1
00:00:00,709 --> 00:00:02,235
Type is something we consume

2
00:00:02,235 --> 00:00:04,157
in enormous quantities.

3
00:00:04,157 --> 00:00:05,239
In much of the world,

4
00:00:05,239 --> 00:00:07,107
it's completely inescapable.

5
00:00:07,107 --> 00:00:10,130
But few consumers are concerned to know

6
00:00:10,130 --> 00:00:12,462
where a particular typeface came from

7
00:00:12,462 --> 00:00:15,226
or when or who designed it,

8
00:00:15,226 --> 00:00:18,579
if, indeed, there was any human agency involved

9
00:00:18,579 --> 00:00:21,376
in its creation, if it didn't just sort of materialize

10
00:00:21,376 --> 00:00:25,088
out of the software ether.

11
00:00:25,088 --> 00:00:28,613
But I do have to be concerned with those things.

12
00:00:28,613 --> 00:00:30,130
It's my job.

13
00:00:30,130 --> 00:00:32,340
I'm one of the tiny handful of people

14
00:00:32,340 --> 00:00:34,454
who gets badly bent out of shape

15
00:00:34,454 --> 00:00:37,048
by the bad spacing of the T and the E

16
00:00:37,048 --> 00:00:38,948
that you see there.

17
00:00:38,948 --> 00:00:40,390
I've got to take that slide off.

18
00:00:40,390 --> 00:00:42,461
I can't stand it. Nor can Chris.

19
00:00:42,461 --> 00:00:44,122
There. Good.

20
00:00:44,122 --> 00:00:45,890
So my talk is about the connection

21
00:00:45,890 --> 00:00:49,290
between technology and design of type.

22
00:00:49,290 --> 00:00:51,953
The technology has changed

23
00:00:51,953 --> 00:00:54,825
a number of times since I started work:

24
00:00:54,825 --> 00:00:59,486
photo, digital, desktop, screen, web.

25
00:00:59,486 --> 00:01:01,224
I've had to survive those changes and try

26
00:01:01,224 --> 00:01:03,928
to understand their implications for what I do

27
00:01:03,928 --> 00:01:05,319
for design.

28
00:01:05,319 --> 00:01:10,489
This slide is about the effect of tools on form.

29
00:01:10,489 --> 00:01:13,390
The two letters, the two K's,

30
00:01:13,390 --> 00:01:16,715
the one on your left, my right, is modern,

31
00:01:16,715 --> 00:01:18,126
made on a computer.

32
00:01:18,126 --> 00:01:20,168
All straight lines are dead straight.

33
00:01:20,168 --> 00:01:22,978
The curves have that kind of
mathematical smoothness

34
00:01:22,978 --> 00:01:26,724
that the Bézier formula imposes.

35
00:01:26,724 --> 00:01:29,221
On the right, ancient Gothic,

36
00:01:29,221 --> 00:01:33,280
cut in the resistant material of steel by hand.

37
00:01:33,280 --> 00:01:35,405
None of the straight lines are actually straight.

38
00:01:35,405 --> 00:01:37,570
The curves are kind of subtle.

39
00:01:37,570 --> 00:01:42,284
It has that spark of life from the human hand

40
00:01:42,284 --> 00:01:44,198
that the machine or the program

41
00:01:44,198 --> 00:01:46,131
can never capture.

42
00:01:46,131 --> 00:01:48,110
What a contrast.

43
00:01:48,110 --> 00:01:50,689
Well, I tell a lie.

44
00:01:50,689 --> 00:01:53,677
A lie at TED. I'm really sorry.

45
00:01:53,677 --> 00:01:55,798
Both of these were made on a computer,

46
00:01:55,798 --> 00:01:57,724
same software, same Bézier curves,

47
00:01:57,724 --> 00:01:59,416
same font format.

48
00:01:59,416 --> 00:02:01,950
The one on your left

49
00:02:01,950 --> 00:02:04,204
was made by Zuzana Licko at Emigre,

50
00:02:04,204 --> 00:02:05,639
and I did the other one.

51
00:02:05,639 --> 00:02:08,995
The tool is the same, yet the letters are different.

52
00:02:08,995 --> 00:02:10,518
The letters are different

53
00:02:10,518 --> 00:02:11,724
because the designers are different.

54
00:02:11,724 --> 00:02:14,985
That's all. Zuzana wanted hers to look like that.

