My 3 pts. + 1 ?

1. Lupton explains how typefaces evolved through the ages. The three main periods, Renaissance, Baroque, and the Enlightenment brought interesting developments in type creation, and for over five-hundred years typeface production was a difficult process requiring lead casting techniques. The complex science continued to evolve until the first digital typefaces along with photo typesetting became the norms of the 1960's and 1970's. These newer forms were still highly specialized and labor intensive in their own right, and finally in the 1980's and 1990's typeface design for personal and business computer applications became accessible to the masses. However, modern digital type production is still quite complex and labor intensive due to issues such as character refinement, spacing, software platform consideration, media functionality, and language compatibility(Lupton p. 49).



2. The Environmental Impact Statement dilemma brings to light the enormous task of satisfying the needs of different and opposing audiences with one federally mandated document. The internal and external stakeholders have distinct needs. Additionally they present obstacles which confine language choices for the communicators who prepare the EIS. Also, since an EIS is required by federal law, and environmental lawyers wrangle over its validity in each case study, the highly technical jargon dominates over the plain direct language desired by lay people. And since opposing legal and governmental personnel tend to use the document as a delay tactic to stall law suits, the EIS remains an unsatisfactory summation of serious issues.

3. Environmentalists are looked upon as a force to be neutralized by governmental and corporate forces. Likewise, environmentalists tend to distrust scientific data paid for by the parties seeking justification for activities affecting the environment. Rather than using constructive argument to determine the best way to use precious national resources, the combatants line up against each other and attempt to manipulate scientific and social data to defend their positions.

Question. Due to the harsh criticism of its scientific and social validity from mainstream scientists as well as respected social scholars, should the EIS be eliminated in its present form? Additionally, how could it be improved as a communicative instrument?