The response to my previous post about this has turned into a very interesting discussion not here but on typophile. I may yet eat my words and revise my opinion.

Not for the first time, I have some anxiety about latest and greatest technology and software releases. This time Microsoft is causing that anxiety. Because of their market share, the release of Vista yesterday was a big deal, though it seemed generally underwhelming compared with the ‘it factor‘ of the iPhone and also, because a lot of what Gates was hailing as new, has already been done and is available via other technologies and software applications. However, what is upsetting me is the few sneaky inclusions in Vista, that demonstrate how Microsoft is yet again trying to use its market share to obliterate the competition. It happened before with Explorer and Netscape’s Navigator, remember that? Anyway, thank God for Firefox. This is par for the course in the general scheme of a capitalist economy but what is really annoying is that Microsoft’s offering is not new nor is their own idea.

XPS is Microsoft’s version of Adobe’s PDF. Here is their description, does it sound familiar?

‘The XML Paper Specification (XPS) makes modern documents possible for all. Simply put, XPS describes electronic paper in a way that can be read by hardware, read by software, and read by humans. With XPS, documents print better, can be shared easier, be archived with confidence, and are more secure.

Microsoft has integrated XPS-based technologies into the 2007 Microsoft Office system and the Microsoft Windows Vista operating system, but XPS itself is platform independent, openly published, and available royalty-free. Microsoft is using XPS to bring additional document value to its customers, its partners, and the computing industry.

For the IT professional, Windows Vista enables you to design document workflows that allow you to identify, digitally sign, and manage the access and distribution rights of your documents by using XPS Documents and documents created with 2007 Microsoft Office system applications.’

Microsoft is attempting to replace an existing and widely used format with its own proprietary document format but it doesn’t seem to offer any real benefits over PDF. They are going to include a “Save as XPS” option in their upcoming Office 12 product, so users won’t have to install anything extra (even though ‘Save as PDF’ already exists in current version). The automatic ability to view XPS files in Explorer 7 compared with using something like Acrobat Reader or installing a PDF browser plugin will also probably help XPS gain popularity.

Either way, I feel uneasy, the ground is shifting again and I am not sure its for the better. We all want competition, we all support the small enterprise and don’t want unfair competition (not that Adobe isn’t huge too). But we all want a standard format because its such a pain to have to design and modify content for so many variable displays.

Last week Quark Xpress came to the college where I teach, they were demo’ing the lastest release and really pushing hard to sell it to students. The latest bolt-ons for web and motion graphics are crude and you have to wonder why the did it (Adobe’s Creative Suite, of course). I am of the generation who grew up on Quark, its simplicity and dedication to detail in one area was always its appeal. Now I am wondering whether it can even hope to compete against Adobe’s InDesign.

As for XPS versus PDF, it won’t be designers that decide. Good luck…

The zoom feature in OSX’s System Universal Access is fantastic for teaching purposes on screen not to mention its intended use. It overcomes those annoying problems of trying to point out tiny details in an image or small features typically hidden on the user interface of many software applications. Just a click and the screen smoothly zooms to where your cursor is! Slick. Another click and it zooms back to full screen mode. Simple and fast. Fluid and natural.

It’s the logical next step in the GUI metaphor enabling you to travel in the z dimension of the screen at last (or at least it gives the illusion of doing so). It could be the answer for on-screen reading provided the resolution of the type would scale as smoothly. John Maeda’s java calendars for Shishedo have previously demonstrated how this can be achieved and are emblematic of other similar work in this field, most of which has come from his own lab at MIT (which formerly had Muriel Cooper at the helm). David Small’s Talmud project also implemented fluid zooming through landscapes of large textual spaces and some of Maeda’s other protégés, notably Ben Fry have continued to produce work that uses computation to put typography in the z dimension in realtime.

