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.
Subject:Re: Font size for headings (was:Font size) From:Dick Margulis <margulis -at- fiam -dot- net> To:Michael West <mwest -at- oz -dot- quest -dot- com> Date:Mon, 04 Sep 2000 22:17:38 -0400
Michael West wrote:
> You can find a clear division of focus among contemporary graphic
> and typographic designers on either side of a fault line that has
> "visual stimulation" on one side, and "meaningful content" on the
> other. Edward Tufte, Jan White, and some others I know about
> stand clearly on the "meaning" side, and those are the ones we as
> technical communicators should be paying attention to.
Naturally, I agree that technical communications should stay on the
"meaning" side, Michael. And the fault line you speak of is real. But it
is not new and I don't think that all designers fall on one side or the
other. The division between typography designed to grab the reader's
attention (ads, newpaper headlines, magazines) and typography designed
to convey text quietly has been around at least since the 18th c., maybe
longer. And some people certainly spend their working lives on one or
the other side of the division. But many famous and not-so-famous
designers have successfully worked both sides, as well.