![]() |
1 |
![]() |
2 |
![]() |
3 |
![]() |
4 |
> Thinking about how to present the conversions, thinking back to the format of the publications from the type, everything is justified, however, this presents the information in a very difficult to manage way.
- Should this matter? Thinking back to a conversation with Felix, he was talking about how you'll never know all the conversions as there is no system. Does presenting the information in this way make more sense for the project?
> (1) has the units of measurement in blackletter, as these are the old fashioned names that were coined.
- It creates a clear divide, but I don't know if it is the most relevant way of presenting this as the blackletter has be used in other elements?
> (2) this has the numbers in black letter and the rest in a sans serif type.
- This becomes very repetitive as the numbers are most often 1s, the impact isn't as noticable and the type itself is easily recognisable as black letter since it only shows the numbers and not any text glyphs.
> (3) is all black letter with the numbers included, (4) is all black letter but with text only.
- The use of only blackletter really pushes the medieval aestehtic, however it looks slightly overdone.
- Without the numbers, having them written in full, creates a lot more text, making it even harder to read. Is this something I want to incorporate?
Thinking the black letter might look over used is placed into text so heavily, it become hard to read.
What needs to be included:
- big text stating the conversions
- conversions placed into context within Leeds
- conversion sheet
No comments:
Post a Comment