
On the Typography of Flight-Deck Documentation (1992) [pdf] - danso
http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/adegani/Flight-Deck_Documentation.pdf
======
Chris_Newton
As a cautionary note, a few of the claims in this document don’t stand up well
in light of more recent research. If you’re interested in the technical
aspects of typography and how humans really read text, you might like to try
these more up-to-date starting points:

Alex Poole’s “Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces?”:

[http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-
or-s...](http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-
serif-typefaces/)

Kevin Larson’s “The Science of Word Recognition”:

[http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ctfonts/wordrecognition....](http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ctfonts/wordrecognition.aspx)

In particular, if you’re about to comment on how serifs or sans-serifs are
better for X, or to explain how we read by following the serifs along a line
or by recognising word shapes, I strongly encourage you to study the above
first.

There are unfortunately a lot of urban legends in typography that simply
aren’t supported by the evidence. Some of them came about because of studies
that have since been shown to be flawed in methodology or even based on
outright falsified data. We help no-one by perpetuating the myths.

~~~
lnanek2
While there is a footnote or two saying sans is better generally in the
article, reading the full text actually argues quite a bit for each side. For
example, legibility problems cited with sans are: " The sources of similarity
between the characters of modern sans-serif fonts are: 1\. The standardized or
modular appearance of the letters (“P,” “R”). 2\. The effect of mirror images
between the upper and lower part of the character (“E,” “B,” “D”). 3\. The use
of equal radius for different letters (“G,” “O,” “C”) (Craig, 1980; Cheetham
and Grimbly, 1964). "

------
pranjalv123
I really dislike how sans-serif fonts conflate the lowercase "L" and the
uppercase "i". This is a big problem in mail clients where someone can create
email addresses that look identical to established addresses (e.g.
Iarry@google.com).

------
acqq
I'm surprised that the sans-serif is here claimed to be more readable
"always". In low resolution circumstances and where single letters are to be
recognized (e.g. abbreviations common in short technical instructions) I
believe it's so. But I also know that if you'd give me book printed in sans-
serif, I wouldn't want to read it: whenever I try, I find it very stressful. I
don't have the explanation why though.

~~~
fit2rule
Induce a little stress first - say, put yourself in a cockpit with a few
hundred lives to protect - then try a reading experiment involving both
styles. I think you'll find that in high-stress environments, the less noise
the better.

~~~
andreasvc
What is noise vs. signal is the issue at stake here. The pro-serif people will
argue that the serifs provide extra features on the glyphs, so they might
provide more signal. Nevertheless my intuition says you're right.

------
ColinDabritz
This is a good read. I ran into an interesting meta-problem on page 12
(numbered page 9 on the page itself).

What do you call the diagram labeling?

The single world label pointing at a feature with a line could be a 'callout'
perhaps.

What is the word-in/around-arrow pointing to two vertical lines? A range
indicator? It looks like: |<\--label-->|

I've also seen a variation where the word points to a line covering the range
with bracketed ends, somewhat like: label -[ feature

It's a similar problem to "what do I call that operator?" when you don't know
what it is, like ?: being "the ternary" operator (or more precisely the
conditional operator)

~~~
triggercut
In technical drawing. "Dimension line" is correct. More specifically a
"dimension line indicating a feature".

A single character (usually in a "bubble" or circle) would be a callout. One
or more words in combination with an extension-line and an arrow-head would be
a "note".

------
asdfs
On a related note, does anyone know of any studies of monospace vs.
proportional fonts on reading speed/comprehension? I can find a number of
examples for reading on older, low-DPI computer screens, but not much for high
DPI screens or high-resolution print.

~~~
Surio
You make an interesting point. Small observation: Traditionally, even the
monospaced fonts from the 70s-90s on terminals and older machines, were of the
kerned variety (serif-like appearance).

~~~
andreasvc
If you kern a monospace font it's no longer monospace (fixed width), so that
seems unlikely. Maybe you mean something else?

~~~
Surio
Yes, I wanted to say "stroked", as in:

>> even the monospaced fonts from the 70s-90s on terminals and older machines,
were of the _stroked_ variety (serif-like appearance)

Good catch.

------
Surio
I am also one of those (few?) here, that are very partial to serif over Sans-
serif. My browser uses Serif by default, and all my documents use Serif for
body (and sans for headings if people want heading to look different)

I too find serif fonts more readable, without necessarily being able to give a
"scientific", "why" it is so. As another commenter mentioned the "l" and
uppercase "I" is one frequent area of confusion with sans. And maybe serifs
with their kernings give a certain visual guidance as the eyes bounce off the
words...

Having said that I've definitely given "Times New Roman" the boot. I've never
found if aesthetically pleasing to the various other font names I used to see
mentioned in all those books I read.. Now with proliferation of FOSS fonts
like Linux Libertine, PT Serif and so many other more eminently readable
fonts, Times New Roman is a distant memory to me :)

It is a shame that many new OReilly books are adopting Sans fonts for their
paper version as well. I for one am very displeased with this as there are
times when I would like to buy a paper version for my bookshelf. Fine, do it
for the ebook version, but not for the paper one, please... :(

------
triggercut
A standard I have to refer to often is ISO 128 / AS 1100.101 (1992). Technical
Drawing - General Principles. Which has a lot to say on the issue of Letters
and Numerals in part 4.1, I've added this as it's mildly similar, since the
readability of technical drawings is also critical, it was widely read in a
technical industry and that it was last revised in the same year as the OP
document.

It should be remembered that this standard was last revised in 1992; As a
consequence, computer generated text or "Machine-made characters" don't really
get a look in, although degradation through reproduction (for micro-film) is
noted as an area of concern. It favours sans-serif fonts that are "uniform and
capable of being produced at reasonable speed by hand" and that "Upper-Case
letters should be used. Lower-case letters shall be used for conventional
signs and symbols normally requiring such characters, e.g. mm, kg, kPa."

The recommended stencil characters are outlined as Gothic and ISO 3098/1 Type
B (aka "Font 27"). The latter being preferred by every engineering firm and
operator I have come across in their published standards.

------
tannerbrockwell
I found this very useful and have been looking specifically on documentation
on checklists and useability of certain fonts!

------
RyJones
It's nice to see the author play with fonts to illustrate his points (3.2,
3.3, 3.5 are most obvious).

------
jason_wang
As someone who had to use checklists many times in the air, I appreciate how
much research have gone into making checklists legible.

------
ape4
Don't use checklists that have been photocopied 10 times.

