letters is standing on baseline whereas the Bengali or Devanagari is like hanging
from their ‘Siro-rekha (Matra line)’ (in Fig. 3). Thus, the use of such gridlines for
non-Latin needs a validation and a standard procedure of use or a completely
separate grid system in practical.
In addition, the multitier characteristics of conjuncts also suggest a need for
modification in the grid system. The standard grid model is, proposed by Naik, may
fit for vowels and consonant but it is not enough flexible to fit the conjuncts [18,
21]. Even three or four tier letters are more complex and they never consider in
gridline studies that may possess a standpoint for analysis [21].
Legibility: Same for All Scripts! 839

4.3 Letter Stroke

Letter strokes are the unit of letter construction. It is also known as letter feature
which is crucial for identification purpose. The distinctiveness of letterforms occurs
due to combinations of stroke or the varying combination of stroke junction also
known as joinery. Stroke unit and joinery both together make letterform distinct
identifiable from other. Considering the significance, variables related to stroke are
discussed in below section.
Stroke Path and Treatment. The stroke path is the identifying characteristics of
letter whereas treatment is the design specification of the letter stroke (Fig. 4). Both
together enable the readers to identify the letters and the family that letter belongs
to. Both stroke and treatment are contextual and culturally rooted. The history of a
script has great impact on design development of typeface. The Indic scripts are
majorly dominated by writing tools. The impression of the tool is clearly visible on
the construction of the letterforms [2]. Without knowing that blending of the tool
and cultural practice, the design of the letterforms may not achieve desired quality
or richness. Therefore, it can be further discussed the influence of native and
non-native designer on type design process [22] in the context of multilingual
typeface design and legibility of typeface.
Stroke Contrast. Stroke contrast is the ratio of thinnest to thickest stroke. One
can find typefaces with very high contrast to mono-linear (Fig. 5). High contrast
typefaces are traditional design primary used in print media. Mono-linear typefaces
develop in digital era targeting screen reading. Since, Bengali or Devanagari scripts
are dominated by writing tools like cut nib, flattened nibs angled towards left and
right, square and oval tips, split point nib, calligraphic brush and etc. [2, 18]; the
high contrast stroke is an incorporated feature of these scripts [2]. The development
of monolinear design for such typeform may need an explanation. At the same time,
design validation of such typeform is also needed comparing its original form.

Fig. 4 Stroke path and treatment

840 S. Chandra et al.

Fig. 5 Stroke contrast

Fig. 6 Distribution of stroke weight in Latin and Devanagari with conjunct

Stroke Density (visual density). The stroke density [7] of Indic scripts is higher
than Latin and it becomes much higher in the case of conjuncts. The letters are
sinuous with complex structure. Every letter has to design within a given space,
allocated in font design tool, also known as ‘letter space’. It is fixed horizontally for
all letters within a font but only vertically adjustable. Thus, the space management
against a letterform is a key concern since most of the font design tools set for Latin
specification. The vertical to horizontal ratio need a precise distribution that should
not distort letter proportion (Figs. 5 and 6). So, there is a scope for developing
systematic space distribution or management system for Indic scripts.
Stroke Width and Weight. The stroke width is another issue that needs
attention since the stroke density of Indic scripts is higher. To maintain familiarity
within all letters, the stroke width has to be at optimal magnitude by which every
character can be designed without any distortion. Also, the linear or exponential
increment of stroke width (every instance of stroke width is a single weight) is
possible that will further lead to the creation of type family (Fig. 6) [21]. Such
complexity of design leads to limit the design for only single weight or few vari-
ations in weight in contrast to Latin type families.
Legibility: Same for All Scripts! 841

Fig. 7 Terminals of Latin and Indic Scripts

4.4 Terminals

Fiset et al. [23] conclude that the terminals are most important features for letter
detection (Fig. 7). However, this study, as well as few others, is based on Latin
script. The letters with terminals and their ‘Finial (appearance of the terminal)’ are
few in Latin like ‘a’, ‘c’, ‘e’, ‘f’. Whereas, in the case of Bengali and Devanagari;
there are many letters with terminals that end in different direction. Therefore, the
significance of terminals and its importance in the legibility of these scripts are
needed to be investigated and reinstated with the proper contest.

4.5 Optical Size

The Latin letterforms are mainly geometric (Fig. 8). They are based on three basic
shape triangle, square, and circle. The tip of the triangle is called ‘Apex’. The most
upper and lower extended point are called Overshoot (exceeding cap-line or x-height)
and Undershoot (exceeding baseline) respectively [1]. The over/undershoots are 3–
5% prolonged to avoid optical illusion (otherwise, it will be looking smaller than
others) (Fig. 8) [1, 3]. The construction of Bengali and Devanagari letterforms are
sinuous which is completely different than Latin letterforms. Most of the main letter
parts are hanging from a headline or ‘Matra’ [20]. Therefore, the optical balance of
such letters should be done considering ‘Matra’ and the main letter-part. A refined
study requires to establish optical balance and rules for these letterforms.

