New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Create an account
Typophile RSS | More Feeds
The HHP wrote: >Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like >most type designers -even those in >high esteem- bother with linguistics. Yett moore unzubstanciatedt non-sence
> we read best what we read most The problem is that the small, hazy core of truth in this mantra is usually blown way out of proportion, and often used as an escape by designers who are too lazy/dumb/afraid to avoid dealing with human physiology. After all, great artiste-s just *feel* their type designs into existence, right? Being a dedicated craftsman is just so un-romantic... A much better version of this mantra would be "we read better what we read more often", but of course that's a lousy rallying cry for rousing college kids. "Keep it simple, and you can sell a lot more of it." hhp
Didn't morrison once said: 'if typography has been done well, the reader won't notice it'. Isn't that the whole point/dilemma we have as typedesigners? If we put to much charateristics into a typeface, to make it recognizable for example, readability often suffers. On top of that: I once had a discussion my grandpa about the need of new typefaces and typography. His answer was *Why bother?* Isn't that an important point as well? People prefer taking the way with the least of friction, commercialization is making the mass lazy and indifferent. Why buy fonts, if you have 20 preinstalled? Or: if people have to read stuff, they will read and buy it! Even if its giving them a headache because of the bad typography and it looks so , you wouldn't even wipe your arse with it? (newsletter, technical books e.g.). But, I must be honest, I wouldn't know how re-educate the mass! Even if Apple, Micro$ and Linux (to name the big ones) would preinstall our favorite 10 typefaces, would the standard reader tell the difference? And after 1 year those 10 faces will have been used so often, that most type designers will discuss about the same topic as we do now.......again. Is this maybe an endless discussion? Jacques Ps: please don't think I'm a fatalistic guy. I will design type till I drop, even if people don't buy them. Its all your head...
> if typography has been done well, the reader won't notice it That's not 100% true (but what is?...): 1. There are different layers of transparency, and those who take the Morison doctrine too seriously only see one layer, and as a result they think that something is either readable, or worthless. For one thing, there is a difference between the conscious appreciation versus the subconscious effects of type. 2. It's not inconceivable that a reader can consciously appreciate a letterform, and this could add to the experience*. Yes, this ruins immersion during reading, but immersion isn't everything. * And reading -like anything else humans do- is an experience, not just some data-collection task. Tasks are for computers. > *Why bother?* Good question. Increasingly, type design is about personal satisfaction, not some glorious role in society. > would the standard reader tell the difference? Not consciously (and in part, they shouldn't anyway). But the intelligent graphic designer knows the value of new fonts, or fonts with particular "moods". hhp
I think appropriateness belongs in this discussion as well. IMO Times had its appropriate place in time, a v. definite reason for existence. But now that we print on a much more refined newsprint that can hold a much finer serif perhaps Times Roman has had its day. Does that mean it is now a 'poor' design? Perhaps my thoughts are too random.
> Does that mean [Times] is now a 'poor' design? I'm fond of saying that a design is only truly good for an instant in time. Of course that's an over-simplification, but it's just as true as claiming that some designs are eternal. What makes the evaluation of a typeface over time very tricky is the unavoidable role of the technology/medium. For example, Times was great for its original target reproduction conditions, but when its digital form is printed today, it might look OK on a laser printer (with the associated "ink" gain), but in high-quality offset it's too light, and too contrasty. So, which one do we judge? In the end, we end up having to ask: what *is* Times? Is it the collection of all the versions of it (ignoring for the moment the naming issues), or is it a necessarily nebulous *concept* that -to some degree- has to be evaluated irrespective of any instance(s)? hhp
