node 13291

unknown

In another thread, Carl Crossgrove wrote:

“
> and making little machines that leverage notan to create good boumas

It’s almost like nanotechnology! Ha! Ha!

Hrant, does achieving this preclude style or expression? Is there only one
way to achieve it? Also, is there an empirical way to decide what a “good
bouma” is? Do you have examples? I would think typographic context would
be a qualifier in each example.
“

I think Design must always include style (what I call aesthetics) and
expression, although in a very different way than in Art - sort of in
spite of the designer, instead of as a purpose*. I’m talking about text
fonts here, which I see as qualitatively different than display fonts
where aesthetics are often at the heart of things. I’d say that a good
designer tries to balance form and function, style and optimal boumas.
For example in Patria I’ve made some glyphs “too bulky” for what I see
as ideal readability, but it was a conscious sacrifice, a gambit, so as
to give the face a certain masculine style. You can -and should- bend
both form and function, you just have to know how far you can bend
them, under what contexts, and with what effects.

* Anything made by a human cannot avoid expression, and anything made for a human should not. But in design, expressing yourself is not the purpose, it just happens. Design is the artful balance of compromises; Art is basically just expression; although neither ever exists in a pure state, always in an admixture. Or: An artist wants to express himself; a designer wants others to express themselves. An artist creates; a designer serves. Etc. etc. etc. :-)

So there can be no “perfectly” readable font - yes, context is everything.
And style is always there, so that removes the chance of singular solutions.

Empirical determination: I think it’s possible, when a very narrow
context is defined. But it’s also extremely difficult; I myself have
yet to encounter sufficient maturity (and dough!) in the cognitive
psychology field to really nail down immersive reading.

Examples? Here’s a really cheap one:
http://www.themicrofoundry.com/ss_read1.html

hhp

unknown

>So there can be no “perfectly” readable font - yes, context is everything.
And style is always there, so that removes the chance of singular solutions.

I would add that art and design create moving targets for science to understand.
If what defines humanity is that which cannot be reduced to numbers and automated, then it’s our duty to keep redefining ourselves against our technology, by inventing new kinds of meaning which defy measurement. Come to think of it, this applies to pure science as much as to the humanities.

Examples: the invention of photography drives art into the non-objective; Newtonian physics reduces people to biomechanical status, quantum theory puts the mystery back.

I’m afraid I don’t find present state-of-the-art of reading theory very interesting, too much based on behavioral lab research. I’d prefer something more theoretical, like cosmological theory.

I have a theory that everything you’ve ever read in a particular typeface colours your understanding of what you read in that face. And everything that’s ever been set in a typeface has a bearing on the meaning of text set in it.

If the brain is a quantum computer, the process of reading must be full of quantum effects.

unknown

I don’t think Science generally tries to, or should try to, understand art and design; that’s why many people think “social science” is a misnomer. Science tries to, and can, understand things like our reading “firmware”, noting that this is something essentially impervious to cultural shifts - it has more to do with solar radiation!

> inventing new kinds of meaning which defy measurement.

That seems entirely artificial.
I don’t fight against my kitchen knife.

> quantum theory puts the mystery back.

?
It’s still science, just like Newtonian physics. Just because something is harder to understand for laymen doesn’t mean somebody whose job it is to worry about it professionally should be “mystifed” by it. So for example readers don’t want/need to know how humans read; if they see it as mystical, sure. But a type designer must do more than ooh & aah.

> I’m afraid I don’t find present state-of-the-art of reading theory very interesting

I don’t think it’s supposed to be interesting of itself (except to cognitive psychologists). What should be interesting to a craftsman -somebody necessarily interested in the mechanics of reading- is what can be discovered through research. And clearly, people like Kevin Larson are making decent progress; they’re trying - and we should encourage that.

> I have a theory that everything you’ve ever read in a particular
> typeface colours your understanding of what you read in that face.
> And everything that’s ever been set in a typeface has a bearing
> on the meaning of text set in it.

Makes sense.

hhp

unknown

Hrant, I’m relieved that you recognize this inevitable element of design. Design is fundamentally making tools, and the best are the most elegant and the most functional. Now I can make the connection between your frequent mention of notan and boumas, and your affection for Legato.

Your example reminds me that there are a lot of things that type people know, without being able necessarily to explain or quantify. Recent discussions and papers about reading, legibility, highway signage and the dyslexic have made it clear there is not enough research that takes advantage of the highly unscientific expertise of a type designer or typographer. While Science may be best not trying to understand design, it could use a healthy dose of design awareness. Even very humdrum tests have to be designed.

Meanwhile I’ve got some notan to wrangle.

unknown

>Examples: the invention of photography drives art into the non-objective; Newtonian physics reduces people to biomechanical status, quantum theory puts the mystery back.

Nick,

Quantum theory doesn’t put the mystery back as much as it is mysterious or more to the point, non understandable (to the layman). But to take your example of photography, yes, it had the consequence of driving art into the non-objective but the invention also led to interest in the documentation of historical artifacts, and especially in the mid-nineteenth century, to interest in the Renaissance. Without the camera and this interest, William Morris would never have been inspired to begin his very influential typographic revival efforts.

Gerald

Captured from web.archive.org on 27 Nov 2005. view this capture