Joe Clark Declares Bringhurst ‘a Bore’

Although I haven't read the article in question, sometimes in tha past I have thought his prose to be a bit to "flowery". It amlost reads like a novel. Having said that if you want a definitive answer on how to set type then this is the book to read. Not only that, it is beautifully set, printed and bounded. The quality of the paper is excellent. I would hope that the author would produce an updated version to take into account newer technologies and of course newer typefaces. That just my 2 (euro) cent.

I have been picking away for weeks at completing the ATypI coverage. Also, the print stylesheet isn't MACABRE. I'll make a separate article later, probably. Probably.

Yikes. And I thought we academics were brutal.

mm

My 2 cents.

Cent 1: Robert Bringhurst's lecture was perhaps a little bit too deep for Joe, who seems to like to keep things simple. Mr Bringhurst has written what many - including myself - consider to be THE book on type and typography for the present day. Besides being thoughtful, it is beautifully made, and is itself a model of good typography. The second edition has been released, Mr Carpenter, and I am assuming that a third edition is on the way.

Cent 2: Joe Clark has no love for design or typography. What few dealings I have had with Mr Clark have all left me disappointed by his failure to "get it".

This being said, it is Mr Clark's prerogative to express his opinion through his blog, and if I don't like it, I don't have to follow links to said blog to read what Mr Clark has to say.

c

Chester is right on.
The operative term in the title of this entry is "Joe Clark".

As for RB, although I have fundamental ideological differences with him, and although I have seen others complain about certain aspects of his contribution, he's brought good things to type. I would kinda recommend his book over Joe's*, which boasts of using every ligature available, among other provincialities.

* http://joeclark.org/book/

hhp

The best part about being criticized by Chester and Hrant H. Papazian is that their criticisms have all the impact of a neutrino whizzing through the earth. I'd stack my 20 years of avid typographic scholarship against theirs anyday.

Nice to keep things positive here at Typographi.ca, though.

Oooooohhhhh!!!!! I got fitty cent on the Armenian.

Armenian-American, Glutton. Armenian-American.

Armenian, American, Lebanese, even part Catalan.
It's not where you live, it's what you learn.

And it's also not the years, Joe, it's what you're born with and what your parents did. But I'm not criticizing you because I think it'll make people dislike you more (that would be too Joe), I'm doing it because I enjoy communicating.

hhp

Yes, the Bringhurst book is a wonderful primer and Bringhurst writes as only a poet can.

Why does everyone overlook his Short History of the Printed Word, though? It's even better written (and less compartmentalized) and a better all-around introduction to the wider displines of design.

I've bought it but haven't read it yet. Some knowledgable person told me it wasn't highly impressive though - I'm not sure why.

hhp

Reaction to Bringhurst's keynote at ATypI was very mixed, which I'd guessed it might be. Talking about it over the next few days with a variety of people, I realised that most people had either loved it or hated it, been fascinated or been put to sleep. I don't think this is a bad result for a keynote address: it gave people something to argue about over dinner.

[Note, regarding A short history of the printed word, this is still very much Warren Chappell's book. Bringhurst has updated it and edited it a bit, but the prose is largely Chappell's. Robert has actually done quite a good job of matching his prose style to Chappell's even in the wholly new chapters. It is a good book. Chappell's original edition was one of the first books on typography and printing that I ever read.]

Hrant, I might have told you that it wasn't highly impressive when I first read it (although I'm not really a knowledgeable person). But on my 3rd reading I've revised my opinion of the book. Eurocentric, sure, but lots of great technical information and great presentation. And yes, John is right, while it is much changed from the earlier Chappell-solo edition, it is still more C than B.

Joe, I enjoyed reading your Log, I had no idea how did this ATYPI conferece was like, some day I´ll trave to one.

Although I do like Bringurst´s, somebody has not to and we need that to be so. I think of this book as a philosophical appreciation of type and a good reference to the craft, and I feel that part of the book´s success is the urgency of this philosophical and espiritual answers on the craft´s value.

Joe, Joe, Joe - 20 years of scholarship, or 1 year 20 times over?

Back in the knife-box, Miss Sharp!

