Give me your em dashes and I'll cross your tees
So once again I find myself intensely irritated by a growing wave of practice that is touted as correct when its correctness is entirely arbitrary. I’m talking about the finer points of typography.
On the Sitepoint blogs James Edwards has written a post addressing his lack of patience with the “finer points of typography” and their enthusiasts. His reaction to principles that many aren’t aware of, may decide not to care about or are border–line religious in regard to is understandable. The points brought up regarding accessibility issues are valid, although it seems aside from Window–Eyes, most of the commonly used characters are addressed appropriately.
The blog post raises a couple of issues: the possible conflict between design and typographic principles and website accessibility best practices, and a point regarding the degree of care one puts into their work.
In a perfect world we have the time, patience, knowledge and resources to address any concern regarding the quality of our product. But the world isn’t perfect. If our resources aren’t sufficient to warrant the care that a fine piece of work requires, then let the problems be. But, if we have the means to address all the points we are aware of, then why not?
To correct grammatical mistakes in order to ensure clarity and understanding is one thing, but to correct them simply in order to adhere to an arbitrary set of rules is just anal.
James’s point that not adhering to these fiddly conventions doesn’t hinder understanding is often completely true. Although the subtle details which convey small (and possibly subconscious) understandings to the audience, such as “the finer points of typography”, can (and probably should) have a role to play. These conventions are old and have not arrive here from some far–off place — they have grown with our interest in/love for/need for literature.
