Andy Crewdson wrote:
> Today seemed like a poor man's Meta
Dude, no way. I see virtually no
relation between the two whatsoever.
> It always seems a little goofy to me.
> Too informal, too much personality.
Yes, you could say that it's informal, but the "too much"
depends on the context. And weren't you the one who likes
those goofy old grots?
> But this may be why you like it, Hrant.
Well, partly. But I generally like more "formal" designs, like
Rotis. Personality, however, I think is important, at least more
than the Modernists would have us believe. Genericity does have
its place, but I think we have enough of those faces, and we need
to explore new paths of expression. The problem is that most people
who try to innovate are too artsy, more interested in expressing
themselves (as opposed to societal needs), and they generally
The degree to which personality is appropriate depends
on the usage, of course. The thing is, in this era of
homogeniety, don't we need to stand out (as long as
functionality is respected)? So in the end, since the
degree of personality is relative, I guess I like Today
because it's both innovative (much more so than Meta)
and well-crafted (like Meta).