I don't know who Joe Clark is, but the book of Gary Bringhurst, although impeccable and outstanding shows such a narrow view of the concept of typography I felt in jail reading it.
Also I don't understand how and why Triplex is selected by Bringhurst among his examples when it does not seem to belong to the definition of typography he seems to have in his mind.
Triplex (especially John Downer's italic) is absolutely a milestone for its radical synthesis of cursive chancery derivated faces, but belongs to a comntemporary sensibility of which Bringhurst seems unaware. Downer replies he does not consider it avant-garde, but I don't agree. What makes most of the work of Downer fantastic is its radical modernity, and this puts Triplex in the same league of classic text faces, but does not trap it inside a definition.
And the Bringhurst book is a book of definitions, classes, and undisputable "dogmas" which can't be redefined if not by himself. I'm not interested in these things.

Blogs are pathetic.

Is Gary Bringhurst Robert's evil twin?

I don't care what anyone says: Joe was the best damn prime minister we ever had, even if it was only for a few days.

I'm really sorry: it wasn't on purpose: I don't know why but I associate "Gary" with "Bringhurst" instead of "Robert".
Does a "Gary" exist at least? Maybe in my dreams...

I'm really sorry: it wasn't on purpose: I don't know why but I associate "Gary" with "Bringhurst" instead of "Robert".
Does a "Gary" exist at least? Maybe in my dreams...

Triplex (especially John Downer’s italic) is absolutely a milestone for its radical synthesis of cursive chancery derivated faces

John Downer's exceptional italic is the only good thing about Triplex, Claudio. ;-)

I thought Mr Bringhurst's ATypI presentation was rather symphonic -- the first movement arresting, but the 2nd puts one into a mediatative trance. In which case, his finale wasn't quite rousing enough.

BTW, even good typographers routinely ignore Mr B's advice, such as to leave out the unnecessary punctuation.

It is, after all, a style guide, not a rule book.

It could do with some competition, especially something more concise and uniformly practical. Hrant, Joe, anything in the works?

For instance, The Elements'... section on typology does not, as prior chapters do, summarize conventional wisdom (eg Adobe's system), but offers a quirky personal theory. Interesting, but a more scholarly perspective would compare different typological systems, including FontFont's.

I've always liked the way DeVinne's "The Practice of Typography -- Correct Composition" (1901, 01, 21...). cuts the issues.

> I felt in jail reading it.

That's because you take things too literally. Religious deformation? You don't have to believe in something to take it seriously - to assimilate it into your own big picture.

> this puts Triplex in the same league of classic text faces.

Easy, habeebi, easy.
Triplex is a passing phase (even though Downer's component is indeed notable).

The only real text face in the Emigre stables is Eidetic.

> Hrant, ... anything in the works?

Something that will show the many ways in which both Bringhurst and Piccinini are wrong (the latter being easier). But don't hold your breath.

hhp

Whatever happened to Andy Crewdson?

Can someone please do a blow-by-blow of the merits of Elements versus Building Accessible Websites. It's really really tempting to just judge both books by their covers.

He's alive, and still very much into type.
But Phan Nguyen just disappeared.

hhp

I think Robert Bringhurst's book is a great piece of work, and I often enjoy browsing through it and looking up facts. I have also read Joe Clark's book "Building Accessible Websites", and although there certainly are valuable bits of information in there, I was bothered by a somewhat arrogant tone throughout the book.

For some reason Clark has devoted a whole chapter explaning which typefaces he didn't choose, and he really hits a high note writing (p. 390) »...I know my stuff cold. I was a graphic-design critic for ten years; I can name any font at ten paces and absolutely the first things I spot on any printed page are the mistakes«.

This might be true, but being a graphic-design critic doesn't necessarily makes one a great designer.

Clark's book was reviewed in PC Pro (April 2003):
»Less commendable is that, ironically, the book itself is inaccessible. The black and white illustrations are blurry, the typography is odd and, most importantly, the advice is highly opinionated, sometimes contradictory and at odds with the accepted standards for web accessibility.«

It is interesting that a book about accessibility is found inaccessible because of the graphic design (and typography!) - especially when the designer is so sure he did the right thing.

If you don't want arrogant advice on accessibility and typography, don't read an expert's book.

The book is perfectly accessible to anyone with a relevant disability. The full text is provided in valid HTML on the CD-ROM, and the CNIB is finally getting around to producing a DAISY electronic talking bootk, presumably non-arrogantly.

