The Math of Text Readability

An anonymous reader writes "Wired magazine has an article that explains The Law of Optical Volumes, a formula for spacing the letters on a printed page that results in maximum readability. Wired's new logo (did anyone notice?) obeys the law. Unfortunately, Web fonts don't allow custom kerning pairs, so you can't work the same magic online as in print. Could this be why some people still prefer newspapers and magazines to the Web?"

Comments

Volumes not areas?

[jakosc]

It's basically kerning pairs, but instead of just a few pairs, it's generalized to maintain the area between all combinations of letters:

The Law of Optical Volumes states that the area between any two letters in a word must be of equal measure throughout the word, and remain consistent throughout the body of text. So why 'Volumes', not 'Areas'?

If Scott were more of a geometry wonk, he'd have dubbed it the Law of Optical Areas rather than volumes, but that doesn't sound as imposing. Why stop there? A Law of Optical Hyperspace would be even better...

Buy the magazine to see the kerning in action!

[Headcase88]

To see and appreciate the Law in action beyond our logo, you'll need to pick up a copy of the magazine.

Well I guess that would be more profitable than just offering a .gif sample.

Print vs Digital

[Reason58]

Could this be why some people still prefer newspapers and magazines to the Web? Intrusive ads, popup windows, flash animations and audio come to mind as reasons. Also the simple fact that many people like the freedom of being able to actually hold and move around the thing they are looking at. Kerning adjustments seem pretty low on the list of reasons IMHO.

Since when was WIRED interested in readability?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The concept of WIRED magazine and its associated web site being interested in readability seems ludicrous.

Consider their track record of using tiny type, garish color schemes, and layouts that I find difficult to characterize, making it nearly impossible for anyone with any of a number of (even slight) impairments to their eyesight (including especially presbyopia - the lack of accommodation that accompanies middle age) to read their publications comfortably - or even at all.

I've often thought that this was done deliberately, to repell all but young readers, as part of targeting their circulation on the perceived avant-garde youth of gen-Y and beyond.

Now they're modifying their logo for readability. ORLY? Is their target demographic aging enough that this is now a problem? Are readers deserting them due to headaches just as they graduate into serious spending money? Or are they just playing around with another art/layout fad?

If they were really serious about readability I'd expect them to be modifying other aspects of their magazine and site layout. But TFA shows that is not happening. So I'll go with "fad".