Posted by Jon on 31 August, 2010 under Processes & best practice | 
So, what’s the golden rule regarding fonts in proposals?
The received wisdom in the proposal profession – reflected in the APMP Foundation examination – is that one should use ‘serif’ fonts (such as Times New Roman) for body text, and a ‘sans serif’ font (such as Arial) for headings and captions. Having played with a few typefaces over the years – including some interesting experiments, setting out the same proposal in different fonts and gathering feedback from users – it’s always seemed like a fairly sensible guide.
Certainly, most designers tend to work primarily with sans serif fonts. They’re deemed easier to read at larger font sizes, and work well on short documents. And that’s where many corporate branding teams focus when mandating a ‘corporate font’: their practical experience revolves largely around brochures, adverts, websites, emails, letters – not on proposals, which are much longer. Yet I’ve worked with many top-notch designers who’ve seemed very cynical about the advice that one should switch over to a serif font for longer documents, and I’m far from sure that that’s merely ignorance on their part.
So, I decided recently to look for the underlying evidence to support the two sides of the debate. That took me to a fascinating article by Alex Poole, entitled “Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces?”. Alex explains that “An argument has been raging for decades within the scientific and typographic communities on what seems a very insignificant issue: Do serifs contribute to the legibility of typefaces, and by definition, are sans serif typefaces less legible? To date, no one has managed to provide a conclusive answer to this issue.”
He talks through various typographical definitions in detail, then “reviews the evidence for and against the legibility of serif and sans serif typefaces”, drawing extensively on various academic studies of the issue. And his conclusion?
What initially seemed a neat dichotomous question of serif versus sans serif has resulted in a body of research consisting of weak claims and counter-claims, and study after study with findings of “no difference”. Is it the case that more than one hundred years of research has been marred by repeated methodological flaws, or are serifs simply a typographical “red herring”?
It is of course possible that serifs or the lack of them have an effect on legibility, but it is very likely that they are so peripheral to the reading process that this effect is not even worth measuring. Indeed, a greater difference in legibility can easily be found within members of the same type family than between a serif and a sans serif typeface. There are also other factors such as x-height, counter size, letter spacing and stroke width which are more significant for legibility than the presence or absence of serifs.
Finally, we should accept that most reasonably designed typefaces in mainstream use will be equally legible, and that it makes much more sense to argue in favour of serif or sans serif typefaces on aesthetic grounds than on the question of legibility.
So maybe, just maybe, the ‘standard’ proposal convention is less robust that it might appear. Certainly, I’ll be less forceful with corporate branding folks having reviewed the article than I’ve sometimes been in the past. But it doesn’t shake me from my belief that the best way to choose a font for your proposal is to make sure it’s one with which the evaluators would feel comfortable, and potentially to print samples of the document in different fonts and canvass opinion on which is easiest to read and most attuned to your story and brand.
Posted by BJ on 26 August, 2010 under Word play & writing |
I recently came across some language within a proposal I was reviewing that, rather than driving home a key point the writer wished to make, actually acted as what I term a ‘speed bump’ for those reviewing the response.
Upon reading the text, it was evident that what the writer wanted to convey was that the action would be taken if the project manager wasn’t in compliance. Unfortunately, as is often the case with the written word, the language used allowed for this to be interpreted a couple of ways and one of them has a negative connotation.
The response read, “If, upon review, the project manager is determined to be non-compliant, we will take action as needed.”
Another example of language having two meanings, in this case those being opposite of what was intended, comes from a response I sent to one of our associates (hi there Rickie). She had raised a concern and I replied, “I will pass on your concern…” As she pointed out, this could be taken as I wasn’t going to address her concern.
I offer these examples as reminders as to why our being careful with the language we use and carefully editing and reviewing content is so critical to the quality of our responses.
Posted by Jon on 24 August, 2010 under Musings |
Natalie, one of our team, sent us the link to the following YouTube video the other day. It’s quite, quite wonderful – and I just had to share it hear.
Not proposal-specific, but I think we’ll all relate to it:
Posted by Jon on 17 August, 2010 under Word play & writing |
Spotted recently, pinned to a hand-dryer:
This facility is unavailable due to essential maintenance works
… because ‘broken’ really would have been too simple.
Along similar lines, on a trip to Versailles a month or so ago:
The tour continues on the opposite side of the peristyle.
OK, make me feel stupid. Peristyle? Where do I go now? Oh – you mean the walkway with columns that I’m standing in.
Why is it that people writing notices – or proposals – feel the need to try and impress the reader with overly-grandiose language? And don’t they realise that, in their attempts to impress, they actually achieve the very opposite?