And yes, I am aware that Matt Mahurin and I are the only people who like the cover. I can live with that. For one thing, I have to.

And yes again, let's please compare my book with Bringhurst's. After that, let's compare, say, Google Hacks to Felici's book, or perhaps that really hot book Mark Pilgrim is writing against something by Robin Williams. Once we're done that, can I start comparing cookbooks and textbooks? Because they're about as interchangeable as my book and Bringhurst's.

And while we're at it, why isn't there a DVD version of Joe's book with proper captioning? WHY?

Seriously though, let's all play nicely, or I'm going to stab someone in the throat with a Blackletter "F"

Last comment sums this up for me; people say they're having a debate (tho this usually means clusterf*cking someone who's questioned some obscure shibboleth - in this case Bringhurst's apparent infallability) - and then when voices are raised some Molesworth type ducks in wringing his/her hands urging us to 'play nice'.

I agree with Claudio P: Bringhurst's book is narrow and dogmatic. And, from what I've seen of it, so is Joe Clark's book (tho most people writing about accessibility appear super-fliexible compared with the prince of dogmatic darkness, the foul Jakob Nielsen).

Anybody-- especially Hrant H. Papazian-- who feels like deriding my book needs to understand a few things.

• You have no standing to criticize its design unless you own the book and can look at the real thing.
• If you simply wish to driftnet for bons mots you can use against me, read the full text, available online for months.
• There is no comparison between a book on a specific Web-development topic (dismissed as "narrow and dogmatic") and any other book on a separate topic.
• Whenever you criticize the graphic design of the book, do keep in mind that I am merely the author. I had enormous input into the design and ultimate veto power, but I didn't design it. Thus, when you attempt to criticize me by criticizing the book, you actually criticize someone else.
• How many of you critics know who the book designer is? Do you hate the designer enough-- or at least as much as me-- to go that far?

The designer was Marc Sullivan.

However, there is consensus among our staff that Marc had no choice but to surrender his standards in the face of Joe's ego-driven, agree-with-me-or-else style.

Strangely enough, Giles got one thing right. The other thing he didn't, rather living up to his pattern.

"Also I don't understand how and why Triplex is selected by Bringhurst among his examples when it does not seem to belong to the definition of typography he seems to have in his mind."

This is pathetic mon cher Claudio! You seem to mix up pure effects and type structure. Structure is the key of a good type design.

The Triplex italic is a pure joy when you look how it was built and structured, and the font can "wear" any style-effect, the structure will still remain.

(don't take me wrong: I discuss the ideas only here)

Oh boy, now isn't this just a pathetic discussion? Please gentlemen, can't we all show a little respect. Some of those comments are just low. Saying Bringhurst is a bore and just being plain old *mean* are two different things. If you've read Bringhurst's book, don't tell me that it isn't a tad bit boring? It's more of a manual than a "book". Boring is not the same as horrendous.

As far as Joe's book being "arrogant" goes... Well he is an expert on the subject (do *you* know anyone else with more experience?). When experts write books on the subject that they are an expert on, they tend to assert the things they find to be more appropriate or correct (rightfully so in fact). Is Zeldman's book arrogant because he deems cramping your page with too many divs wrong or that tables for page layout are not semantically correct? I think not.

>You seem to mix up pure effects and type structure.

I've just say it doesn't belong with the others because of its radical stylization, which developed furtherly in John Downer's research. The inclusion doesn't make it of less or more value, because the value is here and defines itself. It's just out of place. Look at the book: it's pretty evident.

Spacing is essential as much as structure, anyway, Jean Francois... you surely know by experience.

A reminder that defamatory statements and personal attacks will not be tolerated in the comments at Typographica. If you disagree with someone — excellent — attack their argument and back yourself up with something substantial. But cruel jabs at anyone's character will be deleted you will be banned from commenting on the site. Keep it civil, fellas. I know you can.

Joe, why should I expect an arrogant answer, if I ask an expert? I would expect a dedicated answer, and an opionionated answer, but why arrogant?

If I had written a book advocating accessibility, I would be disturbed finding out that the book itself is found inaccessible by its readers. You might reply that it is because the reader in question doesn't know anything about typography, but it still doesn't change the fact that the design and style is hindering your message from coming out to the audience.

