Rolf F. Rehe wrote:
> I think there are some very fundamental issues at stake here. In the
> rush to respond to acute online matters, there seems little time to
> develop much of a vision. (Marshall McLuhan, where are you now that
> we need you?)
That's a result of the now-established Technology-Industrial Complex.
And to be honest, the core problem is Capitalism, but that's
> With the present low legibility of on-screen type, it is unrealistic
> to expect the web to become a full-fledged communication medium.
I agree. It's not full-fledged yet, and that's one of the main reasons
it has yet to replace print in the mainstream (sorry, Mr. Brody).
There will always be print, but in the same way that there are
still letterpress people now (Hi, Michael B.).
But obviously not all communication relies heavily on text, so
the web is useful even presently.
Once the screen resolution and radiation situations are improved,
things will start to change.
Currently, the best companion to my browser is my laser printer!
Each tool has it's use(s), but when a tool becomes more versatile
and sophisticated, it often replaces other tools, at least in the
> One possibility is to make online texts short.
That's currently a necessity, and the only web sites that succeed
at long text have exceptional content, which is something one
can't expect across the entire span of a medium.
> The other possibility is to make type on the screen more legible by
> technical means. While such attempts as hinting and anti-aliasing are
> to be applauded, they do have rather restricted practical impact.
That's currently true. Screen/OS resolution have to catch up to
these technologies in order for us to have much better legibility.
Current anti-aliasing technology is automatic and useful, but will
really shine in higher resolutions. Hinting, however, is currently
a poor substitute for hard-crafted bitmaps.
hrant h papazian