55
00:02:14,985 --> 00:02:18,106
I wanted mine to look like that. End of story.

56
00:02:18,106 --> 00:02:20,310
Type is very adaptable.

57
00:02:20,310 --> 00:02:23,631
Unlike a fine art, such as sculpture or architecture,

58
00:02:23,631 --> 00:02:27,030
type hides its methods.

59
00:02:27,030 --> 00:02:29,827
I think of myself as an industrial designer.

60
00:02:29,827 --> 00:02:31,393
The thing I design is manufactured,

61
00:02:31,393 --> 00:02:33,269
and it has a function:

62
00:02:33,269 --> 00:02:35,107
to be read, to convey meaning.

63
00:02:35,107 --> 00:02:36,753
But there is a bit more to it than that.

64
00:02:36,753 --> 00:02:38,601
There's the sort of aesthetic element.

65
00:02:38,601 --> 00:02:41,317
What makes these two letters different

66
00:02:41,317 --> 00:02:44,349
from different interpretations by different designers?

67
00:02:44,349 --> 00:02:46,362
What gives the work of some designers

68
00:02:46,362 --> 00:02:49,273
sort of characteristic personal style,

69
00:02:49,273 --> 00:02:51,810
as you might find in the work of a fashion designer,

70
00:02:51,810 --> 00:02:54,885
an automobile designer, whatever?

71
00:02:54,885 --> 00:02:56,660
There have been some cases, I admit,

72
00:02:56,660 --> 00:02:57,810
where I as a designer

73
00:02:57,810 --> 00:03:00,899
did feel the influence of technology.

74
00:03:00,899 --> 00:03:03,959
This is from the mid-'60s,

75
00:03:03,959 --> 00:03:06,194
the change from metal type to photo,

76
00:03:06,194 --> 00:03:07,896
hot to cold.

77
00:03:07,896 --> 00:03:09,093
This brought some benefits

78
00:03:09,093 --> 00:03:12,439
but also one particular drawback:

79
00:03:12,439 --> 00:03:15,112
a spacing system that only provided

80
00:03:15,112 --> 00:03:19,095
18 discrete units for letters

81
00:03:19,095 --> 00:03:21,558
to be accommodated on.

82
00:03:21,558 --> 00:03:23,534
I was asked at this time to design

83
00:03:23,534 --> 00:03:26,272
a series of condensed sans serif types

84
00:03:26,272 --> 00:03:29,435
with as many different variants as possible

85
00:03:29,435 --> 00:03:33,282
within this 18-unit box.

86
00:03:33,282 --> 00:03:34,921
Quickly looking at the arithmetic,

87
00:03:34,921 --> 00:03:38,230
I realized I could only actually make three

88
00:03:38,230 --> 00:03:41,617
of related design. Here you see them.

89
00:03:41,617 --> 00:03:44,208
In Helvetica Compressed, Extra Compressed,

90
00:03:44,208 --> 00:03:48,019
and Ultra Compressed, this rigid 18-unit system

91
00:03:48,019 --> 00:03:49,592
really boxed me in.

92
00:03:49,592 --> 00:03:51,425
It kind of determined the proportions

93
00:03:51,425 --> 00:03:53,714
of the design.

94
00:03:53,714 --> 00:03:57,744
Here are the typefaces, at least the lower cases.

95
00:03:57,744 --> 00:04:00,436
So do you look at these and say,

96
00:04:00,436 --> 00:04:03,575
"Poor Matthew, he had to submit to a problem,

97
00:04:03,575 --> 00:04:07,382
and by God it shows in the results."

98
00:04:07,382 --> 00:04:08,689
I hope not.

99
00:04:08,689 --> 00:04:10,930
If I were doing this same job today,

100
00:04:10,930 --> 00:04:13,756
instead of having 18 spacing units,

101
00:04:13,756 --> 00:04:16,840
I would have 1,000.

102
00:04:16,840 --> 00:04:19,293
Clearly I could make more variants,

103
00:04:19,293 --> 00:04:23,989
but would these three members
of the family be better?

104
00:04:23,989 --> 00:04:25,841
It's hard to say without actually doing it,

105
00:04:25,841 --> 00:04:27,548
but they would not be better in the proportion

106
00:04:27,548 --> 00:04:30,637
of 1,000 to 18, I can tell you that.

