I am an enthusiastic graphic designer, I have been fortunate to explore various design practices and perspectives, from intercultural to decolonized design, as I have transitioned from China to America.

Currently, I am pursuing my second master's degree in the Design and Environmental Analysis program at Cornell University. I invite you to join me in my world of design and photography utopia.

Linghao Li |李凌昊
MA Design in D+EA ‘24 
MA Graphic Design and Visual Experience ‘22
BFA Visual Communication Design ‘16
Cornell University|SCAD|TAFA
+ 1 912-391-7213 | ll933@cornell.edu
Behance / Instagram / Linkedin / Mail

Design Works
Photography Works
Research Topic
About Myself

Throughout my academic and professional journey in past, I have been exposed to various aspects of research and design theory. However, my practical design work has primarily relied on existing research findings, and I hadn't actively engaged in in-depth research to analyze and comprehend design challenges from diverse perspectives. This inclination towards practice-based education likely contributed to my previous approach. Nevertheless, a pivotal shift occurred when I embarked on my research-based education in the United States.

Building upon my foundation in design theory and art education, I have significantly broadened my research interests. During my time at Cornell University's Human-Centered Design Department, I had the privilege of delving into Pluriversal Design in a systematic manner under the guidance of Dr. Renata. Simultaneously, I pursued a minor in Anthropology, mentored by Dr. Viranjini Munasinghe. This multifaceted academic exposure, encompassing Environmental Psychology, Human-Centered Design, Cultural Anthropology, Linguistic Anthropology, and Pluriversal Design, propelled me into the world of research and helped me carve out my unique research path.

Presently, my research pursuits are centered around several compelling themes. I am particularly intrigued by the intersection of education and the development of nationalities and national languages, the challenges posed by hybrid typography within distinct writing systems, and the intricate relationship between design and human society. These investigations span the domains of cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, and design anthropology. My enthusiasm for these subjects knows no bounds, and I wholeheartedly invite you to explore more about me and my research in the following messages. This passion fuels my commitment to creating a utopian future through my work. Welcome to my academic journey.

The Current Issues and Dilemmas of Intercultural Multilingual Typesetting

KeyWordsIntercultural Multilingual Typesetting; East Asian; Writing Systems; Communication Design; Multilingual Typesetting Practices Intercultural Communicatio, Pluriversal Design Thinking.

IntroductionTypesetting's inherent ability to fix knowledge through the exact reproduction of content, and to disseminate it across wide geographic regions (and demographic boundaries) through the multiplication of copies, has brought several scripts (and cultures) together. It has made diverse scripts sit side-by-side, forcing them to converse and find common ground. Type and typography have become an intrinsic aspect of modern print and new media (Plaice et al., 2003). Their capacity to communicate has grown exponentially and thus defines our multicultural and mobile way of life. Globalizations and international commerce have further contributed to the creation of truly multicultural/multilingual urban societies around the world (Wittner et al., 2018). Due to the development of globalization, decolonialism and intercultural interactions, multilingualism, and intercultural communication plays an eminent role around the world. The script, writing systems, and typesetting has always carried this culture and communication. Most of the historical intercultural typesetting originated from the miscommunication of information, but it also opened the way for cultural communication. More and more designers and artists find themselves working for clients with diverse national and socio-cultural backgrounds, which challenges them to harmoniously combine different visual precepts and habits. Working with different scripts is an especially demanding task, as not only two languages but also two completely different writing systems confront one another (Wittner et al., 2018), and because the ideas behind this have been influenced by a Western-centric colonial culture (Leitao et al., 2018). The question that guided this literature review is:

What are the current issues and dilemmas of intercultural multilingual hybrid typesetting?

Research Background
The Difference and Relationships Between Typography, Typesetting, Script, and Font

Typography is the art and technique of arranging type to make written language legible, readable and appealing when displayed. It involves choosing typefaces, point sizes, line lengths, line-spacing, and letter-spacing, as well as adjusting the space between pairs of letters (Waller, 1999).

