Some ideas from yesterday’s talks: > loss of (or emphasis on) materiality (via, not only, Richard Hollis’ “physicality of graphic design”) > imposed frameworks of interpretation (via the tyranny of Excel’s matrix)
> the “designers, learn to code” mantra > tension between form-making and encoding > the overlapping roles of people > design as a process to create meaning and enable understanding
Four routes into this: 1. effects of dematerialisation* 2. language of describing and specifying 3. tension between models and encodings and… * not “immaterial”, because the physical paradigms survive
Pointers for typeface reviews (1/3): > fit of typeset text within the brief > key dimensions within the body > stroke thickness range > balance of key strokes and space within and between letters
! 1. through the way a brief are expressed 2. through the means of realising the brief 3. through our discussions with peers 4. through the records that connect the results to other acts of designing
The initial brief here is: “make me something that looks close enough to a book on a small screen” (and not: “what is the act of reading on a portable digital device?” ) [next slide]
The initial brief here is: “make me something that looks close enough to a desktop pasteboard” (and not: “what decisions does the act of document composition involve?” ) [next slide]
The initial brief here is: “make me something that looks close enough to a familiar word processor” (and not: “how do we enable text composition for an online platform?” ) [next slide]
[next slide example: on our way of thinking about things] Ikarus, FontStudio, Fontographer, Glyphs, Robofont, FontForge: what is the best way to represent a character complement?
[next slide comment] Given how many of these glyphs are derivatives (components or automatically generated), does this arrangement mislead as to the design problems in the typeface?
[previous slide example] What is topologically “correct” and well-encoded in its outlines, may be stylistically inappropriate, or even culturally wrong.
[next slide comment] A 1952 drawing for a Linotype Metro Black letter: a snapshot at the end of a series of design decisions, that on its own tells us little about the qualities of the design.
[next slide comment] Here’s a proof of a –redacted– typeface, with just one set of comments surrounding the letters: We can learn more from these comments than any “production-ready” encodings for making the typeface.
[next slide comment] So, when we attempt to describe typefaces as disparate as Formal, Fenland, and Enquire, individual shapes may be described with precision, but the style is captured by metaphor and association.
[next slide comment] And, a comment on the statement we heard that “everything we need to learn is on Google”. Data and some information, yes; but rarely the tools to create knowledge and understanding. For example:
[previous slide comment] Monotype’s Drawing Office Image: raises questions of traceability, collaboration, institutional memory, industrial relations, gender bias… None of these aspects are embedded in the image itself.
[next slide comment] A spread from Octavo on its own does not tell you much about technological shifts, the typographic context within which this was groundbreaking, why it generated discussion, or what the arguments were.
[next slide comment] Today an equivalent discussion about innovation is taking place in the rethinking of typefaces, in width (character sets), in depth (family variants) and in richness (the relationship between styles).
And if we don’t consciously talk about design interpretations and decisions, then the most obvious substitute, the narrower language of making will define the range of our expression.
gerryleonidas
sysbird
securecat
nttcom
kiaking
m_ma2i
ryusukekogetsu
excitejp
ozontech
uxaustralia
marumi
bcantrill
philhawksworth
nonsquared
rasmusluckow
mclloyd
maltzj
revolveconf
trallard
mojombo
marcelosomers
tammielis
kastner