4 ms·
so just ignore the "visual noise" or "random scribbles"? i dont get why youd want to remove meaning from an article simply because you dont undestand it.
by haskellshill 1y ago
so just ignore the "visual noise" or "random scribbles"? i dont get why youd want to remove meaning from an article simply because you dont undestand it.
- tsimionescu 1y agoFor the same reason you choose one font over another: the aesthetics of a text matter, especially to publishers. Now, I should add that for an article that is specifically about language, and even has some illustrations of the meaning of these diacritics, this is almost certainly a bad choice on the NYT's part. But as a general rule, I think it is defensible.
- haskellshill 1y agoWell, I disagree that simpler means better looking. It's akin to arguing that a commie block has better æsthetics than a gothic cathedral.