Keith Chi-hang Tam 譚智恆: Main issues that we would like to study:

Typography: structure, organization, hierarchical system
Typeforms: formal issues between the type designs of the two languages (harmony, contrast, etc.)
Context: of use, cultural, commercial, political, etc.

• Different ‘genres’ of written/visual communication; which ones will/should we be focusing on?
– Book typography
– Ephemera
– Advertising, including billboards and television commercials
– Packaging
– Web and other interactive media
– Time-based media
– Signage: vernacular and wayfinding systems
– ‘Non-expert’ typography, such as documents, handwritten notes and notices, etc

Some of these are more ‘functional’ or ‘objective’ (often highly structured) and some of these are meant for catching attention or expressing emotions. I think we need to make the distinctions from the onset to clarify what exactly it is that we’re looking at. The different approaches and scenarios affect how the designer designs with the two languages and how they elicit meaning on the viewer/reader’s part. Functional communication vs. marketing communication.

• In order to be able to assess multilingual typographic design, we need to develop a comprehensive set of criteria (or a ‘descriptive language’, a framework) to measure the attributes and variables and how a piece of typography constitute meaning – linguistically, visually and culturally. This ‘descriptive language has to be developed and agreed upon by all members of the research team.

We also have to develop some visualization tools (graphs, mapping techniques, etc) to communicate these attributes.
A few variables (these all interrelate to each other):
– Order of appearance or sequence
– Priority of one language over another: how is this expressed in the typographic design? How is
this expressed in the hierarchical system as a whole?
– Size relationships
– Relative placement
– Use of colour
– Use of typeface: are they similar in style or contrasting? If they are different, are the
connotations of the two typefaces congruent with each other?
– Relative importance/emphasis of the two languages
– Method and quality of production: are the two languages the same or different?
– Formality: is one more formal than the other? Does one look more ‘official’ or authoritative than
the other?
– Whether they are exact translations of each other