From reading this discussion (which is quite lame at points), it seems to me that you find it more important to uphold your idiosyncrasies than to communicate your message about accessibility, and that is a shame.

To Noel regarding Zeldman: I don't find his style of writing arrogant at all, although he indeed is an expert. Actually, I find it rather whitty, and I am sure he is well aware of this, using his style of writing as a tool in trying to reach the largest audience possible.

Because Joe requested it...

I had no idea Matt Mahurin did that illustration. I grew up mesmerized by his charcoal illustrations that appeared in the Los Angeles Times opinion pages. I've seen occasional examples of his more recent work, and I hate to say so, but I've liked it less and less, and this illustration is simply the nadir. It's like watching Gene Kelly in Xanadu.

I don't know what role the designer had other than picking the typography, but I can't think of a less appropriate typeface than the Shire Types. Leaving aside my aesthetic complaints, a book that supposedly trumpets accessibility should not employ a unicase font. I would never do that to a reader of a website that I design for people with low literacy skills.

As for Bringhurst's book, it looks like it was made to sit beside Tschichold's Form of the Book on the shelf, and that's fine -- classic, academic design. (Though one would have to arrange one's shelf by preferential order as opposed to alphabetical, and there's an argument to be made for that, I suppose.)

One question: I assume with all those e's, that n-looking character must not be what it looks like to my untrained eye. So what is it? Or is it some kind of mathematical joke?

Because Joe P requested it, I meant to say.

Anyway, the books. Elements is boring. It's not a book in any sense that you will ever actually "read" it, other than maybe the first time through. It's a manual, a bunch of rules; a handy one. Shut up about it already.

Joe's book has a lot of really good information in it. I read it pretty much front to back. Those of you defending a right to arrogance, however, have obviously not read it or much of it. The arrogance rarely stems from the knowledge or information itself(not that it would excuse), but from the interjection of extraneous personal opinion where it has very little place. I'll spare you citations.

As for the above-quoted review, I'd warn against blindly accepting the criticism that he goes against "accepted standards for accessibility" as the point of some sections ended up being that there's just no good and/or pretty way to make some things accessible, and that while some of those common practices might sound good, they simply don't work once you actually feed them to the browsers they supposedly target.

The typography in Joe's book, while it may have been well-intentioned, is just plain weird for something that despite protest from any of the little camps here, is a tech book. E for effort, yes. It's still somewhat betterlooking than most others I've come across, yes. I hate unicase; personal preference.

Noel: Your question pertains to whether Zeldman is pedantic in his book, not arrogant. I don't know, I haven't read it. However, there are plenty of reasons that can be given for the points you bring up, and pedantry has its place when you're talking about valid markup, by definition. In my experience, he has with very few exceptions always been absolutely gracious in his communications. So much so that I want to poke him with a stick repeatedly just to see what happens. That means I like him, by the way.

JD: Andy Crewdson started a new project at New Series but hasn't written anything in ages. It was my understanding from some brief contact I had with him in the past that he does respond to e-mail, though.

love each other...love type.

Regarding Bringhurst's book:
I have to agree that the content is more like a reference manual, rather than a 'book.' I'd love to see a future version take the format of a manual and less of a treatise.

Although, if it really is just antiquated Victorian ideas (as some here suggest) then the current format is fitting. But I won't dismiss Elements that easily. It has earned its place in any good typography library.

Regarding Clark's book:
I haven't read it. I confess to having seen it in the book store and dismissed it because of its cover along with all the other badly designed 'web design' books. (So much for not judging a book by its cover.) Perhaps Mr. Clark could post the URL to the text that is available online.

>antiquated Victorian ideas

No, Bringhurst is anti-Victorian. He criticizes the bold type, em-dash, high contrast faces and other 19th century innovations.

He wants to go back to the classic taste of the renaissance and age of reason. This is why he is fascinated with the golden section and other proportions.

As I said in my review on Typophile, his strong classic taste is the strength and weakness of the book. The strength is a wonderful set of guidelines for classic book design. These are not just any guidelines, but guidelines with a specific point of view and taste.

But it really applies relatively little to advertising or the web, which are almost totally different animals.

As to readability, I found it a great pleasure to read through, and then to refer to again and again.