Typography and typesetting are closely related, but they are not the same thing. Typesetting, on the other hand, is the process of arranging and formatting text and images in a specific way. It involves taking the text and other content that has been written or created, and using design software to arrange it on a page or screen in a way that is aesthetically pleasing and easy to read. In other words, typography is the practice of designing with type, while typesetting is the process of implementing that design (Jan Middendorp, 2012).

Script is a type of handwriting or handwriting style that is used in a particular region or culture. For example, the Arabic script is used in the Arabic-speaking world, while the Latin script is used in the Western world (J. R. Osborn, 2017).

A font is a specific typeface of a certain size and style (Haralambous et al., 2007). For example, Times New Roman is a font, while the collection of all fonts in a specific typeface (such as Times New Roman) is called a typeface. So, while typography involves the use of fonts, it is not the same thing as a font.

Features and Differences Of Several Modern Mainstream Writing Systems

A writing system is a set of standardized symbols and conventions used to represent a language in written form. Different writing systems use different sets of symbols and conventions, and there are many different writing systems in use around the world (Daniels & William Bright, 1996). Some common features of writing systems include the use of letters or characters to represent sounds or words, the use of punctuation to indicate the structure and meaning of sentences, and the use of spacing and other formatting conventions to improve readability.

There are several different types of writing systems, including alphabetic, syllabic, and logographic systems. Alphabetic systems, such as the Latin alphabet used in English, use a set of symbols to represent individual sounds. Syllabic systems, such as the Japanese kana, use symbols to represent syllables. Logographic systems, such as Chinese characters, use symbols to represent words or concepts.

Writing systems are an important aspect of language and communication, as they allow people to record and transmit language in a standardized and easily readable form. They have been used throughout human history, and the development of writing systems has played a crucial role in the evolution of human cultures and civilizations.

The most important contemporary writing system from the point of view of the world's major cultural circles, languages and scripts, population proportions and cultural influences is mainly the Latin alphabet writing system with English as the dominant language. This system covers mainly English, French Spanish and other language systems and is the most dominant writing system. Among the other writing systems (Arabic, Hindi, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc.), the Chinese writing system is the second most applicable and influential one. 

There are several key differences between writing systems based on the Latin alphabet and Chinese writing systems. The most fundamental difference is that the Latin alphabet is an alphabetic system, while Chinese writing systems are logographic systems. This means that the Latin alphabet uses a set of symbols to represent individual sounds, while Chinese writing systems use a set of symbols to represent words or concepts (Tam, 2012). Another significant difference between the two types of writing systems is the number of symbols used. The Latin alphabet has only 26 letters, while Chinese writing systems can have thousands of individual characters. This means that Chinese writing systems often require more time and effort to learn than alphabetic systems (Takagi, 2014).

Additionally, the way that words are written and formatted in the two writing systems is different. In the Latin alphabet, words are written from left to right and are separated by spaces. In Chinese writing systems, words are written from top to bottom and from right to left, and characters are often written without spaces between them (Bussotti & Qi, 2014).

Overall, these differences reflect the unique historical and cultural contexts in which the two writing systems were developed, and they have significant implications for the way that language is written and used in the cultures that use them. 

Development of Typesetting Desig

The history of typesetting dates back to the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. Early forms of page layout design were used to arrange and format text on scrolls, tablets, and other written materials.  Before the printing press, written materials were produced by hand, which was a slow and labor-intensive process. With the invention of the printing press, it became possible to produce written materials more quickly and efficiently, using movable type and other tools to create and arrange the text. This process was known as typesetting, and it involved choosing the right typeface, font size, and other details to make the text easy to read and visually appealing. Over time, typesetting became more sophisticated and involved the use of more advanced tools and techniques, such as press types, rules, grid system (Josef Muller-Brockmann, 1996), and specialized layout software. Today, typesetting is an important part of the printing and publishing process, and it is used to create a wide range of materials, from books and newspapers to posters and advertisements.

Multilingual Typesetting Design and Intercultural Communication

Multilingual typesetting is the process of arranging and formatting text in multiple languages within the same document. This can be a challenging process, as it involves ensuring that the text is properly aligned and spaced and that the different languages are clearly distinguishable from one another (Coulmas, 1991). It also requires using typefaces and fonts that support the different languages and character sets and making sure that the overall design and layout of the document are consistent and visually appealing. 

