I'm sorry, you can't argue the font choice signals banality in the same article in which you argue that readers aren't sophisticated enough on font choice to catch that serifs are supposed to signal professionalism.

▲

tolerance 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why not? One quality is inherent, the other inherited. The typeface was developed with banality in mind and presumably become popular because of its utility in this respect. The ensuing popularity in word processors and on the Web likely lead to the idea that it’s more professional than others.

Again, the author:

> Indeed, the stronger explanation for Times New Roman’s long reign isn’t aesthetic excellence, but practicality and inertia.

▲

f30e3dfed1c9 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"The typeface was developed with banality in mind..."

That's completely wrong. Times New Roman was designed for legibility at small sizes, in narrow columns, on absorbent newsprint, printed at high speed. That is, it was designed explicitly for a very specific purpose, which it fills admirably.

None of that should be taken as any kind of comment on the current brouhaha.

	▲	tolerance 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I hate for us to have to make it clear that any claim in favor of the typeface’s suitability should not be interpreted as direct support for those responsible for re-instituting it. This isn’t an admonishment, but a lament I hope you may share. While TNR wasn’t designed to evoke banality in its less desirable connotations I do think the way that you’re describing it match sensibilities that the word “banal” can also carry; Ordinary, commonplace. I admit—it’s a stretch I’m taking. But how far from banal is the utilitarian?

▲

moron4hire 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because font choice outside of large strokes like fantasy fonts is meaningless.

All of this exposition only works if people are literate in typography enough to get it. Most people can't even understand literalist art, say nothing about the symbolism of typography.

It's like how the Victorians invented a whole meaning categorization to different species of flowers and then acted like it was universal law. It's a secret in-crowd code. It has no inherent meaning.

	▲	tolerance 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Could you clarify what you mean by “meaningless”? How you can conceive a literate society that is not affected by type. The fact that general literacy is apparently declining is beside the point but we remain surrounded by letters and words, the shape of which determine how we comprehend what they point out. Planes, signs, screens depend on font choice to be effective. Newspapers and memoranda too. The degrees may vary but the significance of a font choice just can’t be as simple as you make it seem. Just only to the extent of the value the public ascribes to the type-bearing object. Granted, we may be assigning too much to US State Department documents. But who’s to say?

▲

xiphmont 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

He can, he did, and we're all here arguing about it, which somehow delights me.