From Voice ~ Topics: K-12, typography
Bradbury Thompson’s Alphabet 26: A Font System for Early Readers?
Educational psychologists Guy Bond and Robert Dykstra, whose 1967 article "Cooperative research program in 1st grade reading instruction" have been cited over 70 times in interdisciplinary discourse, confirm that being able to identify each letter of the alphabet is critical to becoming a fluent reader. Most children learn to read by mastering letter identification, sound connotation of each letter, word recognition, spelling, reading and writing. Proficiency in the latter two depends heavily upon mastery of the preceding skills—especially letter identification. Rosemary Sassoon’s Sassoon (designed in 1995) and Natascha Frensch’s Read Regular (designed in 2003) are examples of fonts derived from extensive testing in Britain to make letter identification easier for early readers, including those who are dyslexic. In 2004, cognitive scientist Larry Reid, and design researcher Audrey Bennett in their Visible Language article titled "Towards A Reader-Friendly Font" posited that the design of a font compiled of discriminable characters would ease, if not eradicate, the difficulty that early readers have when learning how to read. However, pre-dating all of the previous efforts to assess and alleviate the difficulties early readers have when learning how to read, is Alphabet 26—a simplified English alphabet system—designed by American type designer Bradbury Thompson in 1950.
With Alphabet 26, Thompson proposed a simplified plan for representing the English alphabet after observing his own son experience difficulty recognizing the similarity between "Run" and "run" in "Run pal. See him run." (See Fig. 2). Thompson believed then that his son became confused because of the change from a capital "R" to a lowercase "r"—two different symbols that represent the same phonetic sound. Noting that the alphabet contained 19 other instances of dissimilar upper and lowercase symbols that slowed the reading process, Thompson set out to remedy this problem by simplifying the alphabet. Based upon his own theory that a graphic symbol must be consistent to be efficient, Thompson designed Alphabet 26—a font system made up of only 26 upper and lowercase characters typeset in Baskerville (See Fig. 3). He kept the lowercase version (and discarded the uppercase version) of the seven characters of the alphabet that are the same across cases—Cc-Oo-Ss-Vv-Ww-Xx-Zz. Of the remaining 19 dissimilar characters of our alphabet, he kept the uppercase version of them—Bb-Dd-Ff-Gg-Hh-Ii-Jj-Kk-Ll-Pp-Qq-Rr-Tt-Uu-Yy—and the lowercase version of four—Aa-Ee-Mm-Nn. Can Bradbury Thompson's Alphabet 26 serve as a contemporary solution to early reading problems among young children?
Towards the end of 2004, Bennett tested her seven-year-old son’s oral fluency using Alphabet 26’s system after observing him write "B" instead of "b" for the word "bad" within a sentence. He frequently confused the letters "b, p, d and q" in his reading and writing. Thus, it was useful to him to substitute the lowercase version of those problematic letters with their uppercase counterparts. For the test, Bennett typeset a series of short texts that included the sentence "Run pal. See him run." in Century Schoolbook. One set used Alphabet 26’s font system and a second set used the standard upper- and lowercase letters of our existing alphabet. As Marcel read the two different texts, Bennett observed the following:
- There was significant improvement in his oral fluency when he read the text typeset using Thompson’s font system.
- There was still some confusion identifying some letters that were typeset using Thompson’s font system. While Thompson successfully created an alphabet with fewer characters, the letters "U" and the "n" mirror each other across the horizontal axis creating recognition problems for him.
During spring 2005 Bennett and Rensselaer undergraduate Bridget Rice—inspired by Bradbury Thompson’s philosophy that it is misleading for a letter, or any graphic symbol for that matter, to have two different designs—assessed the adaptability of Alphabet 26 as a font or font system for early readers. As is, Thompson’s font system has only 26 letters. Because there are fewer characters, it would be easier to memorize than the existing alphabet of over 40 different characters. However, a problem noted earlier about Alphabet 26 is that the "U" and "n" are reflective across the horizontal axis. Also, if Alphabet 26 were to be used as a system that can be represented by any font, the uppercase "I" set in some fonts, such as Arial, is interchangeable with the lowercase "l"—preventing early readers from identifying letters. As a system, therefore, Alphabet 26 would need to have guidelines for usage in order to achieve better results. Perhaps, a modified version of Alphabet 26 as a font would provide greater control and ease of use.
