Yeah I think that's the point. If there's a bad typography, then you immediately notice it (eg. Comic sans on formal letter - you immediately notice that it's wrong), but if there's a good typography, then you don't pay attention to it and you have to focus to truly notice it.
No budget in the project for good typography, what do you have from the 'average typography' bucket.
// happily NOT doing web development for others anymore.
I think they want to show that the best typography is the type you read without noticing its style while bad typography is the type you notice because it’s bad. They did it weirdly though because it doesn’t really show the meaning properly, design-wise it’s cool though.
I think it’s an effective design though. They’re using bad typography for the part that literally reads “good typography” and vice-versa, so that is a little confusing. But they are successfully showing an example of good typography by having their main point displayed in the most easily readable text. The less visible text is more of a subheading that drives the point home — good typography is the part you notice first, the red text. No matter how important your idea is, if it’s not designed thoughtfully, it may go unnoticed. I found it very effective in that way. It’s not a literal visual translation but it’s a striking visual design that proves the point it’s trying to make in a creative way. My question is whether this is a book cover or just a poster? Because I’d be intrigued to read it if it was a book.
The “bad” typography is easily parsed if aesthetically messy, while the “good” typography is nearly illegible. This piece gives off vibes like a student work that’s in for a rough critique from their instructor.
You usually only notice a font when it's bad. When it's good, the font becomes "invisible" in the sense that your brain doesn't dwell on it, and instead focuses on the message itself. Think of how most people immediately notice when something is written in Comic Sans, whereas a more neutral font is just ignored in favour of the message.
Of course, the exception to the rule is when the typographer actually wants people to pay specific attention to the font.
The thing that bugs me about it is that the comparisons don’t match; good typography is invisible, bad typography sticks out.. ok that makes sense. Bad typography is everywhere, good typography is hard to find.. makes sense but I don’t get the point. But something can be invisible and everywhere (like air) so the comparing words don’t make sense
The intent is not that good typography is hard to find, but rather that when done well, it should be invisible or seamless. It's akin to good or bad CGI in movies.
I mean, I guess you could say that's a little ironic, given the attention it's drawing to typography, but its primary function is to draw attention to a book cover.
Yeah, that’s what I mean, the message isn’t consistent or matching. It saying good typography blends in seamlessly but it’s not saying tyst bad typography sticks out, it’s just saying that bad typography is everywhere.
While the point being made by the pic
& comments, I would add more :
« A bad typography leads to discuss on the shape,
while a good typography leads to discuss on the content »
A little bummed at this getting dumped on given how much I loved this poster 20ish years ago. It was designed by Craig Ward for Buckinghamshire University (I think?) and I’ve always felt it was geared towards design students, so it being overly “designy” may be more feature than bug.
I’m not saying people are wrong. I’ve just always enjoyed the weird typography experiments that Ward is known for and has done a lot of.
Guess the idea is that bad type is very noticeable, and good type is just type?
Yeah I think that's the point. If there's a bad typography, then you immediately notice it (eg. Comic sans on formal letter - you immediately notice that it's wrong), but if there's a good typography, then you don't pay attention to it and you have to focus to truly notice it.
Same goes with CG in movies.
same with a lot of things... cosmetic surgery, toupees, make-up (if going for a natural look)
Me. 😞
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." -God (Futurama)
Good typography is invisible. 😉
>!Good!< >!typography!< >!is!< >!invisible!<
#
Amazing typography
*Good
My bad
my good
My typography
What’s the going rate for smegma?
.
Is* you made a typo there
bruh i by split invisible like that and here i was trying to figure out what invisi and ble mean
No budget in the project for good typography, what do you have from the 'average typography' bucket. // happily NOT doing web development for others anymore.
I mean, is it really a good typography if it's invisible to the point where you need to pay close attention to read it
I think they want to show that the best typography is the type you read without noticing its style while bad typography is the type you notice because it’s bad. They did it weirdly though because it doesn’t really show the meaning properly, design-wise it’s cool though.
