LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for TYPO-L Archives

TYPO-L Archives

TYPO-L Archives


Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font


Join or Leave TYPO-L
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives

Subject: Re: Good theories illustrated with bad examples
From: "Adam Twardoch (List)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:Discussion of Type and Typographic Design <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Sat, 14 Oct 2000 18:51:23 +0200

text/plain (28 lines)

> actually not.  my immediate reaction was "blecch!"  yes, some
> adjustments might improve the appearance, but they've sure gone
> overboard.  when you have a string "...ATE..." and it ends up with
> less open space between the AT and the TE, something's badly wrong.
> and to think that i used to have a somewhat higher opinion of what
> these guys were capable of ...

Of course they got AT kerned, but while originally AT was farther than TE,
after "correction", TE is farther than AT. Also, in "MIC", IC is just way
too close. The following CR is too loose, OSO is way too tight (it's darker
than all remaining text).

And the problem is that they generally reduced the spacing of the text, so
the average user can be actually confused. A user may think that kerning
means "reduce space" and "set extemely tight".

Finally, the setting is just horribly tight. Normally, you tend to set all
caps _looser_ than mixed case, and they've done the opposite.

The result is all but even and all but good-looking.

It reminds me of one of the web design "gurus" (I'm not sure which one it
was, maybe David Siegel?) who was criticized on this list once, because he
used to aggresively write about good web design, but has actually never
designed a good looking site himself.


Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main TYPO-L Page



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager