At first, I wasn't sure what to think of the article "Easy = True" from author Drake Bennett of Boston.com. I personally think it's a bit of a stretch to try to associate how easy to understand a company's name is and how well it performs on Wall Street.
Perhaps that correlation doesn't necessarily mean anything, but by the end of the article it's hard not to be intrigued by some of the other implications brought up by Bennett. Specifically, I think the topic of fonts was very interesting. For me, it's definitely true that simple, clear font results in a more trusting response. Right away I think of the case of borrowing notes from a missed lecture from a friend. If their handwriting is sloppy and illegible, I probably have to pause often and the reading of the notes isn't smooth. In these instances, I find myself not even trusting that they took good notes in class.
On the other hand, if the notes are very neatly written or even typed, it becomes a lot easier to read. I'll transfer the notes to my notebook with confidence that the person was paying attention and is a good note taker. A situation like this is why the results of the font study listed in the article aren't surprising at all.
Another thing that interested me was the idea of "disfluency". As I just pointed out, I really believe that simple and legible fonts result in trustworthiness from the reader. It's no wonder that advertisements and politicians alike therefore use simple fonts and simple language when writing their slogans and ads.
I think in the right situation, however, disfluency can definitely be used in an effective way. Some high end and elegant products have sophisticated fonts on their advertisements. They'll use cursive fonts and fonts not easily read on a poster or billboard. The reason I think this works is because the advertisers don't necessarily want the ad to be simple and clear to the average. If they're selling an elegant product, they probably want the consumer to feel elegant while reading their ads. The consumers who are uninterested in the ad and think it's unappealing because of it's nicer and complicated font probably aren't a problem to the company. It's the feeling of being special and superiority for the people who do like their ads and buy their products that the company is trying to get. So as Bennett suggests, disfluency can work in some circumstances.
Overall, the article had a lot of cool points that I think a lot of us will realize are true in real life. I was personally drawn to the issue of font and trust, but there's certainly a lot more of the article that interested me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the idea that clarity of font brings clarity of understanding, I think that clarity of formatting applies. I know that when I see a page in a textbook that is completely filled with words and long paragraphs with very little separation or white space, I "unwittingly transfer that sense of difficulty onto the topic [I'm] reading about."
ReplyDeleteIf, however, the page has nice amounts of white space, shorter paragraphs, maybe pictures, tables/charts, or big headings to break up the writing, I will probably consider that same material, easier to understand.
I found this article to be very interesting especially because its topic is something we can all relate to. The idea of "cognitive fluency" is an idea that we all deal with on a daily basis, but probably haven't ever put a name to or noticed is going on.
I like the way you approached the topic presented in the article. I very much agree with you that it's easy to see some of the ideas in practice on a personal level; I think it's instinctive for most people to associate the topic they're reading/hearing about with the way the topic is presented. But you make a good point by saying that clarity and simplicity aren’t always the desired objective of the presenter. The way an advertisement makes an appeal, creating a focused range of emotions (pathos/the pathetic appeal) in the observer can be of critical importance to the intent of the piece being presented.
ReplyDeleteI also liked the skepticism you had of the causal link between simple fonts in company logos and the effectiveness of the company in the market. That kind of claim needs strong evidence supporting it because it is making a strong statement about both the effects of advertising and human nature itself. That’s not to say that it has no merit, but that further inquiry would greatly fortify its position.