Alphabet 26 as a font, instead of a font system, would have 26 characters made up of both uppercase and lowercase letters. The large letter style set in the original version of Alphabet 26 would come in handy for use at the beginning of a sentence or a pronoun. The selection of letters that are either uppercase or lowercase would have to be carefully considered in relation to letter identification problems experienced by early readers and those with reading disabilities. The revisited Alphabet 26 font may need to instill a strong, consistent discriminability between all of the characters. Thus, the new Alphabet 26 (See Fig. 4) would need to deviate from its original form in the following manner:
- More descenders and ascenders would need to be used in order to increase readability of larger blocks of text. The lowercase "g, j, k, p and y" should substitute the uppercase versions in Alphabet 26.
- A lowercase "i" would need to replace Alphabet 26’s uppercase "I" in order to distinguish it from the letter "L" and number "1".
- An uppercase "N" would need to replace Alphabet 26’s lowercase "n" for more discriminability between the "U" and "n."
-
Great article.
The logic behind Alphabet 26 is good as a jump start to help children experiencing a delay in their reading development. However, it only addresses the symptom [inability to relate upper and lower case of the same letter] not the problem [similarities between letter shapes and overall volume of letters].
If a child did learn to read using Alphabet 26, what would happen when he advances to the next grade where Alphabet 26 is not used? Or how will he function when faced with daily tasks that involve reading material not set in Alphabet 26? Eventually, any reader has to be able to identify and comprehend all upper and lower case characters in a variety of typefaces.
Read Regular seems to address the underlying problem in a manner that would be most beneficial to dyslexics. Although the problem of variation between the upper and lower case version of certain characters still exist, I believe it is best to address that problem through practice, repetition, and varying teaching techniques to best fit the child. Not by modifying the alphabet. -
I think it is a good system. I also agree with jbc's input on Alphabet 26, where maybe this Alphabet system could be used only in serious cases. Maybe where our noramal alphabet might be proven too difficult to learn. I'm no medical professional, but as a graphic designer, I have to respect the convienience this may offer for dyslexics. It's really about preference. If Alphabet 26 would prove to help a dyslexics' ability to separate letters and sounds, then it would indeed lead them towards a level where it might be easier for them to learn the normal alphabet.
-
I just read a post on Blogdorf about a similar type system for dyslexic folks. It's called Read Regular.
Here's the link:
http://rosendorf.us/blogdorf/archive/2005/04/22/177.aspx -
I think the Alphabet 26 embodies some of the higher aims of design like improving functionality of typography and helping people learn more easily.
With some more testing and research, an optimum age range for use of this alphabet system might become statistically evident for children with and without dyslexia.
I think this may be a way to more efficiently introduce children to reading at the early stages of development. As they progessed, children aught to be able to differentiate more and incorporate more of the standard alphabet.
It's similar to how babies are fed soft foods until they can handle harder foods. -
Here's a different tack on this issue, though I guess thinking about the contemporary critique of reformist modernist type, it's not all that unique... wouldn't this kind of system condition children to recognize a reduced variety of forms? The beauty of type is, in a lot of ways, its "unity-in-variety," the way we actually *can* process different sorts of forms into the same language in our minds, albeit with subtle shadings and nuances, recognizing codings like ALL CAPS or Initial Caps or italics and coding them appropriately as we read.
Stripping this variety out may be novel, and indeed may help the increasing number of people simply unable to cope with complexity in the visual field - but as a broader project, I wonder if it's the typographic equivalent of Orwell's Newspeak, in the end simply fostering a climate where formal, linguistic, and ultimately cultural diversity is rejected in the course of a youth's upbringing.
