What? No!

Posted by: Challenger on Oct 31, 08 | 12:44 pm

No what?

Posted by: Chris Ford on Nov 11, 08 | 2:41 pm

With good typography, this could have actually been a nice poster. Not feeling the Arial Condensed and the white horizontal bars.

Posted by: alexander walter on Nov 13, 08 | 3:26 pm

Clean, simple, good!!

Posted by: amandake on Nov 15, 08 | 10:01 pm

alexander, your comments are spot on. The type throws it off for me. Still in my top 3 though.

Posted by: WonderK on Nov 16, 08 | 4:19 pm

the typography is really amateurish. i'm very surprised this is one of the top choices?!

Posted by: jafidler on Nov 18, 08 | 7:32 pm

i'm with lafidler, although i'm not sure eve an amateur would have so little grasp of typefaces and their graphic function. the compositional bars are superfluous and anachronistic. bad. bad. bad. awkward calibration effort on splitting the two series. but i have to say, excellent line-up for the most part . . . a coupla dogs, too . . .

Posted by: minnick on Nov 19, 08 | 8:09 pm

how are the compositional bars anachronistic? that doesn't even make sense. all of the bars are directly related to the chronological order.

I'm curious... how do you define graphic function for typefaces ? interesting.

Posted by: krissy on Nov 19, 08 | 8:40 pm