107
00:04:30,637 --> 00:04:32,575
My instinct tells you that any improvement

108
00:04:32,575 --> 00:04:35,653
would be rather slight, because they were designed

109
00:04:35,653 --> 00:04:38,574
as functions of the system they were designed to fit,

110
00:04:38,574 --> 00:04:40,983
and as I said, type is very adaptable.

111
00:04:40,983 --> 00:04:43,770
It does hide its methods.

112
00:04:43,770 --> 00:04:46,452
All industrial designers work within constraints.

113
00:04:46,452 --> 00:04:48,944
This is not fine art.

114
00:04:48,944 --> 00:04:50,822
The question is, does a constraint

115
00:04:50,822 --> 00:04:53,489
force a compromise?

116
00:04:53,489 --> 00:04:55,000
By accepting a constraint,

117
00:04:55,000 --> 00:04:57,449
are you working to a lower standard?

118
00:04:57,449 --> 00:04:59,411
I don't believe so, and I've always been encouraged

119
00:04:59,411 --> 00:05:01,535
by something that Charles Eames said.

120
00:05:01,535 --> 00:05:03,080
He said he was conscious of working

121
00:05:03,080 --> 00:05:04,118
within constraints,

122
00:05:04,118 --> 00:05:07,344
but not of making compromises.

123
00:05:07,344 --> 00:05:09,905
The distinction between a constraint

124
00:05:09,905 --> 00:05:12,280
and a compromise is obviously very subtle,

125
00:05:12,280 --> 00:05:17,951
but it's very central to my attitude to work.

126
00:05:17,951 --> 00:05:20,842
Remember this reading experience?

127
00:05:20,842 --> 00:05:22,267
The phone book. I'll hold the slide

128
00:05:22,267 --> 00:05:26,802
so you can enjoy the nostalgia.

129
00:05:26,802 --> 00:05:29,548
This is from the mid-'70s early trials

130
00:05:29,548 --> 00:05:32,177
of Bell Centennial typeface I designed

131
00:05:32,177 --> 00:05:33,951
for the U.S. phone books,

132
00:05:33,951 --> 00:05:37,270
and it was my first experience of digital type,

133
00:05:37,270 --> 00:05:41,440
and quite a baptism.

134
00:05:41,440 --> 00:05:43,039
Designed for the phone books, as I said,

135
00:05:43,039 --> 00:05:46,407
to be printed at tiny size on newsprint

136
00:05:46,407 --> 00:05:48,725
on very high-speed rotary presses

137
00:05:48,725 --> 00:05:51,477
with ink that was kerosene and lampblack.

138
00:05:51,477 --> 00:05:55,318
This is not a hospitable environment

139
00:05:55,318 --> 00:05:58,520
for a typographic designer.

140
00:05:58,520 --> 00:06:00,419
So the challenge for me was to design type

141
00:06:00,419 --> 00:06:01,920
that performed as well as possible

142
00:06:01,920 --> 00:06:06,665
in these very adverse production conditions.

143
00:06:06,665 --> 00:06:09,520
As I say, we were in the infancy of digital type.

144
00:06:09,520 --> 00:06:12,339
I had to draw every character by hand

145
00:06:12,339 --> 00:06:14,054
on quadrille graph paper --

146
00:06:14,054 --> 00:06:16,006
there were four weights of Bell Centennial —

147
00:06:16,006 --> 00:06:19,359
pixel by pixel, then encode
them raster line by raster line

148
00:06:19,359 --> 00:06:20,340
for the keyboard.

149
00:06:20,340 --> 00:06:24,764
It took two years, but I learned a lot.

150
00:06:24,764 --> 00:06:26,394
These letters look as though they've been chewed

151
00:06:26,394 --> 00:06:27,838
by the dog or something or other,

152
00:06:27,838 --> 00:06:29,780
but the missing pixels at the intersections

153
00:06:29,780 --> 00:06:31,385
of strokes or in the crotches

154
00:06:31,385 --> 00:06:34,559
are the result of my studying the effects

155
00:06:34,559 --> 00:06:37,505
of ink spread on cheap paper

156
00:06:37,505 --> 00:06:41,242
and reacting, revising the font accordingly.

157
00:06:41,242 --> 00:06:44,492
These strange artifacts are designed to compensate

158
00:06:44,492 --> 00:06:47,244
for the undesirable effects of scale

159
00:06:47,244 --> 00:06:49,530
and production process.