> you initially stated that readers cannot tell the difference between one type and another, which you now admit is false. False. > we know that they can also tell the difference between good type and bad, as well as good setting and bad, and good printing an bad. Less each passing day, and *much* less than most type designers have the guts to admit. Some studies have shown that readers have a lot of trouble differentiating Garamond from Times, for example. This does *not* mean there's no difference - please don't lump my conclusions together like you did above. Maybe you see no difference between the conscious and sub-conscious natures of type? > Considering the colision of likely letter pairs isn't really an issue You're ignoring something fundamental: we don't read letterpairs, we read *words*. And *that's* the linguistics I'm talking about. Pairs are just one part of it, emphasized because it was the only part we could feasibly fool with... until now with OpenType! The reason not enough type designers bother with linguistics is because it's not cost-effective considering the lack of sensitivity of readers, hence the people who buy type. But money isn't everything, is it?... > they would seek help and reference from people with more knowledge in those areas. How much help? It's certainly uesful to have linguistic data available - it makes you more self-sufficient. Another major way it helps you is in making better non-Latin type (assuming you care about that...). > I think it's a potent reminder that "linguistics" plays a part in typography to the extent that language is a determiner of culture Of course, but that in no way makes linguistic awareness unimportant. hhp
I think maybe you're being too literal. What I meant by "readers can't tell the difference between Times and Garamond" is simply that for the average reader, there's not enough *conscious* difference for them to care (and caring *is* what counts, yes). This conclusion is based on having spent a lot of time as the lone font-geek among non-font-geeks. What I meant by "they can *feel* the difference" is that their subconscious is affected by the type, even if they don't realize it. This however might not be based on much more than wishful thinking on my part as a [part-time] type designer... Now, if this distinction seems contrived to you, let me ask you this "key" question: what's the difference between a display face and a text face? hhp
BTW, you know what? I *should* not have a problem replying to anonymous challenges, but the fact is -like Jonathan alluded to- it's difficult to have an intelligent discussion in these circumstances. I don't mind not knowing exactly who I'm arguing with, but it *is* very distracting -at least to me- when it could be somebody who has previously (recently) revealed an ulterior motive in being here, thus invalidating his reply-worthiness. It's become very tempting to simply brush off anonymous challenges. Contrary to popular belief, I *do* value my time, and I don't want to waste it defending an "illusionary" cause. hhp
> What "ulterior motive" might someone have If you have to ask that, then consider yourself lucky: You were spared a lot of ugliness in 2001 (and I'm not talking about S11). > One would imagine that each post could be treated on its own merits? In theory, yes. But in practice, if somebody as impervious as me to the ill-will of others is having trouble, then no. hhp
English, please. (Or French, or Spanish, or Arabic, or Armenian.) hhp
Linguistics: So, you guys like examples, right? Here's a really "tight" one: In Linotype's New Syntax (*Meier*, mind you) the "the" is badly spaced. Explain. hhp
to be completely honest, there have been so many posts today that i've completely lost track of the discussion. i believe i was simply trying to bring 'appropriateness of type choice time/place/usage' into the discussion. [[that said. yes TNR did (metal version previous to digital) have very fine serifs, but when they would make the molds (can't remember the proper term, help on this please) the serifs would be exaggerated (also the reason i believe for the thicks/thins). from the reading i have done most newsfaces at that time weren't so daring in their design (griffiths readability series, not that these didn't contribute). this is off topic sorry. Andy, obviously i'm simply agreeing with you. did the times take advantage of the newer offset technologies? have not read up on this recently. suppose my memory is fuzzy.]] also forgive the lack of uc characters. it is late. (for me anyway) this is incredibly inarticulate. hopefully, however, my point is understood.
maybe another way to put that would be: TNR was one of the first attempts to get beyond the more monoline text faces for newpaper. (more of a question) they had to exaggerate the thicks/thins/serifs in order to compensate for the loss of thicks/thins/serifs when the plates were made.
> Hans Eduard Meier is not reading this You must have him under 24hr surveillance. Wow, is he one of those Western Taliban in Guantanamo?! > could you be a bit more specific Why more specific? I asked a question: What's the reason Syntax's "the" is poorly spaced? I'm looking for the global -not local- reason(s) in this case. (BTW, why do the questions keep changing before any answers are even attempted? Is it a new Anonymous each time?...) hhp
Back to the original question: The most depressing moment in my type design experience was when I set my first "complete" face into a body of text. It was just gross. I found that my work had only started. To judge a face it needs to be seen in its context. (The breadth of that context has been debated at length here, but it really does depend on the indended audience.) As for "linguistic" statistics, I don't use higher math to chart the frequencies of letter pairs, but looking at some big chunks of text always helps.
