Ross Rodgers <[log in to unmask]>:
>> Huh? I don't think that's a legitimate objective of typography at all.
>>It's like saying if architects do their jobs right, we shouldn't
>>consciously notice the materials or arrangement of space, or the use
>>contour and shadow...
>OK, I have to jump in here. Architecture does not need to be read...
Perhaps architecture isn't read, at least not in the same way as typography,
but it does need to be usable, or else it becomes just(?) sculpture. I think
that typography follows a similar path -- at some point, typography veers far
away enough from the expected path of usability to become something else.
That path of usability is defined by the users' needs and expectations,
regardless of the design field, and most subtle departures from that path are
rarely noticed by the user ignorant of the technicalities of the design field.
Dan, belittling a point