TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: Humor(?): Font fondlers, rejoice!--a brief rant
Subject:Re: Humor(?): Font fondlers, rejoice!--a brief rant From:Samuel Choy <schoy -at- us -dot- ibm -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:56:55 -0500
Bonnie writes,
It's not the *field* that needs to be "advanced," it's the quality of the
practitioners. If as a practitioner you are unaware of the psychological
impact your font and other choices have on your readers, you are not
performing at the highest professional level.
The arrogant ignorant call it "font-fondling."
And Dan writes,
How many of you would submit a proposal to IBM using Comic Sans as your
font? You might use Comic Sans for your flyers for some after-school
activity, but probably not for a typical business proposal.
Why? Because Comic Sans has a look to it that psychologically tells the
reader, "Hey, this is going to be fun!"
-------------
I'm not saying that font choice is irrelevant. And of course I would not
use Comic Sans to submit a proposal. But from what I read from the article,
I am still unconvinced that the "persona" one attributes to a font is as
significant as the readability of the font. On top of that, I think that if
a document is either technically inaccurate or is poorly written would have
a much more significant impact on a reader than the psychological impact of
a font.
Another point the article does not address at all: a lot of technical
writing is now on-line. **All** my writing is delivered on-line. Therefore
I have no control over what font my document will ultimately use. The font
will be determined by the settings in the user's browser or pc.
Another thing, I have never been convinced that you can accurately
empirically measure subjective things because of the fact that they are
subjective. For example, in the article, two of the several choices the
test subjects could pick to describe a font were feminine and masculine.
They rated the femininity and masculinity on a numeric scale. What does it
mean that a font is masculine or feminine? Yes there are general cultural
interpretations of what femininity and masculinity means. But there are so
many other variables of meaning that one can put into a subjective
interpretation, the numeric scale means nothing to me.
OK. Font choice is not irrelevant. And maybe that's interesting to know
whether or not Helvetica is perceived as masculine for feminine. But how
does that affect my technical writing? How does knowing that make me a
better communicator? How does that improve the way I can explain a complex
technical subject? How does that improve my understanding of my topics?
RoboHelp Studio maximizes your Help authoring power by combining
RoboHelp Office and RoboDemo, so you can easily create professional
Help systems that feature interactive tutorials and demos.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
