Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Christian Thalmann

About

Username
Christian Thalmann
Joined
Visits
3,556
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
521
Posts
926
  • Re: Council for German Orthography officially allows use of u+1E9E

    No, going from ß to ẞ is an undeniable improvement in proportions and rhythm for all-caps setting for basically no loss of readability. Adding a hard top left is at best an irrelevant, purely academic «improvement» (which I do not recognize) for a big loss of readability.
  • Re: Council for German Orthography officially allows use of u+1E9E

    I doubt ẞ will become ubiquitous enough to be actively learned as a new part of the alphabet. Ideally, its meaning should be instantly clear even to uninitiated readers, as was presumably the case for the famous East-German Duden and other historical uses. The hard top left is an obfuscation rendering recognition unnecessarily difficult.
  • Re: Council for German Orthography officially allows use of u+1E9E

    Here's my point put into pictures:

  • Re: What, no Covfefe font yet?

    МДКЭ ДМЭЯIСД GЯЭДТ ДGДIИ
  • Re: Graphology

    What a revealing thread! I had no idea that rationalism was such a force here considering that we spend so much of our time deliberating on the beauty of a curve and how we feel about groups of them.
    While I might expect low levels of rationality from drug-addled rock stars, I'm not surprised we type designers are a rational-minded lot. After all, the acquisition of competence in type design mirrors the scientific method in that we often have to overthrow our subjective theories, philosophically attractive as they may be («a perfect geometric typeface is just monolines and circles!»), in the face of empirical evidence, and slowly work out the actual rules of the game by repeated experimentation and evaluation.

    Hrant wrote:
    People can put too much faith in graphology... but also in science.

    True, but the areas where the scientific approach fails are generally due to unobtainable information (e.g. the nature of the universe as a whole), sheer complexity (weather reports, human behavior), or erroneous application (human error). The answer to these things is not mysticism, which by definition has zero predictive power (otherwise it would be science). At least heuristics (intuition, gut feelings, etc.) give us a way to handle the complexity problem, albeit not always successfully. The only honest solution to the lack of information of problem is «we don't know», and to the human error, «I'm sorry». :grimace: