‘If a man wears eighteenth-century dress today, or wears his hair down to his shoulders, or builds Gothic Mansions, we very likely call his behaviour odd; it does not fit our time. These are abnormalities. Yet it is such departures from the norm which stand out in our minds, rather than the norm itself. Their wrongness is more immediate that the rightness of less peculiar behaviour, and therefore more compelling. Thus even in everyday life the concept of good fit, though positive in meaning, seems very largely to feed on negative instances; it is the aspects of our lives which are obsolete, incongruous, or out of tune that catch our attention.’

Christopher Alexander, Notes on the syntesis of form, 1964

The developments in typeface design, typesetting and printing have always been aimed at the improvement of “quality”. Compared to printing techniques as they existed in the early 15th century we have indeed come a long way.[1] Technically we can create the slickest printing ever, reach the highest possible quality ever. Unfortunately, the results have too often become absolutely boring. The quality of a printed product, the high resolution of its typefaces, the perfect printing are not necessarily what makes for good design or clear communication.[2] At some point during the development of type and typography, the graphic design industry decided that is was necessary to improve upon the “quality” of printing and type. In the process due to economic and commercial considerations, much vitality was lost. We believe that the computer, although considered by many to be cold and impersonal, can bring back some of these lost qualities.[3] The modern worker lacks individuality.

Erik Van Blokland, Is Best Really Better, 1990