Typeface selection is subordinate to doc design

[Paul Sholar <pks -at- GENSYM -dot- COM>]

Gentle technical communicators,

Talk of duelling typefaces is all well and good, but I find that the selection
 of
a set of compatible faces for a given doc must be constrained by the doc's
 overall
design.  When you have more freedom in design rather than less, decisions about
typefaces should be one of the _last_ decisions that the doc designer makes.
Of course, I don't believe that this decision is a trivial one, just that, after
 going
through a doc design process, the alternatives for "appropriate" and
 "compatible"
typefaces become significantly fewer in number.  This is nothing new to many of
 you.

I would rather see my professional co-conspirators approach the subject of
 typefaces
from within the larger (and more difficult) realm of "appropriate doc design,"
rather than the other way around.  Of course a doc's overall design is
 subordinate to
its purpose (such quick tutorial, quick reference, exhaustive reference, etc.),
 and so
on.  That is another thread . . .

BTW: I have yet to pick up "Designing With Type," and I'm interested in whether
 its
author reflects my particular "school-of-hard-knocks" bias.

Let's assume that the technical communicator thinks of docs as sets of
 information
built from:

*       Discursive text:        The "discussion" or "narrative" (depending
                                on the "style" of the doc) that presents information
                                in a series of paragraphs.  Even though the reader
                                should have to "read" as little of this as possible,
                                this text should appear in as "pleasing" a typeface
                                as possible.

*       Headings                Text that organizes (typically as a hierarchical
                                framework) the discursive text. Headings must be
                                easily distinguished from the discursive text, but
                                must also be "compatible" with other "tags" for
                                information used in the doc.

*       Exhibits:               Figures, tables, etc. that are integral to the
                                doc's "discussion" (i.e., that elaborate a
                                specific concept or reader activity).

*       Parentheticals:         Notes, warnings, cross-references (whether uniquely
                                tagged or not), and even certain exhibits, that are
                                not integral to a particular point in the "discussion."

*       Separators:             Design elements that help the reader distinguish
                                different kinds of information in the doc.

The selection of typefaces has to support the overall doc design, which in turn
 has to
be appropriate for the "mix" of information elements (for example, the
 text-to-exhibit
ratio) that the doc must present.  Depending on this "mix," for instance, it
 might
be more important (or less important) to distinguish the text in tables from the
 text
in the discussion itself and from the text that appears in other text-based
 exhibits
(examples, lists of procedural instructions, etc.).  The importance of making
 this
kind of differentiation in a particular doc (or doc set) affects how the
 designer
selects the typefaces.

To differentiate a doc's various kinds of information, the designer can use
 primarily
_text characteristics_ (typeface, boldface, underline, etc.), or primarily
_other design elements_ (rules, white space, icons, other graphical techniques).

I'll stop here and watch where the thread leads . . .