Inside the Judging Process at Tehran Type Week

If you’ve ever freelanced, you’ve probably heard that line from a client. And that’s exactly where the trouble starts: calling design “art.”

Now imagine what goes on in the jury rooms of “artistic” competitions over the past few decades. What are the criteria? What do jurors actually talk about? Do they even care—or are they just kicking back with tea and sweets, swapping stories about clients who “don’t get art at all”? How are works chosen? How are jurors picked, and who gets the unspoken veto power? (Let’s be honest—there’s always one.)

Does this sting? Does it bring back memories of competitions where you poured your heart into a piece, only to watch something mediocre win, with zero explanation?

Last year (2024), while planning the second Tehran Type Week, the conversation turned to competitions and judging. We saw a real opportunity to examine this flawed process—and fix it.

The Problems and Our Solutions

1. Subjective Whims & Personal Biases

Nearly every jury has someone who shows up without a clear framework and makes snap decisions based on personal taste—or hidden criteria that can unfairly sink strong work.

Our Fix: Explicit, weighted criteria. Jurors had to score against a defined set of parameters, dramatically reducing the impact of personal preference. For example, we gave higher weight to “Strategic Need-finding” because it matters more than “Quality of Form Execution.”

2. Conflicting Definitions & Lack of Oversight

One juror’s idea of “originality” can be completely different from another’s.

Our Fix:Pre-judging briefing sessions to align interpretations, plus post-scoring review meetings to go over every mark.

Example: Three jurors score “Execution Quality” as 4, 4, and 0. We don’t just average it—we dig in. The supervisor flags it to rule out misunderstanding or bad faith. These reviews also helped us spot and remove confusing or ineffective criteria.

3. Selective Blindness or Trend Bias

A key feature might be ignored, or a juror might dislike a perfectly valid trending approach just because it’s trendy.

Our Fix: Independent scoring for every single criterion. Outliers triggered discussion and, when needed, revision.

4. The Ta’arof Factor & Power Dynamics

This is Iran—age, status, charisma, or connections can let one person dominate the room.

Our Fix: Asynchronous, equal-weight judging. No group sessions. Every juror works alone in their own time, eliminating the pressure to just "go along with it" out of politeness or respect for hierarchy.

5. The Black Box of Judging

Traditional in-person judging often leaves no trace. Ask why something won or lost, and you get shrugs.

Our Fix: Full documentation + public accountability. Every score and weight is recorded. We held a public session after the event to explain the process, and this article is part of that commitment.

6. Favoritism & Personal Connections

We’ve all heard it: a juror defends a work with unusual passion—later it turns out the designer is their student or friend. Or a strong entry gets rejected because the designer might “get a big head.”

Our Fix: Double-blind process. No names on submissions (not even the font’s name). Jurors’ names weren’t revealed until after judging.

7. Choosing the Right Jurors

Too often, jurors lack real typeface-making experience or hold outdated views that ignore today’s realities.

Our Fix: Seeking balance. We prioritized experts in technical font production, professionals with deep experience in commissioned work and client constraints, and educators who understand participants’ mindsets and learning challenges.

8. The Guessing Game

Most calls for entries never tell you how works will actually be judged. Everything feels vague.

Our Fix: Full criteria and weights published upfront in the call for entries—so you know exactly what we value before you submit.

Evaluation Criteria

Below is the exact scoring framework used in the jury process.

Criterion — Weight

• Strategic Need-finding: Identifying gaps and defining usage — 4
• Process-Driven Design: Research, techniques, solutions, etc. — 3
• Conceptual Consistency: Alignment of final work with the theme — 4
• Grounded in Proper Script Rules — 1
• Originality & Innovation: Having something new to say — 4
• Character Cohesion: Weight, proportions, stroke contrast, counters, etc. — 4
• Functional Readability: Legibility suited to text vs. display — 3
• Text Dynamics: Negative space management & gray value (text fonts) — 2
• Display Rhythm: Negative space & rhythm (display fonts) — 2
• Family Logic: Coherence and quality of weights/styles — 2
• Character Set Completeness: Appropriate to the concept — 1
• Technical Features: Ligatures, alternates, OpenType features, etc. — 1
• Quality of Form Execution — 1
• Presentation Quality — 2
• Juror’s Overall Impression — 2

The Overall Process

Submissions are sent to all jurors. Each juror scores independently using the criteria table. Scores are multiplied by weights, summed, and works are ranked accordingly.

We’ve done everything we can to minimize bias and error. Transparency is the only way forward. This system isn’t perfect—it’s a first step that needs polishing, refinement, and most importantly, your feedback.

Reza Bakhtiarifard

Jury Manager & Process Designer for the 3rd Tehran Type Week