Super Normal Analysis

999 Words4 Pages
Super Normal, from a conceptual point of view, leans on an intentional and extraordinary ambivalence (Fukasawa & Morrison, 2012, p.1). Specifically, based on the terminology, it could be taken both as an oxymoron that ‘super’ opposes ‘normal’, means ‘beyond’; and also a concept of absolute superlative in which the Super Normal determines the superlative of ‘normal’ to its greatest degree in its ontological form. Although the etymology of what is considered to be ‘normal’ relates to ‘ordinary’ with no features, in the context of what Fukusawa and Morrison defined as Super Normal designs are not ‘normal’ any more by making them so ‘normal’. They become both ‘normal’ and ‘exceptional’, pushing the norm to the boundaries of the possible and introjecting…show more content…
Here, the term ‘beauty’ involves both forms, shapes and the relationships among people, environment, and the circumstances. Not that there is anything wrong with beauty in Super Normal. On the contrary, it provides daily life with pleasant and inspirations. The beauty of a product can elicit positive emotions that alter how people behave and react. Interacting with a pleasing product “the behavior seems to go along more smoothly, more easily, and better (Norman, 2002, p.17)”. As a result, the appreciated aesthetics in turn opens up the cognitive system, inspiring people to find out creative solutions to problems easily. Thus, people are more effective in finding alternative solutions and tolerant of minor difficulties. These effects are central to measures of usability and their positive nature indicates a positive role for aesthetics in…show more content…
Mark Simonson, an American graphic designer, produced an analysis of this two, which shows how much more refined Helvetica’s detailing is than Arial’s. The primary difference between Arial and Helvetica exists in the terminal strokes: the terminals of Helvetica are either horizontally or vertically cut, while those of Arial are slightly angled. For instance, the tail of the ‘a’ is gently curved in Helvetica, as is the first connection of the bowl to the stem, but not in Arial. Similarly, the top of the ‘t’ and the ends of the strokes in the ‘C’ are perfectly horizontal in the former, but slightly angled in the latter. The distinguishing details are so tiny that can be noticed when they are scrutinized magnified versions of each character as Simonson did. Yet it is these subtleties that constitute Helvetica a finer example of design than Arial especially for professionals. Functionally the two fonts are roughly equal, as both are admirable clear and considered to be Super Normal, but aesthetically Helvetica is
Open Document