And then sometimes there’s stuff that’s just weird – like the name of the shop I passed in my cab en route to Abu Dhabi airport, all-too-early the other morning having run a course there for a great group:
Syria Flower Butchery
No, I couldn’t work it out either. But there seemed to be more flowers around than carcasses, and I’d be more than a little concerned about asking them to make up a bouquet…
Posted by BJ on 13 August, 2010 under Word play & writing |
I saw a recent piece (delivered to me as a ‘pop-up’ while using Yahoo) which presented common typos missed by spell check. The article also highlighted many words which are commonly confused or misused. I’ve edited this slightly, giving it a slant towards proposals. I’m passing this along as a reminder for words we should be double checking when editing/proofing your submissions.
Please feel free to provide any words that you see repeatedly that Spell Check failed to catch.
————————————————————————–
Affect versus Effect
There is a lot of confusion around these two words. Keep this in mind to keep the two straight: “Affect” is a verb and “effect” is a noun. It’s as simple as that.
Farther versus Further (versus Father)
While both words refer to distance, grammarians distinguish “farther” as physical distance and “further” as metaphorical distance. You can dive further into a project, for instance, or you can dive farther into the ocean. And we all do know what ‘Father’ means, right? Unfortunately, spell check will allow all of these words in whatever context you choose to use them.
From and Form
Sure, you know the difference with these two words. Spell check doesn’t (this is a typical typo for me, especially when my fingers are flying over the keys just a bit to fast!)
Its versus It’s (and all other apostrophes):
According to a copy editing instructor for California-based copy editing service provider confusing “its” and “it’s” is the most common error in the English language. That one minuscule apostrophe (or lack thereof) drastically changes the meaning of the entire sentence. “It’s” is a contraction of “it is,” whereas “its” refers to possession.
“Your” versus “You’re” falls into the same category. Your, a pronoun, is the possessive case of ‘you’. ‘You’re’ is a contraction of “you are”.
Sales versus Sails
Can you imagine presenting with a proposal that you will help them “…increase sails by 20 percent”?! Unless the proposal happens to be to a manufacturer of sails (the kind that are used on sailboats!), this careless mistake will probably get your proposal sailing right into the recycling bin.
Supposed To, not Suppose To
“Suppose” is a verb, meaning to think or to ponder. Used in the past tense, this verb is “supposed”, as in “I was supposed to make sure I didn’t use ‘suppose to’”.
Their versus There versus They’re
“Their” is possessive; “there” refers to distance; and “they’re” is a contraction of “they”.
Then versus Than
Six is more than five. If you add one to five, then you have six. “Than” refers to a comparison, while “then” refers to a subsequent event.
Threw versus Through (and thru) versus (Thorough)
“He threw the ball through the window.” “Threw” is the past tense of the verb “to throw”. “Thru’ is this word spelled incorrectly and should never be used!). “Through” is a preposition meaning ‘in at one end, side, or surface and out at the other:’ And speaking of “through,” be careful to make sure you don’t actually mean “thorough” or vice versa. Thorough is an adjective meaning ‘complete, executed without omission’. Like many of the words mentioned here, this slight variation in spelling will not be picked up by a computer, and could easily be missed by an editor or proofreader, especially if they are rushing through a document. Writing “We are through when it comes to editing/ proofreading our proposals” when you mean to write “We are thorough…” is rather ironic.
Waist vs. waste
Waist is a noun, describing the part of the body between the ribs and the hips, usually the narrowest part of a person’s body. Waste is a verb, typically used in conjunction with an object, and is defined as to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail or profit; squander: If you always eat everything on your plate, your waist will likely go to waste.
Wonder versus Wander
You can wander around while you wonder why “wander” and “wonder” have such different meanings, yet sound oh so similar.
Would Have, not Would of
This common mispronunciation has led to the rampant misuse of this phrase. However “would of” is never correct and will most likely make it appear as if your proposal was a written by someone lacking language skills.
Posted by Jon on 10 August, 2010 under Word play & writing |
Dinner in a Parisian restaurant recently; there’s a notice pinned to a box on the wall:
Your comments interest us.
I love that they’re curious to hear what you think; that they’ll weigh up what you say and – in the refreshing underlying implication of the message – that they may well conclude that whilst you are entitled to your opinion, it may be entirely wrong.
Feedback on proposals – from customers or team members – is always facinating to hear. Yet, of course, it’s not always correct, fair – or, necessarily, honest: people do play games to protect their own position, avoid conflict, transfer blame, claim credit, seize the moral high ground, dodge further actions. It’s why strong, impartial facilitation of these debriefs and workshops is so important.
Posted by BJ on 5 August, 2010 under Musings |
A friend of a friend related the following incident recently (via his Facebook page) –
“While in horrendous traffic today, constantly being cut off left and right, moving at a snail’s pace and generally getting myself all riled up, my 3 year old turned to me and said “Daddy, you need to calm down. Let’s take a few deep breaths together. Then we can find a playground, you can swing for a while, and we’ll all feel much better.”
I’ve been on many proposal teams that could use someone with this kind of wisdom.