> I don't use higher math It's not math, it's *language*. Looking at text blocks is of course critical. But text blocks don't preclude linguistic sensitivity, simply because of efficiency issues: you'd need to look at (no, pore over) a rediculous amount of text to achieve what can be done by simply looking at a list of carefully-compiled words. In type design, which is in many ways a very nebulous thing, an analytical mindframe certainly isn't sufficient by itself, but it shouldn't seem so alien - any craft depends on it. hhp
> "Because it is" Very compelling. > "This is subjective opinion" (See below.) > "Because they messed up" This one. Now: Why did they mess up? > All of these aside this seems somewhat subjective because "correct" spacing will vary with size and use. I think there is some truth in saying that spacing is subjective, but really not that much - not enough to serve as a plausible escape from doing a good spacing job. Optima is spaced better than Venis; Foundry Wilson is spaced better then Mrs Eaves (even though the latter is prettier). There is such a thing as good/bad spacing, come on. As for your point about spacing being sensitive to size/use, of course I agree, but that doesn't cover individual errors (like in the "the"). > could it be that you have an ax to sharpen? My ax I keep always sharp - but I use it very rarely - often regretting it afterwards. I have nothing against Linotype and/or Meier (quite the contrary), and in fact the "the" problem was originally brought to [public] attention by an ATypI Board Member. ---- BTW, I guess "Anon#3" is a nom de plume? Thanks. Now you can start building a "character" on this forum - just keep an eye open for abuses of your "name". hhp
> It occurs to me that people ask you what you mean, and you respond with a further question. Actually, I almost always try to answer any questions (as best I can) - do you? If you look back, you'll see that most of the dangling questions are *mine*. I ask a lot of questions, yes. I like it. > Will you not simply write what you think *the* issue is, I do not see the point in these riddles. Questions are a great way to realize something. I'm asking a certain string of questions because I want *you* (and others) to see my point through the questions (instead of me pounding it out). I want you guys to verbalize why Syntax's "the" is poorly spaced, because if it comes out of the mouth of the person complaining (me), it's not as credible or convincing. (Although admittedly that has to be weighed against your anonymity...) hhp
> I think you are just leading to show support for your eventual point Well, duh!!! > what is your point I've already stated my point, *explicitly*: Linguistic awareness is important, and it doesn't get enough attention. What I was simply trying to do was find a side door into your thick skull, by asking questions that would force you to open your eyes. What I failed to realize was that all your doors have been firmly sealed since that liquidation sale you had recently. ---- > they're coming from the same computer. How boring. I was picturing myself as this lone gladiator among a pack of hungry lions. Is it really just one crazy goat? Hey, what if it's some underground gang (perhaps the highly covert, nefarious Anti-Hrant Collective?) where a bunch of people use a single computer, to cover their tracks? (Kinda like the Sandpeople in Star Wars?) > Make your own conclusions This guy needs a life? More self-respect? A semi-honorable identity? All of the above? hhp
I forgot: > "they didn't really mess up, they had to make a compromise, because letterspacing is all about compromise, but hRant disagrees with the compromise they made" Of course it's about compromise - the entire craft of type design is about compromise. My point is that seriously compromising the "the" (which in Enlglish -the most common language- is more frequent than almost *half* of the individual letters in the Latin alphabet!) could only be done through disregard for linguistic issue (as opposed to intentionally). The "the" doesn't show up in control strings, or very much in German, but it's actually more important than the plain old basic *sidebearings* of a number of *single* letters! The fact that Syntax's spacing is not linguistically sensitive speaks volumes. hhp
> you shouldn't really confuse "computer" with "gateway" That just means more goat meat for me, yay! > can't you see that being "linguistically sensitive" is the same compromise as spacing? If you *really* think compromising the "the" is the same as compromising some sequence in Turkish, then you yourself are in effect linguistically insensitive. But I think you're just playing your game. > Are you thinking of shipping different fonts for different languages? Not me personally (I'm not nearly advanced enough), but John Fiscella (ProFirst?) I think offers different AFM kerning files for different languages. Also, from what I understand, OpenType can make something like this very feasible. Of course, if you think even the "the" is unimportant, then what do you care? > Hindi and Cantonese come to mind I think you might really be just plain dumb after all: 1. You must mean Mandarin. 2. Which doesn't matter because Mandarin (and Hindi) use non-Latin scripts. 3. And *that* doesn't even matter because we're takling about *writing*, not *speech*. Sheesh. Listen, although I have no respect for your shadow games, if you were making any semi-valuable contribution to this thread I wouldn't mind. Read your posts, and compare them to those of others: yours contain nothing of real value, not even firm opinions. Which makes sense considering why you're *really* bothering "discussing" anything with me... ---- BTW, I have a certain suspicion: Joe, is the IP coming from NYC? hhp