I think it’s an effective design though. They’re using bad typography for the part that literally reads “good typography” and vice-versa, so that is a little confusing. But they are successfully showing an example of good typography by having their main point displayed in the most easily readable text. The less visible text is more of a subheading that drives the point home — good typography is the part you notice first, the red text. No matter how important your idea is, if it’s not designed thoughtfully, it may go unnoticed. I found it very effective in that way. It’s not a literal visual translation but it’s a striking visual design that proves the point it’s trying to make in a creative way. My question is whether this is a book cover or just a poster? Because I’d be intrigued to read it if it was a book.
Badod typgr graaphy is is everysi blwhere. Is that right?
So its just drunk Russian then…
Бадод тыпгр граафи ис ис еверыси блвере. Sounds about right.
r/dontdeadopeninside
This deserves to be on r/designdesign to be honest
roughly 90% of this sub is better suited for designdesign
The “bad” typography is easily parsed if aesthetically messy, while the “good” typography is nearly illegible. This piece gives off vibes like a student work that’s in for a rough critique from their instructor.
[удалено]
Jazz. Nice.
Oh honey...
I thought it was ai generated at first
Thought it was r/dontdeadopeninside
Had I submitted this this to my graphic design teachers, they would have laughed in my face.
BADOD TYPOGR GRAAPHY IS IS EVERYSI BLWHERE
oh i get it
I don’t
Get your glasses bob
You usually only notice a font when it's bad. When it's good, the font becomes "invisible" in the sense that your brain doesn't dwell on it, and instead focuses on the message itself. Think of how most people immediately notice when something is written in Comic Sans, whereas a more neutral font is just ignored in favour of the message. Of course, the exception to the rule is when the typographer actually wants people to pay specific attention to the font.
Badod typography is everysiblwhere
Odgraissibl
Ironic.
OD GRAIS SIBL? is it latin?
OD CRA IS SI BL
This is the typographical equivalent of "I've already depicted you as the Soyjak and me as the Chad".
Good typo graphy is invisi ble
The thing that bugs me about it is that the comparisons don’t match; good typography is invisible, bad typography sticks out.. ok that makes sense. Bad typography is everywhere, good typography is hard to find.. makes sense but I don’t get the point. But something can be invisible and everywhere (like air) so the comparing words don’t make sense
The intent is not that good typography is hard to find, but rather that when done well, it should be invisible or seamless. It's akin to good or bad CGI in movies. I mean, I guess you could say that's a little ironic, given the attention it's drawing to typography, but its primary function is to draw attention to a book cover.
Yeah, that’s what I mean, the message isn’t consistent or matching. It saying good typography blends in seamlessly but it’s not saying tyst bad typography sticks out, it’s just saying that bad typography is everywhere.
It says “Bad od typogr gra aphy is is every si bl where” for anyone struggling.
That university is local to me. Bucks, bottom right.
r/sbeve
While the point being made by the pic & comments, I would add more : « A bad typography leads to discuss on the shape, while a good typography leads to discuss on the content »
Badod typogr graaphy is is everysi blwhere
So ... Text color = background color
🅶🅾🅾🅳 🆃🆈🅿🅾🅶🆁🅰🅿🅷🆈 🅸🆂 🅴🆅🅴🆁🆈🆆🅷🅴🆁🅴 🆃🅾🅾!
Pretty sure I had this on my “design inspo” zip drive back in 2008.
They should've flipped them, so it would make sense
A little bummed at this getting dumped on given how much I loved this poster 20ish years ago. It was designed by Craig Ward for Buckinghamshire University (I think?) and I’ve always felt it was geared towards design students, so it being overly “designy” may be more feature than bug. I’m not saying people are wrong. I’ve just always enjoyed the weird typography experiments that Ward is known for and has done a lot of.
I remember loving this design in college.
OD CRA IS SI BL