I keep asking myself whether it even makes sense to search for the “best” typeface for readability. In expert circles, people love to debate “better” or “worse” readability, but without solid empirical evidence most claims remain speculative. Serious studies? Hardly any. And among widely used typefaces – especially sans serifs – the differences in real-world reading comfort are minimal.
This is exactly what the research of Lucas De Groot (“Reading behaviour and typographic factors”, Information Design Journal 9/1997) shows, demonstrating that readability differences between common typefaces are surprisingly small in everyday use.
What really matters, in my view, is the question:
“Which typeface truly fits the brand, the project, the visual system?”
The goal isn’t simply to maximize readability, but to build a visual language – a typographic identity that reflects personality, tone and intent. Designers who focus solely on functional criteria like readability risk missing what actually defines a brand: its distinctiveness. That, in our view, is the core task of any design process.
Take the type family “Geometrico”, for example. With its geometric parameters, circular components and restrained optical corrections, it communicates precision and a technological mindset, fitting perfectly into technology and architecture-related contexts. “Segno Brush”, on the other hand, brings playful lightness, organic modulation and a touch of unpredictability into the text flow – ideal when you want dynamics over conformity.