> even a novice sniffer .... None of this changes the fact that you're an annoying little weasel who has nothing relevant to contribute. ---- > Are you suggesting that scripts other than Roman don't matter When it comes to the "the", of course not! (BTW, you know very well how much I try to promote non-Latin scripts and non-Western cultures. And the fact that you know reinforces the view -not just mine, btw- that you're a weasel.) > Are you suggesting that Hindi or Cantonese/Mandarin are not written No they're not, *Devanagari* and *Chinese* are written. But neither of them has a "the", so it doesn't even matter anyway. Do you even remember where this is coming from, or are you just nibbling at whatever is within an inch from your nose? ---- Listen, you're not getting any younger. Get back to work and at least justify the sad fact that you have no social life by making your first original text face. But don't try to space it yourself. hhp
> I can't help but notice how posting in general on other threads has slowed markedly since these offensive Anonymous posts began. Indeed. And this is the typical pattern. On one other list the offender got increasingly rabid, eventually getting expelled, but was allowed to rejoin upon promising to refrain from personal attacks. Unfortunately, he picked up right where he had left off, and it took many more months of increasingly vicious attacks (including accusations of rape) for him to be expelled again. The worst part is that the entire process took over a year, during which many people ran away and the list was basically useless, and even now it's still pretty sickly. And in that case nobody was even anoymous... So, why does this happen? Clearly some people get so infuriated by certain people that trying to destroy them becomes a very important part of their lives, and for them sabotaging a public area which the reviled person frequents becomes a viable course of action. This is fundamentalist thinking - "just blow it up". And anonymity helps the cause a great deal. I think this forum is very valuable, and has quickly come to play an important role; the Critique area for one is a unique gem in the font world. As much as I hate censorship (and believe me I can handle any ASCII attack, with a smile), I feel there are "singularities" which have to be dealt with as exceptions, to preserve overall health. And I've come to question the value of anonymity: in *practice*, how many of the anonymous posts here have been more than just part of a smear campaign? I think maybe 2. Idea #1: Show the IP address for anonymous posts (MyFonts does this - but only part of the address). Idea #2: Anonymous posts would be allowed, but screened for offensive/deceptive content. Yes, it's subjective, and yes, it's more work for the Typophile crew, but it might be a much needed compromise. In any case, to me things are pretty clear now (again...), and the clearer things are, the sooner you act the better. hhp
>Idea #2: Anonymous posts would be allowed, but screened for offensive/deceptive content. I agree! Soren O
Why allow anonymous posts in the first place? It seems to me that people post anonymously not to protect the anonymity of their identity so much as to avoid accountability of their message. If all posts require a valid email address, a user's true identity can still be protected, but it gives the forum administrators the option to block that account should the need arise. Just my 44 lira...
> 44 more lira from me. (What is that in Euros? 44 Italian Lira = 0.02272 Euro
> nobody is putting him- or herself in danger by posting an opinion or critique on type Well, probably not [much] physical danger. But "to err is human", and sometimes it's hard for otherwise rational people to separate the "pure" idea from the source, resulting in inferior discussion. Just like happened here, actually: if I had made my own posts anonymously, you can bet that the Sandpeople would have been much quieter! (Well, that's not a "positive" example, but you know what I mean.) But anyway, the pseudonym option is always (well, still...) available. > nom de pixel :-) Or "nom d'ASCII". hhp
ferthur: >Readers can't tell the difference between >Times and Garamond Reindeers cann tel da ditherance, thae yust doont kkkknowe iT.
eye no yu doont knowe dis butt yo yust kanselled-owt yor oun argumet.