The history of multilingual typesetting dates to the invention of the printing press and the development of written languages and writing systems. As distinct cultures and regions developed their own written languages and writing systems, the need for typesetting in multiple languages emerged. Multilingual typesetting can be done using traditional or digital methods, or a combination of both. Multilingual typography can be an important factor in intercultural communication (Hoeks et al., 2015). Typography is the art and technique of arranging and formatting text in a specific way, and multilingual typography involves arranging and formatting text in multiple languages within the same document. In the context of intercultural communication, multilingual typography can help to ensure that written messages are clear and easy to understand, even when they are translated into different languages. By using the right typefaces and fonts, and following the appropriate conventions and rules for each language, multilingual typography can help to improve the readability and accessibility of written materials and make them more effective in reaching a diverse audience (Waller, 1999).

Methodology of ReviewSearch Procedures

Much of the literature in the area of graphic design studies usually includes the history of typography and typesetting and their social value as well as concentrates on topics such as the impact of innovative technologies, writing systems, hybrid typography, legibility.  Throughout the history of the existing literature, there has been relatively little research interest in multilingual hybrid typesetting, but in the last decade there has been an increasing amount of relevant research focusing on this area. In order to focus this review, the literature centers specifically on peer-reviewed articles and classic books explicitly exploring intercultural communication in culturally multilingual hybrid typesetting, in particular, the role of multilingual typesetting design in intercultural competence.

To achieve the objective of providing a comprehensive overview of findings and discussion in the multilingual typesetting design that sort out the current problems of multilingual typesetting design for designers and build a better intercultural communication experience for readers. Three groups of search terms used were selected after checking and assessing different results. The first group was combined with the following three groups, which including other related words regarding font design (“Type’ OR ‘Typeface’ OR ‘Typography’ OR ‘Font’ OR ‘Text‘ OR ‘Script’ OR ‘Character’ OR ‘Alphabet’ OR ‘Letter“), intercultural (“Cross-cultural’ OR ‘Multicultural’ OR ‘Cultural diversity’ OR ‘Intercultural’ OR ‘ Intercultural Communication’ OR ‘Cultural’ OR ‘Ethnicity“) and typesetting design (“Page layout’ OR ‘Typesetting’ OR ‘Grid systems’ OR ‘Punctuation standards’ OR ‘Legibility’ OR ‘Editing by design’ OR ‘Photographic’ OR ‘Multiple script systems’ OR ‘Multilingual typography“). The reviewing process has focused on the abstract, methodology, results and concluding sections of the research articles considered. Moreover, references cited were reviewed to identify further relevant publications and hand-searched the following journals: International Journal of Typographische Monatsblätter, Journal of Social Semiotics,Journal of Vision Research, Journal of Intercultural Studies, DRS (Design Research Society) biennial conference series, and ATypl (Association Typographique Internationale) meeting proceedings.

Figure 1: Literature Review Flowchart

Inclusion Criteria and Selection Results
With the combination of three groups of key words listed above, 58 references were initially obtained. Then the research was defined by adding inclusion criteria, which were peer-reviewed journal articles focused on typesetting of history and culture. Studies in digital fonts design were not reviewed, and studies in typesetting other than multilingual writing system were disregarded. After screening the abstract to identify the relevance, only 23 articles have been saved, and further searches was conducted based on the citation and reference of these papers will be done. In addition, the contents related to typesetting legibility factors emerging from the articles that were not covered by initial research were included to the finalized review list as well. At the end of the additional search and the reading of the articles, a total of 28 published studies were determined to be relevant and were included in the analysis..