160
00:06:49,530 --> 00:06:52,376
At the outset, AT&T had wanted

161
00:06:52,376 --> 00:06:55,617
to set the phone books in Helvetica,

162
00:06:55,617 --> 00:06:57,282
but as my friend Erik Spiekermann said

163
00:06:57,282 --> 00:06:59,785
in the Helvetica movie, if you've seen that,

164
00:06:59,785 --> 00:07:01,820
the letters in Helvetica were designed to be

165
00:07:01,820 --> 00:07:04,561
as similar to one another as possible.

166
00:07:04,561 --> 00:07:07,835
This is not the recipe for legibility at small size.

167
00:07:07,835 --> 00:07:10,425
It looks very elegant up on a slide.

168
00:07:10,425 --> 00:07:12,615
I had to disambiguate these forms

169
00:07:12,615 --> 00:07:15,615
of the figures as much as possible in Bell Centennial

170
00:07:15,615 --> 00:07:17,910
by sort of opening the shapes up, as you can see

171
00:07:17,910 --> 00:07:20,823
in the bottom part of that slide.

172
00:07:20,823 --> 00:07:23,480
So now we're on to the mid-'80s,

173
00:07:23,480 --> 00:07:26,036
the early days of digital outline fonts,

174
00:07:26,036 --> 00:07:28,393
vector technology.

175
00:07:28,393 --> 00:07:30,431
There was an issue at that time

176
00:07:30,431 --> 00:07:32,287
with the size of the fonts,

177
00:07:32,287 --> 00:07:35,171
the amount of data that was required to find

178
00:07:35,171 --> 00:07:40,141
and store a font in computer memory.

179
00:07:40,141 --> 00:07:41,799
It limited the number of fonts you could get

180
00:07:41,799 --> 00:07:44,789
on your typesetting system at any one time.

181
00:07:44,789 --> 00:07:48,938
I did an analysis of the data,

182
00:07:48,938 --> 00:07:51,462
and found that a typical serif face

183
00:07:51,462 --> 00:07:52,921
you see on the left

184
00:07:52,921 --> 00:07:54,937
needed nearly twice as much data

185
00:07:54,937 --> 00:07:57,473
as a sans serif in the middle

186
00:07:57,473 --> 00:07:59,535
because of all the points required

187
00:07:59,535 --> 00:08:04,043
to define the elegantly curved serif brackets.

188
00:08:04,043 --> 00:08:07,477
The numbers at the bottom of the slide, by the way,

189
00:08:07,477 --> 00:08:09,179
they represent the amount of data

190
00:08:09,179 --> 00:08:12,984
needed to store each of the fonts.

191
00:08:12,984 --> 00:08:15,150
So the sans serif, in the middle,

192
00:08:15,150 --> 00:08:18,114
sans the serifs, was much more economical,

193
00:08:18,114 --> 00:08:20,313
81 to 151.

194
00:08:20,313 --> 00:08:23,970
"Aha," I thought. "The engineers have a problem.

195
00:08:23,970 --> 00:08:26,205
Designer to the rescue."

196
00:08:26,205 --> 00:08:28,552
I made a serif type, you can see it on the right,

197
00:08:28,552 --> 00:08:30,499
without curved serifs.

198
00:08:30,499 --> 00:08:32,915
I made them polygonal, out
of straight line segments,

199
00:08:32,915 --> 00:08:34,898
chamfered brackets.

200
00:08:34,898 --> 00:08:39,266
And look, as economical in data as a sans serif.

201
00:08:39,266 --> 00:08:41,565
We call it Charter, on the right.

202
00:08:41,565 --> 00:08:43,535
So I went to the head of engineering

203
00:08:43,535 --> 00:08:45,993
with my numbers, and I said proudly,

204
00:08:45,993 --> 00:08:48,121
"I have solved your problem."

205
00:08:48,121 --> 00:08:51,834
"Oh," he said. "What problem?"

206
00:08:51,834 --> 00:08:53,480
And I said, "Well, you know, the problem

207
00:08:53,480 --> 00:08:56,897
of the huge data you require
for serif fonts and so on."

208
00:08:56,897 --> 00:09:00,444
"Oh," he said. "We solved that problem last week.

209
00:09:00,444 --> 00:09:02,600
We wrote a compaction routine that reduces

210
00:09:02,600 --> 00:09:05,180
the size of all fonts by an order of magnitude.