(The poignant thing seems to be that it took "Just Hranting" almost two days to compose that dubious response.) I find myself agreeing with Hrant on this one. When readers (especially those ignorant or indifferent to linguistics and elements of typographic excellence) are constantly fed inferior product, they tend to become conditioned to accept it as the norm. While we may indeed "read best what we read most," it doesn't change the probability that we might read "even better" what is carefully designed to streamline and capitalize on the science and psychology behind human comprehension. "Just Hranting [et al]"'s rants seem to be attempting to prove the point that we can make sense out of what s/he is typing in his/her childish misspellings and errors. Indeed we can decipher them, but I don't think anyone would seriously argue that his/hers is the best way to communicate. (Or, perhaps more likely, given recent posts, I'm giving him/her too much credit, and s/he is simply lashing out childishly.) David
David: >(The poignant thing seems to be that it took >"Just Hranting" almost two days to compose >that dubious response.) Hmm, it took you a further day to respond, so are you twice as clever or half as dumb?
hRant wrote: >They can *feel* the difference, yes. >But my point was that -if you make inferior >type, like by ignoring linguistics- the >average reader will not be able to grasp >what's going on, much less articulate it. I think you are missing the point completely, you initially stated that readers cannot tell the difference between one type and another, which you now admit is false. By the same truth, ie readers can "feel" the difference, we know that they can also tell the difference between good type and bad, as well as good setting and bad, and good printing an bad. It's not a "consumer's" position to articulate "why" they may find some settings easier or more difficult to read any more so than it's up to them to ascertain why the ride in one car is smoother/surer than another - that's the professional's job. Your insistance on linguistic study is also a non-starter. I don't know any type designer that isn't fluent in their own language and that of typography - they couldn't do that job otherwise. Considering the colision of likely letter pairs isn't really an issue, because type designers consider *all* letter pairs (ie you make up test sheets of all posible combinations, which in the age of the intercap would include cap-lower-cap sets). The only linguistics that may come into this process are whether a certain pair may be "useful" or whether a ligature is worth making (ie fffl does occur in German, but because of the grammar/structure used wouldn't be set as a four character ligature). That's for Western European Roman anyway. Where designers are unfamiliar with accented characters in Central/Estern European they would seek help and reference from people with more knowledge in those areas. The same is true of those I have known who have completed Greek or Cyrillic versions of their fonts. However, the questions here are not of linguistics, but of established style and practice. As to Michael's original question, yes of course you should look at any typeface that you are developing in a composed form. It's so easy to do today that I'm amazed that one would even consider not doing so. The point of a typeface in the end is not to define individually perfect looking letters - because you must end up compromising on that anyway - but to develop a set of characters that work well together in text (or display). Building a typeface character by character is as flawed as stealing parts out of the GM plant and trying to build a Cadillac bit by bit over time (ie the trunk of a '57 with the fender of a '63...)
Hrant: >False Are you saying I'm wrong in stating that you wrote readers couldn't state one type and another: You previously wrote: "Readers can't tell the difference between Times and Garamond" Seems difficult for you to deny that? Are you perhaps stating that you do not admit that you were wrong in making such a statement, you previously wrote: "They can *feel* the difference, yes." Are you perhaps stating that, may the gods hurl thunder down on us, that you were actually wrong in making that initial statement? Or something else? Please ellucidate.
Jonathan asks rather leadingly whether I would, dare to say it, disagree with Matthew Carter - and Jonathan's Swedish customer? I think this isn't quite a linguistic question, but a stylistic one. There will of course be a whole slew of Swedish type users who neither know nor care about this preference to differentiate accent use in Swedish. And I doubt that anyone setting German in Sweden will actually take the trouble to set their Swedish text in the prefered style and the German in a different style - ie it cannot be linguistic if they would do the same with other languages. Also, you'll have experience of different punctuation prefences for region or languages, or just ignorance (French setting leaving spaces before some terminal punctuation, some putting double spaces after a period... some using three periods instead of an ellipsis :-)) - which are stylistic rather than linguistic. Or, for instance, some using "oe" or "ae" ligatures rather than two separate characters, or umlauat over the "i" in "naive". (Or Swiss-German not using [germandbls].) So, no I don't say that Mr Carter is wrong, but that it's a stylistic rather than linguistic issue. Either way it is something readily accomodated with modern type systems.