It's the same trouble as "teach to the test" schooling models: sure, it may "work," but I'm left wondering if our language and letterforms, taught sensitively and well, might enable us to do a whole lot more than simply pass a reading test. -
The only major problem with Alphabet 26 is that it does not recognize the fact that words are learned as shapes, including the letter forms and the shapes that occur in between them. If we were to change the alphabet shapes, we would be changing the shapes in between. This suggests the the alphabet should be learned by reading whole words at a time, not individual letters. And since language learned is a genetically fixed ability, strongest and most active during childhood, the best answer seems to be to immerse children in the most natural language possible.
-
I think MW has a point, although then again perhaps it should be read mainly as a caveat for those considering using somehing like Alphabet 26. Any system that can help a child "over the hump" of recognizing letters and pronouncing words seems ok by me. Variations can be sorted out later. Think about punctuation for example-- do young children really need to know the difference between a hyphen and an em-dash? Most adults don't even know that one.
Adam's point is well-taken, although the word-shape idea is hotly debated (search "bouma" on Typophile.com, e.g.). Nevertheless, if you have the equivalent of teaching, say, "cAt" before "cat" and "CAT", then you're monkeying with any conventional word-shape recognition processes that may exist, if they exist. -
I am one of those kids that battled with dyslexia, writing the wrong letter, and enunciating the wrong sound of a particular word. I do like that our Alphabet has different shapes but it’s a child that will need to master it. More than 10% of our population is dyslexic; it’s a growing concern among educators. I believe that this "Alphabet 26" would be a great tool in combating this huge problem here and perhaps elsewhere. Here at home we have so many systems that work with helping children recognize these letterforms but the problem is still the "System" we use. Thompson has taken the step toward had a potentially powerful tool in assisting children master this fundamental form of communication.
-
I think it is great that someone is trying to make it easier for kids to learn the alphabet. As a kid that had a mild case of dyslexia, i know that i got letters mixed up and sometimes even numbers.
-
Teaching with capitals or modified fonts like this one break up the word shapes that cause children to develop whole-word dyslexia. Simply put, the right brain looks at words as wholes and reads by inacurately configuration and context guessing; the left brain reads words accurately as sequences of sounds by processing all the letters in the world. This font would enhances accurate left brain words recognition and help pave the way for the end of illiteracy and dyslexia.
-
This is a very interesting issue being examined in this article. It is a very daunting task to memorize the characters/letters that make us the English language. I agree that it's very easy to mix-up and confuse letters for one another. In addition I agree with the fact that it is very easy to become confused of the letters b, p, d, and q because I have experienced this confusion myself. I think Mr. Thompson has a good idea about changing the letters of the alphabet so that the uppercase and lowercase look alike and create less confusion however there are still some flaws in his new alphabet that will need to be worked out before his idea can be accepted by his peers. I would like to see how well Mr. Thompson's idea translates into the classroom and teaching children to read.
-
As for changing the English alphabet all around (as opposed to just altering it for beginning readers), the first thing I thought of was the issue of CAPS. According to Bradbury's model, we would abandon a need for BOTH uppecase and lowercase letters; all letters will now have the same x-height regardless of font-size and composition.
But isn't it the CAPS version of a letter that helps us to quickly find the start of a new sentence? What about proper nouns? Names and logos? Surely the beginning letter of a proper noun has to be bigger than the rest, no?
I once read that Jan Tschichold despised using caps and lowercase together. He liked using either alone. Can anyone recall the purpose of our double-alphabet? Was it for visual differentiation?
Given the trend you see today, I wouldn't be surprised if caps became a thing of the past in a hundred years. The formality of language is dropping everywhere, thanks in part to instant information: emails, instant messengers, texting, etc. Today's generation simply does not want to bother with changing back and forth between CAPS and lowercase as they write/type.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Comments