Analysis of Selected Studies
Regarding the distribution of the analyzed literature by years, the related studies were published from 1992 to 2021. However, the numbers grew significantly after 2010. The statistics confirm that the attention on fostering multilingual hybrid typesetting settings has been increasing among researchers and practitioners in the field. After a perusal of related publications, each study could be summarized into three central aspects: (1) the transformative impact of innovative technologies on multilingual typography; (2) how better multilingual typography design can help improve the demand and efficiency of intercultural communication; (3) how multilingual typography design affect intercultural legibility experience of reader. However, there was not much of the literature that bridges these disparate subjects. Multilingual typography design has not been widely examined within the field. Based upon the information gathered from research, it indicates that although there is a shift occurring in typography design, where more innovative methods have been employed to printing and digital display technology issues, the principle nor theorical model of conceptual and multilingual typography strategies have not fully developed (Plaice et al., 2003; Wittner et al., 2018).

To best frame this research, several bodies of literature were explored. The first section will begin with looking at typesetting experiences in order to analyze the legibility in multilingual hybrid typesetting design. The next section will then focus on studying intercultural communication in multilingual typesetting design to examine what design features support and enrich the idea of fostering intercultural empathy in different dimensions. The literature will end by bringing these two sections together to discuss the current limitations and difficulties of designing for cultivating intercultural communication in multilingual hybrid typesetting design. 
The Legibility in Multilingual Hybrid Typesetting Desig
Understanding Legibility of multilingual typesetting: 

In order to understand the legibility of multilingual typesetting involves considering a few key factors. First, the recognition theory, which states that legibility is determined by the ease with which individual letters or characters can be recognized (Gibson & Pick, 2000). It is important to ensure that the typefaces used for each language are legible and easy to read. This may involve using different typefaces for different languages or using specific fonts that are designed for use with multiple languages (Bigelow, 2019). On the other hand, for designers to embody inclusiveness, de-nationalization and decolonization, generally means choosing a sans / grotesk / neo-grotesk (See Figure 2); or to put it in an extreme way, choosing to go to the generation of globalization that has European and American modernist commercial design as its face. After all, there is no equivalent "international typographic design style" in other cultures outside of Latin characters.

Figure 2: Non Natural Grotesk it's a sans serif typography with subtle details that endow the typeface a distinctive personality. The objective was to create a typeface with legibility and good contrast between black and white making it suitable for different sizes.

In fact, the current mainstream digital typesetting design software (such as Adobe InDesign) is also not friendly to the support of multilingual mixed typesetting. For example, the Chinese government has not yet issued official "Chinese typesetting requirements" (Taiwan and Japan have formulated relevant legal rules), which causes designers to use Japanese typography rules to adapt to the needs of Chinese typography and also causes the problem of no uniform standard example for Chinese typography. When designers are faced with the demand of multilingual typesetting design in Chinese, the typesetting software will also put designers in a restricted state.

In addition to the typefaces used, according to graphical readings and the visual aesthetics of textuality design theory (Drucker, 2006), it is also important to consider the layout and formatting of the text. For multilingual text, it can be helpful to use clear and consistent formatting, such as aligning the text to the left or right margin or using consistent indentation for paragraphs. This can make the text easier to read and understand. Another factor to consider when evaluating the legibility of multilingual typesetting is the use of white space. Proper use of white space can help to improve the readability of the text by creating a clear visual hierarchy and making the text easier to reader. 

Also, according to cognitive load theory, legibility is influenced by the amount of mental effort required to process and understand text (Jan L et al., 2010). The theory proposes that people have a limited amount of cognitive resources available for processing information and that the difficulty of a task can affect how much mental effort is required to complete it. This means that if a task is too difficult, people may experience cognitive overload and have difficulty learning or performing the task effectively. And at the same time, comprehension theory, which emphasizes the role of cognitive processes in understanding text, including the ability to make inferences and draw connections between different ideas (Nagle & Sanders, 1986; Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). This places a demand on the designer's intercultural empathy, and when working on multilingual typesetting, the designer should tailor the design to the base and average cognitive level of the target audience in order to optimize legibility.

Overall, understanding the legibility of multilingual typesetting involves considering the typefaces, layout, formatting, and use of white space, as well as ensuring that the text is easy to read and understand for the base and average cognitive level of the intended audience.

Multilingual typesetting design between Chinese and Lantin writing systems: 
As the two most used writing systems internationally, Chinese and Latin writing systems have completely different writing and reading logics, which poses a challenge for designers. For example, there is a lot of vertical typography in Chinese, but the addition of English typography can make the whole thing difficult to adapt.  

