
A History of Punctuation for the Internet Age - samclemens
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-history-of-punctuation-for-the-internet-age
======
marincounty
An underpaid community college Instructor, who didn't have tenure, and was
working as a landscaper during the summers, said,

"Students--please don't use clichés in your writing."

"Funnel your paragraphs."

"Students--just don't use clichés ever! Why use them? Even among yourselfs?"

"And don't use acronyms, unless your writing a technical paper, and it's
absolutely necessary to the paper! Please?"

I just remembered his name--Dr. Roland? I was waiting for my girlfriend, and
overheard his wishes while sitting on the floor outside his class. I could
tell he was tired. I can still smell the carpet cleaner.

------
SFjulie1
Internet typography: computers and software make it hard to read.

Centuries of progress to make text readable, and internet are decades of
regression:

\- slow disappearance of "non easily typable" stuff. Ex: Ê œ (ligatures/and
weired stuff) that do have sense;

\- unreadable text due to inconsistent spacing (quadratin spaces are
underused, and hyphenation sux), and the "justification" on web browser is a
shame;

\- poor fonts;

\- too large/narrow columns of text, scrolling is unpleasant to the brain;

\- web pages often don't scale relatively to the fonts size making zoom
degrade the text;

\- the vibration of a screen is really tiring much more than paper for reading
(add the ads, the blink bzoom of custom js effects or the distractions)

Typography is a lots of simple rules. When applied they make text more
readable. TeX does automatized typography in an awesome way.

Why are modern developers unable to port the greatness of automated typography
to web browsers? Because, well readability does not count, you don't make
money of people reading.

Regarding typography its lack in modern browsers is pissing me off.

Btw, yes every country/region have special rules for typography/hyphenation so
compared to unicode it is even harder to make a standard. Typography should be
dynamically applied at the view level based on the context.

Typography should be modifiable. Because well, else we cannot represent
Guillaume Appolinaire nicely typographed poetry. Because typography is also
part of the expression and people have the right to have choices.

We are in 2015.

Computer are doing a very poor job for the most important vector of human
dialog: presenting text in a way that can be easily read.

And I forgot: if you ever read the books made with fonts of the "Imprimerie
Nationale": our fonts are sucking bigs.

They are ugly, the small size are unreadable, the italic/bold are horrible,
the different size should not be always obtained by homothetia, all the
letters should not be exactly aligned on the bottom line ....

Computers could be better. But we prefer invest in HTTP2/0 to bring you more
securely 15Mb of advertisements while reading 1000 characters.

------
efaref
Youdontevenneedspacesuntilyouwanttotalkaboutyourvisittopenislandfortheexpertsexchangeconference.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
Ever watched Arrested Development? _anustart_

------
jimhefferon
Speaking of Sayre's Law ..

------
ashmud
Is there a longform article of the topic? I don't read terribly many New
Yorker articles -- is this typical article length? Reading [this article], I
feel like I'm taking a little sample taste of a few slightly disjointed
points.

~~~
Amorymeltzer
This isn't an article, it's a book review; those tend to be shorter. The New
Yorker also publishes a number of shorter online pieces (roughly this length).
Actual articles, which appear in the weekly magazine and online, are much,
much longer and in depth, such as this from the current issue[1] or another
currently on the HN front page[2].

If you're interested in more, I suppose you could read the book(s). I intend
on doing so.

1:[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/14/a-house-
divided](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/14/a-house-divided)

2:
[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/30/inflamed](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/30/inflamed)

~~~
ashmud
Thanks. That makes more sense. I didn't initially make the connection between
"Page Turner" and book review.