Fig. 8 Basic structure of Latin, Bengali, and Devanagari

842 S. Chandra et al.

5 Conclusion

Legibility measure is a systematic approach by considering the design, visual and

cognitive factors together to maintain a certain quality of appearance of typefaces.
Considering the above discussion on Latin and Indic scripts like Bengali and
Devanagari, it can be concluded that legibility of Indic letters depends on the script
grammar, structural formation, letter cognition and as well as the medium of text
displayed or represented.
Legibility is definitely dependent on physical parameters of letterforms just as
clear representation and identification of letters but it is also influenced by the
evolution of script and design process of the letterforms. This paper highlights the
lacuna in the current paradigm of legibility borrowed from Latin study but it does
not propose a new paradigm for Indic scripts. A thorough enquiry of design
parameters with various cognitive and cultural aspects is required to propose a new
approach to the legibility of Indic scripts. Such extensive analysis is out of the
scope of this paper. But, the observations drawn here may draw the attention
towards the need of research in the context of legibility of Indic scripts.
The approach to legibility may not be entirely similar for all scripts. Otherwise,
there will be no problem at all with the legibility of Indic typefaces if it is same as
Latin. But currently, the discussion clearly suggests that there is a problem with the
legibility of non-Latin typefaces. To solve the problem, a systematic method of
contextual enquiry may be needed. Besides, sophisticated equipment and efficient
research techniques are also required to measured letter legibility considering all
significant aspects.

References

1. Cheng, K.: Designing Type. Laurence King Publishing Ltd., London (2005)
2. Mohanty, S.K.: The formulation of parameters for type design of indian scripts based on
calligraphic studies. Artistic Imaging Digit. Typography 1357, 157–166 (1998)
3. Coles, S.: The Anatomy of Type: A Graphic Guide to 100 Typefaces. Harper Collins
Publisher, New York (2012)
4. Lund, O.: Knowledge Construction in Typography: The Case of Legibility Research and the
Legibility of Sans Serif Typefaces. Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading, Reading (1999)
5. Beier, S.: Typeface legibility: towards defining familiarity. Ph.D. thesis, Royal College of Art,
London (2009)
6. Chahine, N.: Reading Arabic: legibility studies for the Arabic script. Ph.D. thesis, University
of Leiden, Leiden (2012)
7. Gaultney, V.: Balancing Typeface Legibility and Economy: Practical Techniques for the Type
Designer. http://www-01.sil.org/*gaultney/BalanLegEcon.pdf (2000) (Visited on
14/03/2014)
8. Tracy, W.: Letters of Credit: A View of Type Design. Gordon Fraser, London (1986)
9. Dobres, J., Chahine, N., Reimer, B., Gould, D., Mehler, B., Coughlin, J. F.: Utilising
psychophysical techniques to investigate the effects of age, typeface design, size and display
polarity on glance legibility, Ergonomics, pp. 1–15 (2016)
Legibility: Same for All Scripts! 843

10. Zhang, Y.: The Effects of Font Design Characteristics on Font Legibility. Montreal, Canada
(2006)
11. Beier, S.: Legibility Investigation: Towards Controlling Typeface Variables, in Praxis and
Poetics: Research Through Design 2013. Newcastle, UK (2013)
12. Frutiger, A.: Signs and Symbols: Their Design and Meaning, London: Studio Edition: an
imprint of Bestseller Publications Ltd. (1989)
13. Ross, F.G.E., Shaw, G.: Non-Latin Scripts: From Metal to Digital Type. St. Bridge Library,
London (2012)
14. Pelli, D.G., Burns, C.W., Farell, B., Moore-Page, D.C.: Feature detection and letter
identification. Vision Res. 46(28), 4646–4674 (2006)
15. Pelli, D.G., Majaj, N.J., Raizman, N., Christian, C.J., Edward, K., Palomares, M.C.: Grouping
in object recognition: the role of a Gestalt law in letter identification. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 26,
36–49 (2006)
16. Larson, K.: The Science of Word Recognition, Advanced Reading Technology, Microsoft
Corporation. https://www.microsoft.com/typography/ctfonts/WordRecognition.aspx (Visited
on 12/03/2014)
17. Carter, R., Day, B., Meggs, P.: Typographic Design: Form and Communication, 3rd edn.
Wiley, New Jersey (2002)
18. Ross, F.G.E.: The Printed Bengali Character and Its Evolution, 2nd edn. Shishu Sahitya
Samsad Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata (2009)
19. Pelli, D.G., Palomares, M., Majaj, N.J.: Crowding is unlike ordinary masking: distinguishing
feature integration from detection. J. Vision 4, 1136–1169 (2004)
20. Naik, B.S.: Typography of Devanagari, vol. 1. Directorate of Language, Bombay (1971)
21. Ross, F.G.E.: Digital typeface design and font development for twenty-first century Bangla
Language processing. In: Karim, M.A., Kaykobad, M., Murshed, M. (eds.) Technical
Challenges and Design Issues in Bangla Language Processing, pp. 1–15. IGI Global, Hershey,
PA (2013)
22. Dyson, M.C., Scott, C.: Characterizing typographic expertise: do we process typefaces like
faces? Vis. Cogn. 20(9), 1082–1094 (2012)
23. Fiset, D., Blais, C., Ethier-Majcher, C., Arguin, M., Bub, D., Gosselin, F.: Features for
identification of uppercase and lowercase letters. Psychol. Sci. 19(11), 1167–1168 (2008)