I couldn’t help but find it interesting that the latest issue of the New York Times Sunday Magazine takes on the Screen Issue w/ some of the sensibilities that we take for granted when we do actually read something on screen. While that is cool in it’s own right, it’s fun to compare that issue w/ the latest post from Hoefler & Frere-Jones “On the Death and 441-Year Life of the Pixel”. The post concludes “Crisp cellphone screens aren’t the end of the story. There are already sharper displays on handheld remote controls and consumer-grade cameras, and monitors supporting the tremendous WQUXGA resolution of 3840×2400 are making their way from medical labs to living rooms. The pixel will never go away entirely, but its finite universe of digital watches and winking highway signs is contracting fast. It’s likely that the pixel’s final and most enduring role will be a shabby one, serving as an out-of-touch visual cliché to connote “the digital age.””
I don’t agree that using that digital style will become an out-of-touch visual cliché to connote “the digital age.” That visual treatment has been around for quite some time – ten or fifteen years at least, probably longer. Up until this point that style has felt as timeless as anything else typography wise that has spanned more than a couple years. Time will have the last laugh and will prove if it becomes a bad cliché, but up until this point we have a ways off before we should declare one visual style shabby when there’s still good uses of it.