There are several key differences between writing systems based on the Latin alphabet and Chinese writing systems. The most fundamental difference is that the Latin alphabet is an alphabetic system, while Chinese writing systems are logographic systems. This means that the Latin alphabet uses a set of symbols to represent individual sounds, while Chinese writing systems use a set of symbols to represent words or concepts (Xiaofeng Wang, 2013). Another significant difference between the two types of writing systems is the number of symbols used. The Latin alphabet has only 26 letters, while Chinese writing systems can have thousands of individual characters. This means that Chinese writing systems often require more time and effort to learn than alphabetic systems (Takagi, 2014). Additionally, the way that words are written and formatted in the two writing systems is different. In the Latin alphabet, words are written from left to right and are separated by spaces. In Chinese writing systems, words are written from top to bottom and from right to left, and characters are often written without spaces between them. 

Historically, the first experiences with multilingual typesetting in both writing systems also began with the design of printed type. Most of the historical intercultural typography originated from the miscommunication of information (Lu & Tang, 2016). For example, the earliest movable metal type in China came from missionaries who came to China in the 19th century without any native Chinese reference objects due to historical constraints. The missionaries started from their own culture as the only way to design, and although the type products designed at that time had many problems, they also opened the way for cultural exchange. Now the exchange has become smooth, but global multilingual typesetting design is still influenced by the Western-centered colonial culture. Many Chinese or Japanese style Latin fonts, such as, Wonton fonts (See Figure 3) used in Chinese restaurants, are now simple cultural appropriations. 

Overall, multilingual typesetting and typesetting legibility are similar concepts, but with a slightly different focus. Multilingual typesetting refers to the process of arranging text in multiple languages on a page in a way that is aesthetically pleasing and easy to read. This involves choosing fonts that support the different languages, aligning the text properly, and ensuring that the text flows smoothly from one language to the next. Typesetting legibility, on the other hand, refers to the overall readability and clarity of the text, regardless of the number of languages used. This involves factors such as font size, line spacing, and letter spacing that affect how easily a reader can read and understand the text. These differences reflect the unique historical and cultural contexts in which the two writing systems were developed, and they have significant implications for the way that language is written and used in the cultures that use them.

Figure 3: The example of the Wonton font

Intercultural Communication in Multilingual Typesetting Design
Intercultural communication is a field of study that focuses on how people from diverse cultural backgrounds communicate and understand each other (Mcmullen & Lee, 2016). When collecting information about research related to intercultural communication in multilingual typesetting design, most of the research is about internationalist typography and font design.  For example, Diatype Programm (See Figure 4) is based on Gerstner-Programm and Akzidenz Grotesk's pedigree typical Swiss font style with internationalism, but the details of R, a, y and other characters are contemporary and not old-fashioned. The entire magazine's disregard for the so-called unified visual identity is explained by the typeface's author as a deliberate attempt to avoid the Western orientation of the "system design" logic and to move closer to internationalism. However, Diatype is not always publicly available, but is always privately licensed to various cultural and artistic institutions (Liu, 2016). Its internationality is reinforced by a small utopian artistic alliance, but only to a point. It is still a Latin type design product, and therein lies its intercultural limitation.

Figure 4: The page layout example ofthe Diatype Programm sans-serif font from Dinamo

There is nothing wrong with the modern font style, what is wrong is the designer's starting point. The designers did not integrate the idea of cultural equality into their design process (Leitao et al., 2018), and as a result, the type part lost the ability to communicate across cultures. And this is only in a single textual context; if we want to integrate the need for multilingual typesetting into the real world, there are even more problems. In the digital age, the rules of writing and typesetting specific to each script have become international standards and design tools that must be taken into account (Coulmas, 1991; Daniels & William Bright, 1996), and localism is becoming an integral part of global design.