I don't know Joe Clark's work, but the web really has radically different requirments from book work. It is a mistake to apply standards other than the most basic design principles to both.

>But it really applies relatively little to advertising or the web, which are almost totally different animals.

Rubbish.
This is just an excuse for careless typography that disses the text. As Bringhurst says in 1.2.6:
"Give full typographic attention even to incidental details."

For instance, note how Mr Coles uses proper curly quotes and proper dash (with spaces either side), and indents his block quote, in his intro to this thread. Mr B would approve.

(However, the period should be placed before the end quote mark, in standard North American usage.)

I'm more of a Euro, Nick.

>Rubbish.
This is just an excuse for careless typography

I certainly wasn't intending to give an excuse for carelessness. Yes, correct use of punctuation applies to both.

The point I was trying to make that the kind of classical repose that suits long texts, and that Bringhurst's ideas about layout and type admirably promote, don't usually apply in advertising or a cover page for a web site.

Normally these latter are meant to be more visable and more emotionally provoking than book layout, where showy design becomes annoying in large doses, and interferes with communicating the text.

Thus the bold typefaces, uneven color, compromise of legibility for looks that would be anathma in a long work - and that Bringhurst criticises - can serve an advertisment admirably.

And on the screen, the demands of low res, changes in screens of different users, links to other pages etc. bring a whole new set of demands that are different from a book.

To see what of Bringhurst's advice transfers to the domain of advertising or the internet, I would have to go through it carefully.

My statement above may have been too broadbrush, but I think my basic point holds: the standard that he brings is really a classical and book standard, and sometimes doesn't apply in other situations.

I personally am strongly inclined to classical taste, and I love Bringhurst's book, but it does have its limits.

I think an equally superb book on advertising or web typography would look very different.

>the standard that he brings is really a classical and book standard, and sometimes doesn’t apply in other situations.

I disagree. It seems to me that in what Bringhurst says, he takes pains to make his standards as broadly applicable as possible.

For instance, his first point, 1.1.1, "Typography exists to honour content," and a point he makes repeatedly, in various ways :Do whatever it takes.

However, the fact remains that the Elements is presented as a book in classic style, with full "fine book" content.

And the reason for that is easy to understand, as fine book typography is the deepest, oldest part of our discipline, and explains so much.

There is also the relationship with "literary" works like Strunk, and Fowler's, to be considered -- The Elements is closer to these than "Stop Stealing Sheep."

If the Elements had been set in Verdana or DIN, with bold subheads rather than small caps, that would have skewed it differently, as would the ommission of the section on book proportions.

However, if a web designer wants to know why Georgia's numbers are all over the place, all they have to do is look up "numerals" in the index, and they are directed to a page which shows old style figures with text, and lining figures with all-cap setting, plus an encapsulation of centuries of history. That's cross-media.

I hope Joe Clark did not hurt his arm very badly whilst patting himself so vigorously on the back for taking potshots at The Typographic Eminence From British Columbia. Sitting ducks are so much easier to hit than moving targets. Going after Bringhurst is no great cause for so much self-congratulation.

There is much to be said both for and against R. Bringhurst’s expositions in ETS. Too bad Joe Clark did neither.

I have used ETS as a typography textbook for the past five or six years, always in tandem with another text. That other text might be "Stop Stealing Sheep," or Richard Hendel’s "On Book Design," or James Felici’s "Complete Guide to Digital Typography." None of the four completely does the trick; they all must be refracted through a particular instructor’s experience & values. For those of us who focus our teaching of typography on type for scholarly & trade books, Bringhurst does have a lot of value. I offer students this text with several caveats. To be brief, here are two:
** It is very good to be exposed to all that discussion in his chapter "Shaping the Page"; just don’t try to get some of those margins past a managing editor or press bursar these days.
** Bringhurst is properly critical of those hot-metal revival faces that do not meet today’s standards for good typography. Unfortunately, the conditions of book publishing work against rapidly adding entries showing the best new faces [it’s a book, not a blog, for gosh sakes]. To use ETS as a text requires other ways of introducing students to good new work.