It’s not a new GUI solution by any means (MIT’s Hiroshi Ishi’s group developed a ZUI and some MIT researchers formed the company GeoPhoenix Inc.) but it does seem perfect for smaller devices where screen real estate is at a premium. What is wonderful about this Apple feature is the ease of use, the smooth and fast interaction (which makes it feel natural) and the fact that its just there, built-in, shipped quietly as an integral part of the OS without any fuss. By the way, I haven’t even mentioned the other features in Universal Access (including the VoiceOver, Display and other functionality for controlling keyboard, mouse and trackball).

Of course, there is just one other thing! Using it is fun, it has that addictive interactive quality, zoom in, zoom out, zoom in, zoom out, zoom in, zoom out…

It’s been a month since I last posted…sounds a bit like confession! Hope I haven’t lost your attention. Anyway, here are my latest musings.

Years ago I read Neil Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves to Death, which really gave me food for thought. Every time I watch Sky News I am reminded of parts of his book, especially his description of modern audiences and their insatiable need to be entertained no matter what the content or context of their attention. I am currently reading Richard Lanham’s book The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information, and much of what he has to say echoes Postman’s earlier observations.

Lanham acknowledges that in this saturated information age, human attention has become the scarcest resource. He believes that we have moved from a world of stuff to style, and that we now live in an attention economy.

Interestingly, Nicholas Negroponte began his book Being Digital with the premise that we had moved from a world of atoms to bits, from the real to the virtual. Lanham says that real or virtual no longer matter but the attention drawn around those worlds (be they real or virtual) is now our key concern.

What has this got to do with screen typography?
If we consider Lanham’s argument, then how can text (traditionally silent and contemplative) compete to hold the reader’s attention in a multimedia world?

This would appear to be the central dichotomy of my research into typography for the screen. Should text as we know and experience it in printed form become something altogether different on screen? Should we create screen typography that is nothing like print, but that is sensorial, kinetic and interactive? A typography that competes well in the multimedia world of the attention economy? Or, are we going to forever strive to conquer the shortcomings of the screen reading experience when compared with that of printed book and make its emulation the holy-grail for screen typography? Then again, is it just a matter of waiting it out, until screen technologies and resolutions become so fine that they eventually rival their paper counterpart as the number one substrate for text?

Lanham points out that it is probably pointless to argue about print or screen supremacy, because it seems almost all text is now digital in origin. The real challenge lies in designing for the wide range of ‘competing substrates for textual expression’ that are now available and vying for our attention. Admittedly, most of these substrates (other than printed forms) are screens of some kind or another (crt computer screens, liquid crystal display flat screens, plasma screens, pdas, mobile phones, electronic books, digital projectors, heads-up displays, goggles, VR helmets and environments etc).

I believe the screen is a central component of Lanham’s attention economy, because it offers a means by which new expression can be given to text in a way that printed form can not. Text on screens exists in a multimedia environment of sound, motion and interactivity. These are the lifeblood of Lanham’s attention economy and it seems only natural that these characteristics present new typographic design challenges in a screen context.

Lanham devotes much of his book to discussing ‘what’s next for text?’ He examines the shortcomings of Beatrice Warde’s famous crystal goblet analogy (an accepted treatise on the qualities of good print typography) in the context of the screen and the attention economy.

Warde agrues that typography should be like a crystal goblet containing a fine wine, a transparent container that does not taint the flavour of its contents but quietly enhances and supports the experience of drinking (reading). She proposes that well designed typography should go unnoticed, have an almost invisible style, that the audience should look through the surface (of printed typography) to get to the content and meaning beneath.

In direct contrast, Lanham states that looking through the surface is not enough to capture our audience’s attention amidst the deluge of information available in the digital world. The premise of Lanham’s book is the recognition that looking at something is now equally important as looking through it to get to and find meaning. Hence in Lanham’s attention economy, style is as important as substance or rather the trick is to see that style and substance, and our expectations of them have changed places.

If we consider screen typography from this position, it presents a wider field of design possibilities for this hitherto impoverished relation of its printed cousin.