What "ulterior motive" might someone have, other than to remain anonymous? One would imagine that each post could be treated on its own merits?
Are you indicating someone was making in personal attacks on yourself!?
Tiffany Wardle wrote: IMO Times had its appropriate place in time, a v. definite reason for existence. But now that we print on a much more refined newsprint that can hold a much finer serif perhaps Times Roman has had its day. Does that mean it is now a 'poor' design? Perhaps my thoughts are too random. - - - From the way I understood it, TNR (the original metal one), had exceptionally fine serifs already, in comparison with its newspaper typeface contemporaries. Wasn't it able to have these qualities because of the high quality of the Times' printing operation? And the digital version also seems to me to have overly-fine serifs for this category of type. I think if you tried making a digital type with serifs much finer than TNRs, they'd be verging on the invisible.
(How many times do I have to post this!?) Hans Eduard Meier is not reading this, so Mr Papazian could you be a bit more specific about what you meant?
[Anonymous:] > Hmm, it took you a further day to respond, > so are you twice as clever or half as dumb? I suppose either way (twice as clever, half as dumb) I come out ahead, so it's sixes with me. I concede the point. Argument settled. Tea and biscuits, anyone? ===== Regarding Jonathan's overhanging 'f's colliding in fjords (I just know I'm going to have a nightmare about that now, as I sign off for bed... :D ) -- I suspect that we would all agree that it is most important to design with one's audience in mind. The question is: for how encompassing an audience does one wish to design? From a marketing standpoint, is it desirable/feasible for, say, a Canadian designer to invest the time and energy to complete a font with a full complement of Greek, Cyrillic, Swedish, Vietnamese and Lapp (et al) characters, styles, alignment, accents and diacritics? Well, yes and no. Yes if the designer wishes to market or use the design beyond his/her back yard; no, I suppose, if this is less of a concern. As a new designer just preparing to dip his toe into the waters of font marketing, this is a real concern to me. I want my fonts to be as professional and universal is is feasible. Some days it seems that the more I work on a font, the farther back the finish line seems to move. (Architrave has a "hook-u" and a "barred-H" among others in its alternates set now, however. ;) ) David
Hrant: >What's the reason Syntax's "the" is poorly >spaced? I'm looking for the global -not local- >reason(s) in this case. It seems to this casual observer that the answer is either: "Because it is" "This is subjective opinion" or "Because they messed up" All of these aside this seems somewhat subjective because "correct" spacing will vary with size and use. Other than that, could it be that you have an ax to sharpen?
>This one. >Now: Why did they mess up? It occurs to me that people ask you what you mean, and you respond with a further question. Is there some method to this other than to generate posts? Will you not simply write what you think *the* issue is, I do not see the point in these riddles. If you want to cite an authorative source, then do so, "an ATypI Board Member" means nothing to most of us - I personally have no clue who is on the board of that org or how they got to be there. Are you, Hrant, a board member?
I think you are just leading to show support for your eventual point ie "hey look, you came to the same conclusion as I did". The dangling questions are indeed your's, and "dangling" is an appropriate description as they appear to be just bait. I could give you another string of multiple choice solutions, as Anon#3 did above, but I am not sure that would get us any closer to an answer. So, what is your point, and who do you claim backs you up? Or is that you as Atypl board member!?
Oh momma please, can I try? >This one. >Now: Why did they mess up? "because hRant said so" "Because they are stupid" (not sure who "they" are!?) "because some oldster on the ATypI board said so" (Anonymous, yes that's hRant) "they didn't really mess up, they had to make a compromise, because letterspacing is all about compromise, but hRant disagrees with the compromise they made" "none of the above" "all of the above" (including "none of the above")
For the record all the "anonymous" posts in this thread originate from the same IP address as "Anon #3". In other words they're coming from the same computer. Further, in the past several days there have only been one other distinct anonymous user, in the "Making a Living" thread. And finally, that IP address is the same IP as a user who previously posted remarks under a logged-in user name. In other words, we know exactly who you are. Make your own conclusions, //joe
Joe, you shouldn't really confuse "computer" with "gateway" - two very distinct things, which means you don't know what you think you know. And you are wrong, BTW, he wouldn't be seen dead using Exploder, why not mail him and ask?