211
00:09:05,180 --> 00:09:07,168
You can have as many fonts on your system

212
00:09:07,168 --> 00:09:08,726
as you like."

213
00:09:08,726 --> 00:09:11,340
"Well, thank you for letting me know," I said.

214
00:09:11,340 --> 00:09:12,970
Foiled again.

215
00:09:12,970 --> 00:09:15,015
I was left with a design solution

216
00:09:15,015 --> 00:09:19,488
for a nonexistent technical problem.

217
00:09:19,488 --> 00:09:21,957
But here is where the story sort
of gets interesting for me.

218
00:09:21,957 --> 00:09:24,552
I didn't just throw my design away

219
00:09:24,552 --> 00:09:25,953
in a fit of pique.

220
00:09:25,953 --> 00:09:27,690
I persevered.

221
00:09:27,690 --> 00:09:29,858
What had started as a technical exercise

222
00:09:29,858 --> 00:09:33,122
became an aesthetic exercise, really.

223
00:09:33,122 --> 00:09:36,171
In other words, I had come to like this typeface.

224
00:09:36,171 --> 00:09:38,490
Forget its origins. Screw that.

225
00:09:38,490 --> 00:09:40,980
I liked the design for its own sake.

226
00:09:40,980 --> 00:09:43,363
The simplified forms of Charter

227
00:09:43,363 --> 00:09:45,446
gave it a sort of plain-spoken quality

228
00:09:45,446 --> 00:09:46,997
and unfussy spareness

229
00:09:46,997 --> 00:09:49,487
that sort of pleased me.

230
00:09:49,487 --> 00:09:52,040
You know, at times of technical innovation,

231
00:09:52,040 --> 00:09:53,560
designers want to be influenced

232
00:09:53,560 --> 00:09:55,296
by what's in the air.

233
00:09:55,296 --> 00:09:57,527
We want to respond. We want to be pushed

234
00:09:57,527 --> 00:10:00,938
into exploring something new.

235
00:10:00,938 --> 00:10:03,837
So Charter is a sort of parable for me, really.

236
00:10:03,837 --> 00:10:07,627
In the end, there was no hard and fast causal link

237
00:10:07,627 --> 00:10:10,820
between the technology and the design of Charter.

238
00:10:10,820 --> 00:10:14,582
I had really misunderstood the technology.

239
00:10:14,582 --> 00:10:17,910
The technology did suggest something to me,

240
00:10:17,910 --> 00:10:20,027
but it did not force my hand,

241
00:10:20,027 --> 00:10:22,744
and I think this happens very often.

242
00:10:22,744 --> 00:10:25,370
You know, engineers are very smart,

243
00:10:25,370 --> 00:10:26,926
and despite occasional frustrations

244
00:10:26,926 --> 00:10:28,453
because I'm less smart,

245
00:10:28,453 --> 00:10:30,180
I've always enjoyed working with them

246
00:10:30,180 --> 00:10:32,258
and learning from them.

247
00:10:32,258 --> 00:10:34,600
Apropos, in the mid-'90s,

248
00:10:34,600 --> 00:10:37,291
I started talking to Microsoft

249
00:10:37,291 --> 00:10:39,679
about screen fonts.

250
00:10:39,679 --> 00:10:42,100
Up to that point, all the fonts on screen

251
00:10:42,100 --> 00:10:44,853
had been adapted from previously existing

252
00:10:44,853 --> 00:10:47,230
printing fonts, of course.

253
00:10:47,230 --> 00:10:49,733
But Microsoft foresaw correctly

254
00:10:49,733 --> 00:10:51,883
the movement, the stampede

255
00:10:51,883 --> 00:10:54,670
towards electronic communication,

256
00:10:54,670 --> 00:10:56,700
to reading and writing onscreen

257
00:10:56,700 --> 00:10:59,833
with the printed output as being sort of secondary

258
00:10:59,833 --> 00:11:02,056
in importance.

259
00:11:02,056 --> 00:11:05,635
So the priorities were just tipping at that point.

260
00:11:05,635 --> 00:11:07,829
They wanted a small core set of fonts

261
00:11:07,829 --> 00:11:11,134
that were not adapted but designed for the screen

262
00:11:11,134 --> 00:11:13,707
to face up to the problems of screen,

263
00:11:13,707 --> 00:11:17,549
which were their coarse resolution displays.

