A very common misconception is that the typography on children’s product has to involve the use of quirky, funny, practically unreadable typefaces. This is wrong for several reasons. First, ugly fonts are still ugly also on children’s products, and that might be just a matter of personal taste and sensitivity about typography. There are other reasons though and taste has little to do with them.
If we’re designing for preschool and elementary school children, we have to be careful because these are their first encounters with reading and writing. While it’s very easy (well, depending on the typeface) for adults to recognize an “a” in different styles, seeing it in cursive and print, serif and sans serif, very simple or very ornamented might confuse kids.
A font that is difficult to read or differs too much from what they are learning at school can be confusing and frustrating. It could ultimately even discourage kids from reading. That’s not what we want.
This has to be considered even on products intended for nonreaders. Your app could be targeted to very young children who cannot read yet (there's a dedicated section in the book), but it’s still a good idea, even for the little text you might have, to be written in a font that trains their brain in recognizing letters, without struggling and creating visual noise.
There are different opinions on what makes a good typeface for children. We base many of the most common assumptions on intuition, practical use, and tradition by educators, but there is no scientific approach to really validate them. Consequently, many choices rely on hypothesis and it’s hard to really provide a set of rules that is backed up by data.
The choice of style for a typeface for children is often based on the idea that this should be consistent with graphical approach for handwriting taught in schools. But some educators challenge this approach, with the argument that the typeface should help kids familiarize with typography found in regular books and magazines. Both seem valid reasons.
Many type designers and type foundries came up with typefaces made for beginner readers. Most of them took the traditional rules as a starting point for their design, for example, it’s widely assumed that sans serif fonts are easier to recognize by children. Sans serif fonts are designed “bare bones,” the form of the letters is made only by their skeleton, it’s the way we normally write when writing in print, we don’t add serifs to our letters. The design of children-friendly typography went even further with the introduction of the so-called infant characters. These characters were introduced in the 1920s and became more popular during the 1930s. What does infant character mean? These characters are variations on specific letters made to make them easier to read for children. The most common examples of such letters are single-story “a” and “g”. Here’s the difference.
Other common examples of infant characters are the uppercase “I” and the lowercase “i” that in many sans serif fonts look almost identical. In their infant version, the “I” has serif and the “i” has a curved terminal.
Type foundries introduced these variations on popular fonts such as Gill Sans and Bembo. Type designers, like Rosemary Sassoon and Adrian Williams, designed typefaces specifically for children’s book. Their typeface Sassoon Primary includes all the infant variations of the characters, including the curved terminals of “l” and “t” and the serifs on the capital “I”. It’s a very good typeface that I like a lot.
The choice between serif and sans serif is also a matter of medium. The 2016 study by Berrin Dogusoy, Filiz Cicek, and Kursat Cagiltay, How Serif and Sans Serif Typefaces Influence Reading on Screen: An Eye Tracking Study, is just one of the studies that highlighted, through testing with eye-tracking technology, how sans serif typefaces are more readable on screens compared to serif ones.
The 2008 study by Sheree Josephson Keeping Your Readers’ Eyes on the Screen: An Eye-Tracking Study Comparing Sans Serif and Serif Typefaces, published in Visual Communication Quarterly, got to the same results. This study is particularly interesting because the author didn’t just compared serif vs. sans serif typefaces, but also compared fonts that were made for print with others made for screen. Overall, the best results were obtained with the use of a sans serif font specifically made for screen (in that case Verdana, designed by Matthew Carter for Microsoft in 1996).
In a 2012 article on NNG, Jakob Nielsen challenged this guideline about the preference of sans serif fonts for online reading. His (valid) argument is that the “rule” was formulated when screens were low in resolution, hence the rendering of fonts with serifs was far from ideal, making texts less readable and blurry. In relatively recent times, screens got a lot better. Long gone are the days of Verdana and displays with 72 dpi resolution. So, if serif fonts are considered more readable on print, shouldn’t they be considered the same on screens with a resolution comparable to printed pages? The 2016 study by Dogusoy, Cicek, and Cagiltay mentioned earlier seems to disagree, but that might not be enough. The debate on whether serif or sans serif typefaces should be the choice for online reading is still on today, but, bringing the conversation back to the topic of this book, there is one important thing to notice: digital products for children don’t usually require long paragraphs or text. Quite the contrary, actually.
It’s undeniable how serif fonts generally look more serious though and also how on digital interfaces sans serif fonts look more modern and “techy” (there is currently no operating system out there, desktop, mobile, or else, using a serif font as their default choice). Digital products are still very much tied to the “old” rule using sans serif font families.
In the end, sans serif font seems the best choice when it comes to digital products for kids, being them websites or mobile apps.
Simple, friendly shapes, generously drawn with rounded counters. Avoid counters that are rectangular or too narrow. Wider typefaces provide a better readability and they also resemble more the style of handwriting children learn at school.
The x-height of a typeface is the height of its lowercase “x”, which is the height that should guide the design of all lowercase letters without their ascenders or descenders. Typefaces with a taller x-height look more readable.
Decorative typefaces should be avoided at all times on any digital product, regardless of the age of the users. But it’s very common to think overly decorated fonts are childish and therefore good for kids’ books, websites, and apps. This is simply wrong for all the reasons mentioned previously. Such typefaces are not fun to read (or watch), just confusing and overwhelming.
The weight and width of a font have a direct impact on its readability. Fonts that are too bold or too thin, too condensed or too extended, tend to be less readable than a well-balanced font.
In this new book, the award-winning designer Rubens Cantuni, shares with the reader all the secrets to design successful digital products for children.
You'll find answers to all your questions regarding the industry, and its peculiarities in UX design, UI design, user testing, business strategies and much more.