On another front: is there really anything that wrong with the basic fundamentals of British hot-metal typography that Clark seems to so despise? Those of us making books to be read for long spells owe quite a bit to that style of typography. And I suspect that, whether they know it or not, that is what most ordinary readers of books want. Whether or not that is what is wanted by typographers determined always to be brand-new is another thing. All those basic principles should be instilled, along with ideas about how they can be improved upon when using new technology.

powers

Great comment, Will. Really well-said.

Nick, I adore Bringhurst’s ETS and think it’s a great book. But I do recognize its limits and biases, which you don’t acknowledge.

First of all, Bringhurst doesn’t even claim that his guidelines apply to advertising and the internet. And his focus is almost always on the book. And you are just wrong that he says ‘repeatedly, in various ways: Do whatever it takes'. Not only does his book have classical design, but he repeatedly advocates classical taste. For example:

‘Typography with anything to say …aspires to a kind of statuesque transparency. Its other traditional goal is durability: not immunity to change but a clear superiority to fashion.’(p. 17) And: ‘Once the demands of legibility and logical order are satisfied, evenness of color is the typographer’s normal aim.’(p. 25) And: ‘…What ever replaces [the blank page] might well aim to be as lively and peaceful as it is.’(p. 61)

I just love classical design, well done. There is much too little of it. But I recognize that for advertising it is not usually appropriate.

Take for example the issue of being fashionable. I remember myself deriding fashion, to an artist friend of mine, way back in the late 60’s . He replied, ‘Just because it is ephemeral doesn’t mean it’s not valuable. It part of the joy of life to treasure the passing scene.’ So I learned to enjoy fashion. And later I learned that in the Far East they treasure the spring plum blossom just because it is so transitory – like life.

I still treasure my neon peacock blue Carnaby Street tie from those days of London and the Beatles. Now it looks ridiculous or at best ‘retro’, but it sure was fun while it lasted.

In an advertisement, being fashionable, even if it will look ridiculous in six months might be very appropriate, or even essential. Furthermore, evenness of color and legibility and peacefulness should be sacrificed to the goal of getting attention and selling.

In particular, I think in advertising Bringhurst’s rule of matching the title to the text (p 105) should be reversed. In fairness, he is clearly talking about books here – but you want to claim that his principles apply everywhere. The title should be suited to the purpose of getting attention and selling, and the text minimized and matched to it.

For advertising, magazines, and the web, I would have another whole set of questions that he doesn’t address. Bringhurst’s ETS is great. But neither his tastes nor his principles apply to all kinds of reading material.

There is much to be said both for and against R. Bringhurst’s expositions in ETS. Too bad Joe Clark did neither.

To be fair to Joe, he wasn't talking about ETS at all: he was talking about Bringhurst's keynote address at ATypI.

John Hudson is quite right. I ended up collating two streams of thought in this discussion: the original stream on Clark's comment about Bringhurst's ATypI talk and the discussion of the merits of ETS that emerged later. Separated, my comments stand.

powers

Just to keep things straight: Joe Clark does slam ETS in his blog, then goes on to the ATypI talk. I certainly disagree with him about ETS. I suspect he is looking at it through the lens of web design, and misjudges it as a result.

> evenness of color is the typographer’s normal aim.

This is a superficial Modernist fallacy, part of the obsession with Control.

Information comes from contrast, hence there is such a thing as too gray.

hhp

>> evenness of color is the typographer’s normal aim.

>Information comes from contrast, hence there is such a thing as too gray.

These are not mutually exclusive.

Evenness of color means that there are no "hot spots" that may jump out of the page (e.g. "gg").
However, it also accomodates a coarse overall texture.
Compare it to halftone screens.
A coarse halftone tint is as even in color as a fine tint.
So, a "too gray" typeface is like an even, fine tint.
And a "bad color" typeface is like a screened tint (of any resolution) that has irregularities or flaws.

Idealized gray and spikes that are darker and lighter gray in a field of "medium gray" are indeed opposed. It's a matter of balance, and it's critical to realize that not having enough spiking is as bad as having spikes that are too pronounced/frequent.

Basically, in terms of readability (very different than appealing to Modernist fashions), a spike in type is generally good for you (since it's information) as long as it doesn't trigger a premature saccade during reading.

hhp

I love 'The Elements of Typographic Style'. I have not read 'Building Accessible Websites' but the cover art is truly repulsive as some have already mentioned.