week 5-2 commentary - meenu singh
I thought this reading on type faces was very interesting. I really enjoyed the sytematic explanation of how typefaces were developed and are designed to adapt to their purpose. I didn’t know about the different families/categorizations of typefaces before this reading so I appreciated that explanation. For me, typefaces are an interesting intersection of art and language, because it shows the intricaties and infintie number of design choices that are made in order to communicate text to an audience. The layout and typeface of a text is first percieved as a whole before we even begin to read the word.
I found it interesting that a lot of the typefaces used in books/papers used today have not changed much. The author says that “We read best what we read most”, which means that even if a certain typeface is ineffective at communicating text, many have been so standardized that we have grown accustomed to reading them. This makes me wonder if an innovative typeface would be able to break customs, even if it meets its design goals more effectively.
I also liked the way the author attributed typefaces to different emotions, objects, and purposes. In the example where we had to match the typefaces to the shoes, I was fascinated by how so many of the typefaces had a distinct character where we could almost arbitrarily connect it to one of the shoes. Although I swapped some of the type face examples, I was able to get the majority correct which surprised me at how my brain was able to make the connection that was seemingly nonsensical.