264
00:11:17,549 --> 00:11:21,080
I said to Microsoft, a typeface designed

265
00:11:21,080 --> 00:11:22,649
for a particular technology

266
00:11:22,649 --> 00:11:26,024
is a self-obsoleting typeface.

267
00:11:26,024 --> 00:11:28,118
I've designed too many faces in the past

268
00:11:28,118 --> 00:11:31,697
that were intended to mitigate technical problems.

269
00:11:31,697 --> 00:11:34,532
Thanks to the engineers, the
technical problems went away.

270
00:11:34,532 --> 00:11:37,021
So did my typeface.

271
00:11:37,021 --> 00:11:40,152
It was only a stopgap.

272
00:11:40,152 --> 00:11:41,693
Microsoft came back to say that

273
00:11:41,693 --> 00:11:43,323
affordable computer monitors

274
00:11:43,323 --> 00:11:44,520
with better resolutions

275
00:11:44,520 --> 00:11:47,116
were at least a decade away.

276
00:11:47,116 --> 00:11:49,770
So I thought, well, a decade, that's not bad,

277
00:11:49,770 --> 00:11:52,182
that's more than a stopgap.

278
00:11:52,182 --> 00:11:54,183
So I was persuaded, I was convinced,

279
00:11:54,183 --> 00:11:56,505
and we went to work on what became Verdana

280
00:11:56,505 --> 00:11:58,177
and Georgia,

281
00:11:58,177 --> 00:12:00,517
for the first time working not on paper

282
00:12:00,517 --> 00:12:04,477
but directly onto the screen from the pixel up.

283
00:12:04,477 --> 00:12:08,330
At that time, screens were binary.

284
00:12:08,330 --> 00:12:11,370
The pixel was either on or it was off.

285
00:12:11,370 --> 00:12:14,225
Here you see the outline of a letter,

286
00:12:14,225 --> 00:12:15,692
the cap H,

287
00:12:15,692 --> 00:12:18,493
which is the thin black line, the contour,

288
00:12:18,493 --> 00:12:21,369
which is how it is stored in memory,

289
00:12:21,369 --> 00:12:23,039
superimposed on the bitmap,

290
00:12:23,039 --> 00:12:25,187
which is the grey area,

291
00:12:25,187 --> 00:12:27,024
which is how it's displayed on the screen.

292
00:12:27,024 --> 00:12:30,170
The bitmap is rasterized from the outline.

293
00:12:30,170 --> 00:12:32,411
Here in a cap H, which is all straight lines,

294
00:12:32,411 --> 00:12:34,499
the two are in almost perfect sync

295
00:12:34,499 --> 00:12:38,867
on the Cartesian grid.

296
00:12:38,867 --> 00:12:41,993
Not so with an O.

297
00:12:41,993 --> 00:12:44,720
This looks more like bricklaying
than type design,

298
00:12:44,720 --> 00:12:47,621
but believe me, this is a good bitmap O,

299
00:12:47,621 --> 00:12:49,636
for the simple reason that it's symmetrical

300
00:12:49,636 --> 00:12:52,116
in both x and y axes.

301
00:12:52,116 --> 00:12:54,974
In a binary bitmap, you actually can't ask

302
00:12:54,974 --> 00:12:56,694
for more than that.

303
00:12:56,694 --> 00:12:59,098
I would sometimes make, I don't know,

304
00:12:59,098 --> 00:13:01,454
three or four different versions of a difficult letter

305
00:13:01,454 --> 00:13:02,960
like a lowercase A,

306
00:13:02,960 --> 00:13:06,500
and then stand back to choose which was the best.

307
00:13:06,500 --> 00:13:08,595
Well, there was no best,

308
00:13:08,595 --> 00:13:11,020
so the designer's judgment comes in

309
00:13:11,020 --> 00:13:12,409
in trying to decide

310
00:13:12,409 --> 00:13:15,450
which is the least bad.

311
00:13:15,450 --> 00:13:17,900
Is that a compromise?

312
00:13:17,900 --> 00:13:19,446
Not to me, if you are working

313
00:13:19,446 --> 00:13:22,533
at the highest standard the technology will allow,

314
00:13:22,533 --> 00:13:24,742
although that standard may be

315
00:13:24,742 --> 00:13:27,221
well short of the ideal.