In the age of typography and computer publishing, Europe and the United States were the first to provide the tools and materials for production, so much so that "multi-script design" in the Western context was almost equivalent to "non-Latin script design," and the idea of Latin script design dominated the design of other scripts as well. Over the decades, this balance was gradually broken: "other cultures" began to make their voices heard, looking at their own scripts and writing traditions and reconstructing their own aesthetic perceptions, as exemplified by the rise of Arabic typography (many Arabs dislike non-traditional type styles).  For example, the Frutiger Arabic Font that Lebanese designer Nadine Chahine designed for Mona Typeface before was also a mixed bag, and it can hardly say whether such an extremely modern design is right or wrong. This is a problem with a script as multi-regional as Arabic, where Indians think it looks good this way and Dubaians think it looks good that way, and where Kristyan Sarkis' Greta Arabic (See Figure 5_center) and Nadine Chachine's Helvetica Neue Arabic (F6_right) both claim to be in the traditional handwritten Arabic script( Naskh, See Figure 5_left) as a glyph reference, but the modernity of the interpretation differs greatly (See Figure 5). The aesthetics of Hanzi, on the other hand, is relatively homogeneous and is basically a matter for the Chinese and Japanese to decide. Is there a need to reverse this aesthetic? Of course not, it is aesthetic freedom, and decolonial freedom.

Figure 5: Traditional handwritten Arabic script/ Greta Arabic/  Helvetica Neue Arabic

Case Study - Variable Font in Multilingual Typesetting (from accessible design to universal design): Variable Font (a font file that is able to store a continuous range of design variants. An entire typeface (font family) can be stored in such a file, with an infinite number of fonts available to be sampled.)

The designer Jason Pamental specified a slightly lighter font weight of 350 for Government Website Design Project Sans than the regular 400, and lowered the weight of the bold font accordingly to ensure that the small size text is displayed clearly. In dark mode, the font weight was lightened again to compensate for the illusion of fat, fuzzy outlines in reverse white text (See Figure 6).  The advantages of using variable fonts are twofold: 1) a more precise and delicate control of the typographic effect, and 2) a significant reduction in the amount of font file data to be loaded. 3) better technical support for Multilingual Typesetting in different languages and scripts.

Based on the findings of Microsoft text and psychology expert (Beier & Larson, 2013), the team also made an adjustment panel (See Figure 7) that allows users to adjust the desired font size, line spacing, and word spacing, and the text size hierarchy across the site is dynamically scaled accordingly to make it easier for dyslexics to use. In order to cope with the poor performance of various devices and internet traffic, Pamental team also made a lot of minor adjustments based on the built-in fonts of the operating system, to ensure that the font of the web page will not cause abrupt changes in line number and spacing before and after loading and disturb the interaction. This design also facilitates multilingual typesetting in government websites.

The vast majority of U.S. government services have gone online since the outbreak, and they are used by urban white-collar workers with new iPads, large organizations with old Windows XP and IE browsers, and single moms who can only afford cheap Samsung phones and are careful about their traffic. From this perspective, what Pamental does is perhaps not only accessible design, but universal design - the most flexible way to reach the most multicultural background people at the lowest cost.

Figure 6: In dark mode, the font weight was lightened again to compensate for the illusion of fat, fuzzy outlines in reverse white text.

Figure 7: An adjustment panel that allows users to adjust the desired font size, line spacing, and word spacing, and the text size hierarchy across the site is dynamically scaled accordingly to make it easier for dyslexics to use.

Summary of Findings

Three main deign strategies emerged from the review of case studies and research papers to demonstrate the current design methods that have been multilingual typesetting for creating intercultural communication, including: (1) optimizing the multilingual typesetting design process with innovative technologies; (2) respecting cultural diversity and confronting the rule requirements of different writing systems and the cognitive abilities of target readers; (3) introducing an interdisciplinary research perspective.

Devising a reading sequence that guides the reader in their choice of which script to read first (if they can read more than one) is important in multiscript typesetting design. Text articulation varies across scripts; typographic niceties such as caps, small caps and italics in Latin scripts have no equivalent in several other world scripts (White & White, 2021). Designers need to delve deeply into the conventions of these scripts and be inventive in their choices for visualizing hierarchy and text articulation, using size variation, color and graphic elements to bridge the various script-specific conventions (Mitchell & Wightman, 2005). Mixing these paratextual elements provides interesting ways to explore a potentially common visual language, thus enhancing the reading experience, and eventually leading to harmonious multiscriptual typesetting design.

