"Rolf F. Rehe" wrote:
> Ink bleed? Under good printing conditions it plays no role.
This newspaper (like all the others in Armenia) uses really
bad paper... :-( Does that I mean I need to worry about bleed?
> This is part of your general alphabet reconstruction proposal
Well, yes and no.
This newspaper face I'm making is generally very
conservative - you could even call it regressive,
in some ways. The reason is that Armenian type has
suffered a lot in the past couple of decades, and
I feel we have to revert to the successes of the past,
in order to build a better future. The current general
direction is very destructive.
That said, I can't help but apply my typographic beliefs
(for example, the value of divergence) in whatever I make.
I just have to be careful to balance it against the existing
precedent. In the case of this font, nobody will notice that
it's divergent - and that's the point.
In contrast to my Latin work, I tend to be conservative in
my Armenian designs. Why? Because we have enough trouble getting
people to read anything set in Armenian - it's not the time for
experimentation. Latin is not in any such danger, and it's at a
point in its evolution that it can afford to (and hence should)
improve in functionality, in leaps and bounds.
> There are some who feel a unification of alphabet styles might
> be a good thing. (For instance, I believe there is a movement
> to use the Latin alphabet in Vietnam, instead of the traditional
> Vietnamese letter shapes.) Heresy?
One could get emotional about opposing this philosophy, but
the bottom line is that different languages need different
writing systems, because they have different sounds, and
different behavior. There is no way you could make the Latin
alphabet work well for most of the world's languages. The case
of Vietnamese actually shows this very well! It's a disaster.
But actually, the type of conformance I was talking
about does not pertain to wholesale writing system
reform - just between two writing systems.