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: Spartan typography From:Michael Lewis <lewism -at- BRANDLE -dot- COM -dot- AU> Date:Fri, 19 Dec 1997 17:23:07 +1100
Bruce Byfield wrote:
> Excuse me if I take your comment and run with it:
> This statement is exactly what Eric Gill objected to: the seperation
> between utilitarianism and aesthetics in modern thought.
> Gill's contention is that something that is perfectly designed for its
> purpose has a simplicity and strength of design as well. I'd liken this
> idea to the concept of an "elgant proof" in mathematics.
> Gill went on to say that such a combination of practicality and beauty
> is only possible when the makers of the artifact have an interest in
> what they are doing, and a determination to do it well.
> If that's so, then I suggest that ugly, utilitarian technical writing
> exists because someone, somewhere doesn't care about they're doing.
> Sometimes, that someone is the client or the company, and writers can
> only do so much about that.
> However, even then, writers and designers who care about their work can
> mitigate the effect of this lack of concern.
> Yeah, this is idealistic, and I don't know what reason I have for
> idealism these days. But if I can't care about my work, I don't want to
> do it, thanks very much.
I don't think we're as far apart as you're suggesting, Bruce. I'm not
saying aesthetic values aren't important. I'm not saying "as long as it
works, who gives a stuff what it looks like". What I am saying is that
(a) it should be possible to redefine info structures so that clarity
can be achieved without ugliness; (b) if in any given case that's not
possible (or the client / employer won't wear the cost), clarity has to
come before beauty. The question of cost is probably where idealism and
practicality part company: like you, I don't want to produce anything
that doesn't look good (inviting, pleasing, soothing, whatever), but I'm
running a business, not a charity. As with so many aspects of
professional activity, there are trade-offs we have to make. Just as I
would rather issue a manual that's 95% complete than keep it back for
three months while I pursue the other 5%, so I would rather sacrifice
some aesthetic value rather than compromise completion, cost, or
Brandle Pty Limited, Sydney, Australia
PO Box 1249, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012
Suite 8, The Watertower, 1 Marian St, Redfern 2016
Tel +61-2-9310-2224 ... Fax +61-2-9310-5056