  1. Challenges in Intercultural Communication of Multilingual Typesetting Design

As can be seen from the case studies and research papers, an evolving method for multilingual typesetting design are still many problems. To date, several studies have explored the role of innovative technologies and decolonial thinking in the future of multilingual typesetting design. Little is known about what a better multilingual typesetting design for intercultural understanding and is not clear what design factors can be added to the design practice to improve intercultural communication. 

The future development of multilingual typesetting may face a number of challenges, such as: the increasing number of languages and scripts that need to be supported (Hoeks et al., 2015). As more and more languages are used in written communication, typesetting designers will need to have a thorough understanding of the unique requirements of each language and be able to work with a wide range of fonts and typefaces. This is a challenge to the designer's ability to understand the diversity of cultures and knowledge base, as well as a challenge in digital font and typesetting design. And the need for greater automation and efficiency. As the volume of text that needs to be typeset continues to grow, there will be a greater need for tools and methods that can automate the typesetting process and reduce the amount of time and effort required.

The rise of digital publishing and the growing use of mobile devices. As increased people access written content on their phones and other devices, typesetting designers will need to have a good understanding of how to design and format text for these platforms (Southall, 2005). At the same time, the changing needs, and preferences of users. As people's reading habits and preferences evolve, typesetting designers will need to stay up to date with the latest trends and technologies and be able to adapt to changing demands. These are just a few examples of the challenges that the future development of multilingual typesetting may face. There may be other challenges as well, depending on the specific context and circumstances.

Discussion & ConclusionSince the Industrial Revolution, the pace of technological development has been increasing steadily, and the number of published typefaces has been increasing with it. At the dawn of the print era, fonts were a rare commodity because the process of crafting type was difficult and expensive, but each successive advance in print technology (Linotype, offset, photocomposition DTP etc.) has made font production easier and more economical. These technologies, however, were created primarily for setting Latin script, so designers working with other scripts (which, or lack of a better term, may be referred to as 'non-Latin) have struggled to function within systems that largely ignored them Nowadays, the technology is catching up. OpenType and Unicode help to level this uneven playing field, giving yet another fresh impetus to designers working with non-Latin typefaces. At this point in history, however, there is still an enormous gap between the Latin and non-Latin worlds in terms of the quantity and variety of available fonts. It is difficult to say how many Latin fonts are on the market now.

The fluidity of interaction and exchange between people of different cultures has increased the need for multilingual and multiscriptual typesetting design. Modern media and technological advances have bridged design and aesthetic considerations across cultural and geographical borders. Nowadays, designers are challenged to respond to contemporary communications needs by designing font families that can accommodate most written scripts and sometimes bring various writing systems together under one unifying visual language.  

The purpose of this study and analysis is the current issues and dilemmas of intercultural multilingual hybrid typesetting. As the field’s interest in multilingual hybrid typesetting and intercultural communication continues to develop in graphic design studies, this study contributes to the larger discussion on fostering decolonization for intercultural communication from the perspective of typesetting design. While this study looked primarily at the design methods being applied in multilingual hybrid typesetting design, little attention is paid to other influencing factors of typesetting design' legibility, such as cognitive psychology. Future studies should look at the discussion of the general-purpose multilingual hybrid typesetting design framework and design methodology to truly contribute to the promotion of intercultural communication from the graphic design discipline.

  • Reference
  • Beier, S., & Larson, K. (2013). How does typeface familiarity affect reading performance and reader preference. Information Design Journal, 20(1), 16–31.

  • Bigelow, C. (2019). Typeface features and legibility research. Vision Research, 165, 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.VISRES.2019.05.003

  • Bussotti, M., & Qi, H. (2014). Typography for a modern world? The ways of Chinese movable types. East Asian Science, Technology, and Medicine, 40, 9–45.

  • Coulmas, Florian. (1991). The writing systems of the world. Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Daniels, P. T. & William Bright. (1996). The World’s Writing Systems. In The world’s writing systems. Oxford University Press.

