amaztype, created by Yugo Nakamura of yugop and monocrafts* fame, is another example of the powerful combination of data-mining and computational visualisation. Type in any word and this engine will mine Amazon for books with that word (title or author) then it will display thumbnail images of the books over and over again randomly in the shape of the word you typed in! I could do it all day. Its reminds me of Spell with Flickr and other examples that I have posted about previously such as NewsMap and We Feel Fine, and the work of Hansol Huh. This technology would be very useful for my literature map which I will publish sketches of shortly.

Understanding the relevance of traditional typeface classification is difficult in a contemporary context. Students often glaze over with boredom when the subject comes up and it can be difficult to explain why understanding typeface classification is directly applicable to design practice. If you consider the choice of typeface akin to the selection of raw materials, quality and appropriateness for the job at hand are key. The critical ability to make the best selection is invaluable. In the context of screen typography, where the range of other factors that affect publication on screen are so complex (platform, resolution, software compatibility, licensing etc), this initial design task is a crucial one.

The Vox Classification (1954) was the first really comprehensive attempt at classifying a diverse and ever increasing range of typefaces. Developed by French typographic historian Maximilien Vox, it was later adapted in the development of the British Standard of Typeface Classification (1967). Other more simplified versions can be found in the numerous typography handbooks published in the last decade, for example in John Kane’s Type Primer and Ellen Lupton’s Thinking with Type.

The addition of typefaces designed for all types of screens, from early examples such as Wim Crouwel’s New Alphabet to Cornel Windlin’s Dot Matrix, has prompted some rethinking in the area of classification. Most notable is Catherine Dixon’s PhD research which developed a new framework for typeform description that ’seeks to provide a comprehensive but expandable method for describing all typeforms, both historic and contemporary’. Though it is yet unpublished, Phil Baines and Andy Haslam incorporate it into their book Typography, in the section on type classification. Dixon’s proposed method seems to make a lot of sense, it is based on description, on the formal attributes of type design, rather than on categorisation. It more accurately reflects the subtleties of type design practice, rather than an abstract theoretical system that seems divorced from practical use. Dixon’s approach certainly seems applicable – I plan to use it in the course of my research. It respects the existing classification but creates a flexible framework that builds on past experience and accommodates new additions without creating gimmicky categories for ‘computer’ or ‘digital’ typefaces.

I recently came across an MA project from Nick Sherman, also looking at new possibilities for typeface classification. Interestingly, like Dixon, he attempts to create a software tool to facilitate access and understanding to the proposed new system.

I know these have been around for a while, but I thought it was important to record links to them. They provide a good overview of the culture of the web and are useful to show students when introducing them to web design for the first time. Although these pieces are smaller productions when compared to traditional documentary type films, they have become very popular because there isn’t a huge amount of mainstream material available that explains what the Internet is, or that provides insightful commentary about the experience of using it. Anyway, large budget productions made by traditional broadcasters tend to go out of date before they even get aired! Perhaps, that is why these little films have gained large audiences online? They capture and record what is happening now, and it’s happening so fast that it is impossible to keep up! It is also worth pointing out, that the textual emphasis, apparent in these visions of the Internet and our interaction with it, is interesting considering many cultural commentators believe we are moving from a culture of the written word to a predominantly image-based world.I really like Michael Wesch’s piece Web 2.0…The Machine is Us/ing Us, though it is a little bit long. Its a slick edit of what happens almost unconsciously on a day to day basis on most people’s desktop.

Epic 2015 by Robin Sloan and Matt Thompson, is loaded with the history of Google’s world domination. There are some really great prophecies here. Its a shame that sometimes the visuals plod a little to the dramatic voice over, but the narrative is still really interesting and the simple interference adds to the sense of a guerilla broadcast!

The other film that springs to mind in this category, though its old now (relative to web time) and one which I very much enjoy is Richard Fenwick’s 51st State. His other films in the RND# series for Ideo are also very smart.

I am also adding Justin Cone’s film Building on the Past, which is a ‘little romp through the land of intellectual property’ and a winning entry in a competition sponsored by Creative Commons.

Finally, here is a link from Aido yesterday, the web 2.0 aesthetic applied to well known brands, no doubt these will soon look very out of date!

This addictive little tool for letterform lovers was created by Erik Kastner. He was inspired by a note made using the letters from the One Letter group with the Flickr API and decided to try making something similar as a way to learn Flickr’s wonderful developer tools.