Best of Type –

Worst of Type

by Liana King

THE BEST

From a production standpoint, desktop typography is a vast improvement over phototypesetting. No more stinking chemistry or expensive dedicated systems! Also, the ability to fine tune, noodle, and tweak layouts is an immensely satisfying luxury, compared to the typographic systems of the '70s and '80s.

From a design standpoint, desktop is a powerful tool, such as the speed and ease of copyfitting, the ability to coarse and fine kern, to easily wrap type around visuals. It's marvelous to be able to quickly see how type will perform in a variety of layout presentations.

Dewitt Jones, photographer for the National Geographic, says, "There are many right answers. When it comes to typography, cutting-edge technology allows me to explore those answers, to play with type and see how it will best present itself, to examine how type will best serve the editorial, marketing or artistic message of a project."

A typeface can be very subtly nudged without compromising its integrity so as to increase legibility or for design impact. Very subtle adjustments in letterspacing (or tracking) and in vertical/horizontal presentation can sometimes add just the cosmetic touch needed to flatter a recalcitrant typeface, give it a little breathing room, a little height, perhaps, so that it will be just a little more legible.

THE WORST

Abuses of the design power that desktop offers abound everywhere from grotesquely distorted type insulting to the form of the letter to enough new and largely useless cute "display" typefaces to fill a museum of horrors. Desktop designers become so mesmerized by the digital aspects of their work that they forget the primary communication functions.

We cannot keep up with the technology. An informal survey of reactions to this issue in a class I teach at San Francisco State University quickly turned into a design therapy session: "Another thing that makes me mad is that I can't afford to upgrade." "You paid what? I got it for much less!"

The technology cannot keep up with itself. The plethora of new fonts are difficult to install and manage. Maintaining a type library with thousands of fonts may be entertaining, however, it's time consuming. Type foundries in the past, such as Mackenzie & Harris of San Francisco, Baltimore Type and Composition Corp. or the Los Angeles Type Founders provided detailed specimen books. So did phototypesetting giants such as Compugraphic and Varityper. Also, Microsoft fonts and templates, designed for laser printers, may have problems converting through to film.

Finally, and with reluctance, it must be mentioned that not every desktop operator is a designer. I mention this reluctantly, because typographers have complained about amateurs for the last 400 years, and it's still a cheap shot. How many designers can look back at their earliest products without occasionally wincing with dismay? Be that as it may, blaming bad typography on the computer is like blaming cars instead of bad drivers for highway deaths. Pointing fingers is pretty useless when what is needed is training.

With over 70% of worldwide advertising moneys targeted on United States consumers, the competition for attention is high. The demand for visual coherence now is as great as ever, if not more so. Also, there is that other issue, the one we've avoided discussing, the artistry and esthetics of typography. It remains interesting to watch what emerges with the technology.

This article was originally published in the Spring 1997 edition of "Blueline", a publication of the Print Buyers Association of Northern California and is reprinted with permission.

The author, Liana King, is the owner of Franciscan Communications in San Francisco and is a member of the San Francisco Club of Litho and Printing House Craftsmen.

Table of Contents
|_About NALC_||_Local Clubs_||_Resources_|
|_Articles_||_Convention Information_||_Links_|
|_Sponsors_||_Guestbook_||Suggestions|

This site is hosted by:
Cardoza-James Binding Company