316
00:13:27,221 --> 00:13:28,812
You may be able to see on this slide

317
00:13:28,812 --> 00:13:30,974
two different bitmap fonts there.

318
00:13:30,974 --> 00:13:32,670
The "a" in the upper one, I think,

319
00:13:32,670 --> 00:13:34,583
is better than the "a" in the lower one,

320
00:13:34,583 --> 00:13:37,159
but it still ain't great.

321
00:13:37,159 --> 00:13:39,066
You can maybe see the effect better

322
00:13:39,066 --> 00:13:42,442
if it's reduced. Well, maybe not.

323
00:13:42,442 --> 00:13:44,838
So I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist,

324
00:13:44,838 --> 00:13:46,341
out of necessity.

325
00:13:46,341 --> 00:13:48,270
For a certain kind of temperament,

326
00:13:48,270 --> 00:13:49,970
there is a certain kind of satisfaction

327
00:13:49,970 --> 00:13:53,608
in doing something that cannot be perfect

328
00:13:53,608 --> 00:13:57,477
but can still be done to the best of your ability.

329
00:13:57,477 --> 00:14:02,334
Here's the lowercase H from Georgia Italic.

330
00:14:02,334 --> 00:14:04,607
The bitmap looks jagged and rough.

331
00:14:04,607 --> 00:14:06,466
It is jagged and rough.

332
00:14:06,466 --> 00:14:08,462
But I discovered, by experiment,

333
00:14:08,462 --> 00:14:11,679
that there is an optimum slant

334
00:14:11,679 --> 00:14:13,625
for an italic on a screen

335
00:14:13,625 --> 00:14:15,957
so the strokes break well

336
00:14:15,957 --> 00:14:18,440
at the pixel boundaries.

337
00:14:18,440 --> 00:14:21,221
Look in this example how, rough as it is,

338
00:14:21,221 --> 00:14:23,271
how the left and right legs

339
00:14:23,271 --> 00:14:25,220
actually break at the same level.

340
00:14:25,220 --> 00:14:28,740
That's a victory. That's good, right there.

341
00:14:28,740 --> 00:14:31,918
And of course, at the lower depths,

342
00:14:31,918 --> 00:14:33,841
you don't get much choice.

343
00:14:33,841 --> 00:14:38,886
This is an S, in case you were wondering.

344
00:14:38,886 --> 00:14:41,040
Well, it's been 18 years now

345
00:14:41,040 --> 00:14:43,690
since Verdana and Georgia were released.

346
00:14:43,690 --> 00:14:45,780
Microsoft were absolutely right,

347
00:14:45,780 --> 00:14:48,194
it took a good 10 years,

348
00:14:48,194 --> 00:14:50,474
but screen displays now do have

349
00:14:50,474 --> 00:14:52,927
improved spatial resolution,

350
00:14:52,927 --> 00:14:56,399
and very much improved photometric resolution

351
00:14:56,399 --> 00:14:59,553
thanks to anti-aliasing and so on.

352
00:14:59,553 --> 00:15:03,250
So now that their mission is accomplished,

353
00:15:03,250 --> 00:15:04,980
has that meant the demise

354
00:15:04,980 --> 00:15:06,860
of the screen fonts that I designed

355
00:15:06,860 --> 00:15:09,511
for coarser displays back then?

356
00:15:09,511 --> 00:15:12,906
Will they outlive the now-obsolete screens

357
00:15:12,906 --> 00:15:15,078
and the flood of new web fonts

358
00:15:15,078 --> 00:15:16,581
coming on to the market?

359
00:15:16,581 --> 00:15:18,441
Or have they established their own

360
00:15:18,441 --> 00:15:20,679
sort of evolutionary niche

361
00:15:20,679 --> 00:15:24,416
that is independent of technology?

362
00:15:24,416 --> 00:15:26,087
In other words, have they been absorbed

363
00:15:26,087 --> 00:15:29,400
into the typographic mainstream?

364
00:15:29,400 --> 00:15:33,058
I'm not sure, but they've had a good run so far.

365
00:15:33,058 --> 00:15:35,553
Hey, 18 is a good age for anything

366
00:15:35,553 --> 00:15:37,704
with present-day rates of attrition,

367
00:15:37,704 --> 00:15:39,618
so I'm not complaining.

368
00:15:39,618 --> 00:15:42,457
Thank you.

369
00:15:42,457 --> 00:15:44,634
(Applause)