Metaphors are ﬁne for kicks, not actual analytical thought. “Does Methedrine Reading” [ http://www.bankhead.net/BoozeAndDrugs/Drugs/methedrine.html } have anything to do with thought? Or is it just a rush!
Speaking of “kicks”. Most of which turn out to be merely “passing fads”.
Unless they are “metaphors” which are pure analytical thought. Metaphors are the language of mathematics.
“Is its appreciation increased by drinking faster?” [if the wine is good], that is like to enjoy a well designed page trimmed on the text grid, with no borders. All the science founded by Charles Sanders Pierce [http://www.peirce.org/] I’d say is based on Metaphors. And so Socrate used to pissed oﬀ people. You can recall what was written on the door of the University established by Platone, something like “Who doesn’t know Math cannot get in”. “Platone” is itself kind of metaphor: his parents called him Aristo, but his physical education teacher gave him the pet name of “Platone,” which means “large, ample.” A link about drugs: http://www.erowid.org/ Best, AS
You could say that language itself is a kind of metaphor, or to put it another way, that metaphor is essence of the sign.
Most of the history of text typefaces has been, in fact, the history of book typefaces. Prior to the 20th century, there seems to have been very little thought given to the design of text type that was not bibliocentric. This is a general and rather obvious observation, but I think it is useful to consider this as we talk about the experience of reading. In our information-rich age we are surrounded by all sorts of ‘texts’ that are informational rather than literary, and type design has adapted to this but largely by feeling its way out of the book and into new media. Only in the area of signage has there been much emphasis put on empirical testing of readability. Rather that contrasting text and display faces, we might ﬁnd it more useful to try to identify diﬀerent kinds of text faces, and talk about suitability to diﬀerent kinds of reading experiences.
>Rather that contrasting text and display faces, we might ﬁnd it more useful to try to identify diﬀerent kinds of text faces, and talk about suitability to diﬀerent kinds of reading experiences.< That is exactly what I was trying to say in my previous post: [… I think what designers and typographers need to study as well as just readability is motivation and a much larger set of reading categories to match them. ] Not until the last half of the 20th Century did we see the explosion of types and quantities of printed pieces. We had, what I call, “The Junkmail Revolution.” Our mailboxes were ﬁlled daily with unrequested brochures attempting to sell us something. We also had the changes in magazines. I can still remember magazines with fairly few ads and those were not placed so prominently. Today ads make up the majority of magazine space and content is sandwiched and snaked bewilderingly through the ads in whatever “nonprime” space remains. (You can always tell when advertisers are abandoning a magazine, it gets decidedly lighter but the amount of actual articles remains the same.) The point I was trying to make here (as well as in the new thread I started last week«what») was that their are MORE than 2 dimensions to readability, not just short and long text. How do we read for recreation (novels)? How do we read for knowledge (non-ﬁction books)? How do we read things we are compelled to read by others (memos for work)? How do we read things we hate thinking about (tax forms)? How do we read ads vs. poetry? How do we read tabular material vs. paragraphs? Beyond that, what about reading as opposed to communication? Does faster reading mean more communication or are we just skipping quickly over things that bore us? What is the eﬀect of illustration and photography on reading? Do we
Sorry, this part got dumped in my last post: … as well as in the new thread I started last week«what»)”What are we REALLY measuring in Legibility/readability studies?”
Hrant, >Reduced lighting, tired state, desire to ﬁnish a chapter< You must have missread my post. I said “I don’t think she is in a hurry to ﬁnish her chapter.” I conﬁrmed this with her, she is not in a hurry to ﬁnish.