Me and Jaimini went to typographic Horizons last month - these are some photographs of my sketch book with the research I gathered there. It was a bit 50/50. We got the mega bus there, which meant leaving at 6AM to get the for the 10AM when the lectures started - but it was the day when it was tipping it down with rain and there had been accidents and traffic along the way. We did not end up getting there until 12 and had missed all the morning lectures which we were both a bit gutted about - as we had made the effort to get up super early!
Anyway - the lectures we saw were really interesting, some a little protentious but I was expecting that. I expected that because typography is something that is not really understood by people not involved in design and is taken for granted, so I think those who work in type are a defensive towards it and over exaggerate the importance of it to get people to notice.
I wish i had taken more photo's of the day but everything was a bit rushed due to the mega bus times. I was bit bothered when one of the speakers said that if you are not good with words, you won't be good at typography. I can understand why he said that, but I am dyslexic and think that it make me better as you look at the words in a different way - and certain typographers base their designs on making it easier for dyslexics to read. As long as you get someone to proof read i don't see the problem.
I found the last lecture the most interesting/understandable. It was from a group of graphic designers who were interested in type, so i could relate to their thoughts alot more. They raised issues of children learning about type design, so that more people start to understand the importance of it, the legibility of type, when does it become image? And when does it remain type? Is typography supposed to be overly experimental?
