A case for typographic choice
Looking back at all the conversations surrounding Medium since launch, and browsing through the Ideas section, I can't help but notice that there's one feature—that I think has enormous potential—and hasn't quite gotten the attention it deserves: typographic choice.
Choosing fonts is usually associated with unpredictable results. Because—predictably—too much choice ultimately leads to unpredictability. And while getting that balance between freedom of choice and simplicity just right has it’s fair share of challenges, the decision alone deserves at least some thoughtful consideration.
You can't expect or require everyone to know how to set type. But you can expect that every writer knows how he wants his article to feel, what tone to have and what picture he wants to paint.
And if that need is met by simply letting the user choose the typographic style, there is no need for any more options. Limited choices can still provide enough freedom.
Type [...] should be appropriate. Sometimes, it’s a typeface’s job to be overt, loud and suggestive, in order to communicate the content in the best way. But, yes, sometimes typography has to melt away into the background. To support the content and the reader. To help them.
MARK BOULTON
In other words, type is conditioned by the message it visualises. And in the context of a communication platform such as Medium, in which authorship is rendered secondary, the content needs to shine. It needs environmental context for meaning to arise in a work. It needs appropriate typography.
But removing the option altogether of matching type and content imposes an aesthetic restraint that limits the text's personality and message to be interpreted through that specific typeface's characteristics.
Content creators need help conveying their message. Some texts require clarity, conciseness, precision; others articulation, contrast and tension. And in the world of typography, one size doesn't fit all. For most users—and especially creators—self-expression, or the lack of, might prove to be a potential deal-breaker.
Incidentally, self-expression is also among Dieter Rams' principles of good design:
Good design is unobtrusive — Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user’s self-expression.
Taking this into consideration, it seems only natural for a platform, such as Medium, to instil equal importance on the comprehension of each text. That is, to allow choice.
For demo purposes, a prototype that overlays alternative typefaces on the current one can be accessed here.
Tactical benefits
• While the sheer simplicity and stripped-down aesthetic caters well to both existing users and potential new users, providing choice targets a third type of user, as described by Bruce Tognazzini
• Appealing to a wider audience can help the product gain more traction.
• Appropriate typography can harness the creative powers of the audience, a method that nicely complements ease of use.
• From a brand perspective, acts as a unique identifier, differentiating the brand from competitive platforms for content
• Opens up a dialogue for potential new partnerships with type foundries, which may prove useful to user growth.
Design challenges
As a feature that focuses on the functional essence of the product, how do you add detail to that essence, so that the functional logic becomes clear ?
How do you allow enough choice so that the experience of reading and writing becomes measurably easier with good typography, while disregarding anything that could possibly detract from it ?
There’s always a simple solution:
Self-expression within predefined aesthetics.
Provide font-pairings with predefined sizes, spacing and kerning, categorised into global themes, that can incorporate collections.
Glorified type templates, basically.
A simple toggle to switch between pairs of fonts should do.
Obviously, adding more fonts raises more problems than this post covers. But hopefully it’s enough to spark a discussion on the importance of allowing choice, allowing self-expression.
