Kvond: I like that very much. This means for you that a typetext has to have the potential to pervade every environment? What does it mean,if you don’t mind me asking, for a texttext to be universal? The Roman Alphabet is universal in the sense that you have to use it if you are going to be writing English in any circumstance, but in what sense is a typetext universal? Is it that typetext has achieved a certain universality of medium applicaiton? Or, to put it another way, if a typetext is meant for a specific purpose (or context), do you see a certain universality to this potential, in our culture? Clearly there are some typetexts that if you found them used like Helvetica you would think that the world had taken a curious, if not disasterous, aesthetic turn.

(Apologies: consider the respelling a transliteration of its sound between cultures, just as a spelling can be expressed in a variety of typefaces.)

Kind of you to answer my question, but I suppose I didn’t ask it closely enough. I was not asking whether you accept it or not, but whether you find a recontexualized use as liberating or inconcordant. Is it merely a difficulty?

You see Zeppelin NT used in a way it was never imagined to be (interestingly, the name you gave to the typeface seems to have driven its choice). Does this sometimes make your recognize new possibilities for the typeface, see it in a way you never had, or…does it simply strike you as abuse.

Yes, Marcus, getting people to spell my name right has always been an issue.
ERIK – how difficult can that be? And how much room for mistakes is there?

kvond: what does it mean for you to see your typeface used for purposes it was not at all designed? Is it inconcordant? liberating? Can it be that your type has found a new suitable environment, or does one feel that someone is just not being sensitive to the inherent characteristics of the design?