New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
In a previous thread I wrote: "My concept of what we should be doing in type design is that, at least in the text-type domain, we should be exploring feature manipulation / norm-violations that promote or enhance rapid automatic visual wordform resolution in reading.
Hrant replied: "As long as we make sure not to leave the Old Continent eh?
Coast-hugging is dead; we need our astrolabe."
[The issue here is chirography, or what I've been designating chirographic paraphrase in type design.]
I didn't really want to dwell on this in the context of the Learning Handwriting thread, but I do want to clarify my stance. The "my concept" statement was an attempt to articulate in my own way, a common ground between myself and Hrant. In his reply Hrant imputes an undisclosed (by me) qualification (“as long as...”) that I personally don't make. I don't do type design, but I'm interested in every exploration, including Hrants. My interest in Legato should testify to this. Legato goes beyond paraphrase. My analysis of it in several places on typophile was an attempt to measure ‘in what ways.’
Hrant promotes breaking the contrapuntal links that are at the bottom of chirographic paraphrase, because he thinks this will initiate a quantum leap in type design's ability to enhance — in my terms — rapid automatic visual wordform resolution in reading, by improving the notanic integrity of words. I think this is an interesting proposition, but I don't think the logic behind how Hrant wants to go about it is as ironclad as Hrant believes or simple common sense, and I think the negations Hrant invokes to make it seem critical at this time are more categorical than warranted.