Why so much reversed out text?
Why do you think so many of the personal pages on AdGabber use reversed out text - white letters on a dark background?
There is overwhelming anecdotal and clinical evidence - from David Ogilvy to the Advertising Research Foundation - that reversed out text strains eyes and inhibits readership.
So why do so many still use it?
There is overwhelming anecdotal and clinical evidence - from David Ogilvy to the Advertising Research Foundation - that reversed out text strains eyes and inhibits readership.
So why do so many still use it?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eugen Suman on
-
Maybe they like it :)
-
Permalink Reply by Steve McNamara on -
Hey, Eugen - certainly anyone can decorate their own page in any way that tickles. But what if you wrote some copy and a designer made it difficult to read? As in this example for an ad school of all things:
http://www.wkufusion.com/ad/
Beyond that, is "I like it" or "I don't like it" a fair way, a smart way to judge copy, concepts or campaigns?
What say you?
-
-
I'm just saying that there's a relaxed environment here and people tend to ignore some of the aspects that they normally take into account during their daily job routine. Of course I agree with you, copy, writing should be easy to read. Usually you want to facilitate communication, not harden it :)
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Baum on -
I'm guilty -- it's that way now on my own site, but not for long. There's a redo in the works.
In the early days of computers and the web, I think there was a feeling that white type on dark backgrounds was easier on the eyes onscreen. Maybe that was a leftover from the days of DOS, when monitors were all dark and type was all light. In fact, I think that's still common in PowerPoints: dark or colorful backgrounds and light type. Of course, PowerPoint type should be big, but that's another discussion.
As for today, there is certainly all that evidence about straining eyes and inhibiting readership. We also have research that says serifs are more readable than sans, and (if I had to guess) that the Century family is more readable than Bodoni or Caslon.
But I think there are some other issues that tag along here.
One is -- have we written copy that's compelling enough to keep people reading even if we're not using 12-point black Century Schoolbook? Or, before that, have we served up a value proposition in the headline that stopped a prospect cold? In visual terms, have we set a headline or created a visual that folks will look at, not past?
I admit that before presbyopia, my attitude as an AD was, "Put on your damn glasses!" Now I'm wearing my damn glasses -- for everything but tennis, television and driving -- so I'm reforming, maybe more slowly than some folks would like.
-
Permalink Reply by J.S. Gilbert on
-
I thought that black made me look thinner.
-
Permalink Reply by Kurt Beren Geiger on
-
Permalink Reply by Julie Noble on
-
ROFLMAO!!! That's great.
Like Sierra Club mailing millions of mail pieces. LOL. There's going to be a huge Green BLOW BACK on the direct mail industry. And soon.
-
Permalink Reply by Cori Donohoe on
-
I admit it, I am guilty of this. I even did it knowing full well that dark copy on a light background is easier to read. However, let's face it. It just doesn't look as cool. Maybe it's the transgressive nature that excites. "Look, I'm being bad, flouting the rules, not eating my vegetables, and you know what? It feels good." Or maybe there's just some inherent bad-girl cache there. "Don't read that page, it will strain your eyesight. It's dangerous." Maybe it's just because it's my page, and I can. I wish I had a reason as noble as Kurt's, but I'm afraid that's not the case. After all, if everyone always played by the rules, the world would be a pretty boring place. Besides, creative people are compulsive readers. As that's the target on this site for the most part, I don't think a little light copy on a dark background is going to scare anyone away. Now if I was creating a site for a bank, that would be another story.
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne Bowman on
-
I'll throw out some theories:
1. Lack of confidence in what's being written.
2. That weird attraction creatives have to black.
3. Adolescent rebellion against the father of copywriters, D.O.
Studies I've seen show reverse type has even worse reader dropoff on screen. A company I know changed an e-zine to reverse (with an insanely wide margin). People stopped reading in droves.
An artist friend of mine keeps telling the story of how, on his very first assignment for a magazine ad many years ago, he was so enamored of reverse type that he even did a reverse coupon. Thanks to a benevolent creative director (though, admittedly ROTFLHAO), he's still in the ad biz.
-
Permalink Reply by Courtney Hendricks on -
I don't think that reversed text is a problem. I agree that reversed text can strain the eyes, but I also feel that there are times that it is appropriate and that it can be done right. Reversed text has the feel of something that you want to take the time to read. Maybe it's good that we slow down for a minute to appreciate what's been put in front of us.
-
Permalink Reply by Courtney Hendricks on
-
I also found this about reversed type and thought you might find it interesting: a black screen uses less energy than a white one, hopefully, it will act as a reminder to keep taking small steps towards saving energy every time you search in black. - oops, Kurt already found this out.
How long ago did Ogilvy write that anyway? Back in the day, monitor resolution was poor - now it's so good that reversed text doesn't really create a problem.
-
-
I found a blog from a copywriter who asked for opinions on this subject, and several respondents had numbers from research: http://www.bly.com/blog/?p=114.
Comments number 4 and 11 are particularly interesting. After about comment #14, it looks like a spambot took over, but this may add a little data to the question.
- 1
- 2
Advertising Jobs
Birthdays
© 2009 Created by Steve Hall
