Now I have written 2 versions of the same manifesto. There was a question to ask before picking which version of the manifesto should you read: Do you like Comic Sans? If the answer is yes, they will be “punished” to read the whole manifesto in Swiss Style; If the answer is no, they will then have to read the manifesto in styles all over the place. Both version are almost the same in content, expect for the part about modernism and Comic Sans. The one with pure Swiss Style would be more pro-clarity and sans serif that it pointed out some flaws of Comic Sans has; meanwhile, the one with multiple styles would describe more about how hysterical the debate around Comic Sans was, suggesting that personal prefrenece shold preceeds other pragmatic measures.

The style mostly follows the Fundamental, by Emil Ruder. Very clean, and I am biased to make it look boring.

Most of the layouts in the second version rather instinctive. The 2nd page was to mimic the blackletter styles, it was not exactly just Gutenberg Bible, but more a generic form of it, like Nazi propaganda posters, or a lot of printed material surrending German Literature. The 3rd page, (part 1) is more of a Baskerville style of printed book; the 4th page is the Swiss styles again; 5th page is the reprise of Serif typefaces in Modernist ideology. And most importantly, the 6th page is when personal computer was popularised that Comic Sans and weird colour combinations came to play. After that I was also imrpovising on how typographic layout will be progressing towards the future with a little bit of parodic element in it.

The most important part of these two Manifesto is actually categorising people simply based on whether they like Comic Sans or not. It is exactly what it is about, speculating what know about typography and then modify the content for more conving elements. Ultimately, it is about accepting difference in design discourse/typographic discourse.