Tim Brown discusses typography and its origin, exploring how type has developed over time to fit a social understanding of how to read something, what source of information it comes from, and the message it is conveying. Examples of this included a newspaper article, where the social understanding of the narrow column, headers, typefaces, spacing and hierarchy of importance all relates to how we take in information. There is an element of a newspaper layout which leads us to believe that that the written information is hard fact, when in reality the it is written, hand selected and edited to convey a message some higher power wants it's audience to read.
He later discuses the impact that the internet plays on typography. If everyone can publish, what is being published becomes less valuable. He states 'typography can re-enforce authenticity'. He claims that the internet is the best place for type, that it's layout, typeface, scale, boldness and other factors can be change, optimized and manipulated for the greatest impact whilst still be high clarity on a clean screen. Although I may not agree with this to Tim Brown's degree, it is an interesting argument posing for discussion about how information is relayed and will continue to be so in the future. Web 2.0 has had a massive impact on information is received by an audience - but what comes after web 2.0? Typography has already had a massive impact online, and will continue to do so as technology advances.
I am interested in looking at typography in terms of a universal understanding, and this talk invites interesting starting points to which typography and layout is universally understood (particularly when online) and influence the viewers reading experience. How does someone read something, what do they read first, why do they read it?