  • Drucker, J. (2006). Graphical Readings and the Visual Aesthetics of Textuality. Text: An Interdisciplinary Annual of Textual Studies, 16, 267–276.

  • Gibson, E. J., & Pick, A. D. (2000). An ecological approach to perceptual learning and development. Oxford University Press.

  • Haralambous, Y., Scott, P., Beijing, H., Cambridge, •, Farnham, •, Köln, •, Paris, •, Sebastopol, •, Taipei, •, & Tokyo, •. (2007). Fonts & Encodings: From Advanced Typography to Unicode and Everything in Between. O’Reilly Media, Inc.,.

  • Hoeks, H., Lentjes, E., & Bil’ak, P. (2015). The triumph of typography: Culture, communication, new media. Lannoo Publishers (Acc).

  • J. R. Osborn. (2017). Letters of Light: Arabic Script in Calligrahpy, Print, and Digital Design. Harvard University Press.

  • Jan L, P., Roxana, M., & Roland, B. (2010). Cognitive Load Theory (1st Edition). Cambridge University Press.

  • Jan Middendorp. (2012). Shaping Text Type, Typography and the Reader. BIS Publisher.

  • Josef Muller-Brockmann. (1996). Grid systems in graphic design: A visual communication manual for graphic designers, typographers and three dimensional designers. Niggli Verlag.

  • Leitao, R. ; C., Leahy, K., Mcmahon, M., Lloyd, P., & Bohemia, E. (2018). Recognizing and Overcoming the Myths of Modernity. DRS Biennial Conference Series, 3, 25–28. https://doi.org/10.21606/DRS.2018.468

  • Liu, E. Q. (2016). Vol.022: Global Font News Feed. The Type. https://www.thetype.com/typechat/ep-022/

  • Lu, X., & Tang, T. (2016). Elements of Chinese typeface design. In Digital Fonts and Reading (Vol. 1, pp. 109–130). World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814759540_0007

  • Mcmullen, M., & Lee, J. (2016). Intercultural Design Competence: A Guide for Graphic Designers Working Across Cultural Boundaries Related papers Against Met hod: T he Port abilit y of Met hod in Human-Cent ered Design Intercultural Design Competence: A Guide for Graphic Designers Workin. The International Journal of Visual Design, 10(3). www.designprinciplesandpractices.com

  • Mitchell, M., & Wightman, Susan. (2005). Book typography: A designer’s manual. Libanus Press.

  • Nagle, S. J., & Sanders, S. L. (1986). Comprehension Theory and Second Language Pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586386

  • Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word Knowledge in a Theory of Reading Comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687

  • Plaice, J., Haralambous, Y., & Rowley, C. (2003). An extensible approach to high-quality multilingual typesetting. Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering, 2003-January, 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1109/RIDE.2003.1249847

  • Southall, R. (2005). Printer’s type in the twentieth century: Manufacturing and design methods. Oak Knoll Press.

  • Takagi, M. (2014). Hanzi-Graphy: Typographic translation between Latin  letters and Chinese characters. MCCM Creations. https://www.academia.edu/12132299/Hanzi_Graphy_Typographic_translation_between_Latin_letters_and_Chinese_characters

  • Tam, K. C. H. (2012). A descriptive framework for Chinese–English bilingual typography. Typographische Monatsblätter, 4(5), 38–46.

  • Waller, R. (1999). Making connections: Typography, layout and language. www.aaai.org

  • White, J. V., & White, A. (Alex W. ). (2021). Editing by design: The classic guide to word-and-picture communication for art directors, editors, designers, and students.

  • Wittner, B., Thoma, S., Hartmann, T., Bil̕̕ak, P., AbiFarès, H. S., Kwon, J., Leonidas, G., & Eps51 (Firm). (2018). Bi-scriptual: Typography and graphic design with multiple script systems. Niggli Verlag.

  • Xiaofeng Wang. (2013). Chinese & Latin typography. Dalian University of Technology Press. https://www.deslegte.com/-chinese-and-latin-typography-2166124/