>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.
Well said. Although, "ignorant" users may not notice, they likely are aware
of a certain atmosphere created by the typography which may or may not help
usability. Indeed this typographic "environment" can be a determining
factor of whether a piece gets "used". The path is more like a "terrain".
"Toronto to Halifax via Vancouver -- not the straightest route, but it's
Ross Rodgers ([log in to unmask])
Phone: 416.504.3894 Fax: 416.504.6604
iNk/Digital-iNk, 555 Richmond St. W., Suite 504, Toronto, ON. CAN. M5V 3B1