#books l

[fortunatefires]

i forgot to post my trans rights readathon list!

I'll post another of all the books I finish when the week is up

[christinavoulgarelli-blog]

HOCHULI & LUDOVICO:How design & typesetting for electronic publishing differs from print.

It is undeniable that design and typesetting for electronic publishing differs from print. Jost Hochuli’s book “Detail in Typography” is an excellent book that demonstrates that. Just by ordering the book, holding it in one’s hand and reading it, one sees how print is such a different experience from the digital one. Huchuli’s book is a masterpiece, in a way. It is excellently designed, for readability and usability, has amazing graphics, is seamless and it almost resembles a Bauhaus design structure. It is minimalist, to the point and it provides the information that the reader/user wants both visually and content-wise. In a way, it reminds me of a digital e-book. It is well structured and concise enough to create a feeling of going back “onto the screen” to continue with the read. Up until now, it is one of the most digitally-lookalike books I have found. Its design and typesetting is almost digital. One can find such books in certain cultures, such as that of Germany, Japan, as well as some French or Argentinian publications. They do have that feel, of print emulating the digital and creating a seamless feel to the reader. As if, the clutter of reading is reduced and compartmentalized.

Indeed, as Ludovico in Chapter 4 of his “Post-Digital Print” writes, on the other hand, there are digital publications that try to emulate and mimic print. A kind of reverse Hochuli book, where we find rich, lengthy and meaningful content with elaborate phrasing.   However, I do find that such publications fall short, more so than their reverse. The design and typesetting of such books falls short, for the issue of usability and intention come at hand. Questions like: What does the reader want? Why is the reader reading this book? are very important, in such a case. 

 A digital feel of print, from my point of view is easier than the other way around. By definition, digital, works better in seamless, clear and minimalist presentations, if usability and recycling are factors of interest. Its power lies in the network regeneration or innovation fields. On the other hand, print, is not always intended to be useful. It can be obsolete, wordy and endless in its poetry and that does not make it a redundant structure, as a similar digital platform. Its design can be ugly and it can still be a book to read. Its typeface can be simple and still be the most interesting book to read. The content, might be of the greatest importance and its looks, a secondary or even non-existing factor. Here, we are faced with content. 

 In overall, Hochuli’s book does convey his message across, as well as produces an artifact-in-itself. The message in this case is the medium. Visually, one does not even need to read the book to understand the necessity of design, typeface and typography in content creation, both in the digital, as well as the print world. It has a pulse and a punch and it can be visually interpreted, as a visual narrative. This is a clever way of content creation, however, I do also find it one useful only for designers, aesthetes and structure-obsessed people. Sometimes, the chaos of a book, such as Neruda’s or Coehlo’s or of any other fiction writer, is what makes a book, a sacred place to go to and read this narration.

It gives the reader a place to imagine and reinvent. Something that visually rich content deprives the reader from applying his/her imagination to the letters and words.

 In a way, this is where I would say that “usability” and “content” are more important factor.s Hochuli and Ludovico both mention this and do emphasize that a reader that is interested in the narrative does not need rich typography or design.  I could not agree more and I do think that the fatal bullet may not yet be on its way, for it will be also a bullet to the imagination.

[anythingmorelovely]

i fell in love the way you fall asleep: slowly, then all at once.