Design vs. Science

An Epistemological Exploration

As designers, we often rely on instinct and experience when it comes to typography, particularly regarding established guidelines like the maximum of 70 to 80 characters per line, allowing for effortless readability. While these practical observations are crucial, they only scratch the surface of a more complex question: why do our brains have difficulty following lines of text that exceed a specific length?

The 2007 documentary “Helvetica” illustrates this intriguing challenge. It explores the reasons behind the widespread popularity of the Helvetica typeface through insights from various designers. However, this predominantly subjective perspective raises questions about its adequacy. Just as Freud’s armchair psychology was criticized for lacking empirical support, relying solely on designers’ opinions may not suffice to understand the deeper cognitive and cultural phenomena at play. A proper study—perhaps involving psychologists or those who study behavioural biology—could provide a more nuanced understanding of why certain designs resonate with us, beyond mere observation.

While we know that excessive line length can hinder reader comprehension, the underlying reasons—such as visual tracking difficulties or cognitive load—are often explored through cognitive psychology. Understanding these mechanisms could illuminate how our visual perception influences reading efficiency and engagement.

As a designer with over two decades of experience, I frequently encounter the tension between subjective opinion and objective standards in design. For instance, why do we claim that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” while sending a junior designer back to their desk because their blue background doesn’t work? There must be specific reasons that make certain works—like the film “Forrest Gump,” the design of the VW Beetle, or Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata”—resonate with many, if not all, people. This complexity makes it challenging to explain to juniors why certain design choices succeed or fail, especially when they may seem subjective.

In essence, while a scientific approach can provide valuable context, effective design requires a balance of intuition, experience, and practical knowledge. Embracing both perspectives can lead to a more thoughtful approach to typography and design, ultimately enhancing user experience and the effectiveness of our work.