Hrant, can't you see that being "linguistically sensitive" is the same compromise as spacing? If you're "ls" in one language you won't be in another. Are you thinking of shipping different fonts for different languages? >which in Enlglish -the most common language- >is more frequent than almost I think you'll find that there are at least a couple of languages that have more native speakers than English, Hindi and Cantonese come to mind. A3
Mr Hrant, even a novice sniffer knows that, though maybe Joe isn't a sniffer at all and would "guess" wrong, you can't really get very far tracing an IP address to a geographical location (Tomahawks with satellite nav are going to miss). To start with many ISPs have IP blocks that are outside their regional allocations (ie there are three IP registries, ARIN - US, RIPE - Europe and whatever the Asia-Pacific one is called - sorry, don't remember. It isn't at all uncommon for an Australasian or European ISP to have ARIN diesignated IPs, you can guess other combinations). Some ISPs are clearly pan-national or even pan-continental, centralizing on a few network gateways. It is also not uncommon for ISPs to use private network IPs, then send all traffic thru a few common gateways (I think AOL and @Home did this). **** Are you suggesting that scripts other than Roman don't matter, and that Hindi or Cantonese/Mandarin are not written (or perhaps that their speaker's are illiterate)? dumb: a.Lacking the power of speech. Used of animals and inanimate objects. b.Often Offensive. Incapable of using speech; mute. Used of humans. Do you mean "stupid"?
It does seem to me that the Anonymouses of the world (well, of this forum anyway) do like to take Hrant's (et al) comments well out of context, apparently for the sole purpose of contrariety. It was pretty clear to me what Hrant meant in terms of setting the word "the" in Syntax, and that the discussion of other scripts is irrelevent in this context. The attack and implication that Hrant (of all people!) considers non-Roman/non-Latin scripts to be irrelevent is absurd to any who pay attention to these forums, and certainly lends credence to the theory that these various Anonymouses are only here to be contrary and cause trouble. It also strikes me that Anonymous > Joe, you shouldn't really confuse "computer" with "gateway" - two very distinct things, which means you don't know what you think you know. and even Anon#3 > Mr Hrant, even a novice sniffer knows that, though maybe Joe isn't a sniffer at all and would "guess" wrong, you can't really get very far tracing an IP address to a geographical location (Tomahawks with satellite nav are going to miss). certainly seem to be flaunting their belief that they can say and do almost anything on these forums, no matter how inane or inflammatory, with no risk of consequence. I can't help but notice how posting in general on other threads has slowed markedly since these offensive Anonymous posts began. Speaking for myself, I'm getting tired of having to wade through them as well, only to find that they are the only offerings of the forums of late. I have much better ways to spend my time if I can't find civil, reasoned discussion of typography here. I suspect that I am not alone in this feeling. >dumb: a.Lacking the power of speech. Used of animals and inanimate objects. b.Often Offensive. Incapable of using speech; mute. Used of humans. > >Do you mean "stupid"? The American Heritage Dictionary defines "stupid" thusly: stupid: 1. Slow to learn or understand. 2. Lacking intelligence. 3. In a dazed or stunned state. 4. Pointless; worthless. They all seem to apply here, but my vote goes to definition #4. David
>BTW, you know very well how much I try to >promote non-Latin scripts I don't know you at all - just your rantings here, why do you assume otherwise? Though I will ask around. Are you on this ATypI board you alluded to? >Listen... Actually, just know about type, more than you it seems - I'm a graphic designer, not a type designer, and don't really have any ambitions to desing any fonts. But thanks for the career guidance anyway. And my social life is quite fine, going out right now in fact.
> It was pretty clear to me what Hrant meant >in terms of setting the word "the" in Syntax Something wrong to just say it? > flaunting No, just being real. Now I will be late.