Man pašai savas cigaretes - Komentāri

šo es neminēju, jo manī tas vaidu izraisa drīzāk, ne smaidu ;)
un aplam universālais pieņēmums, ka bērniem jādod lielas grāmatas ar milzu burtiem, ir precīzi tik aplams, cik jelkas aplams spēj būt. bērni var no istabas pretējā stūra saredzēt pumpu uz manas pumpas uz deguna, džīzass…

dzeru rīta kafiju un pārlasu skolotāja vēstules. lūk, viņš te netālu par šo rakstīja (es pārrakstīšu visu lappusi, man tā šķiet vairāku rīta kafiju vērta):

Reading attributes meaning to words. The word is the foundation of reading and a word is not a sequence of black elements but a structure of black and white shapes. The structural word bag cannot be reversed into gab because the shape between ab does not occur in ba. Shading of the ‘white’ shapes is an effective method to ensure the perception of the word. It is a good protection against dyslexia and it is even a successful treatment of dyslectic damages. It relieves the child from the paralyzing sequences and uses its perceptional resources.
A traditional objection against my example says that children cannot learn different scripts simultaneously. This is not true. Children can even distinguish lunch from dinner. The distinction between scripts is much easier because the criteria can be formulated more clearly. This need not be discussed; try and show children a gothic bastarda or an uncial. Their natural reaction is to try these shapes as well.
A pedagogic prejudice regarding typography is the remarkable custom to give the youngest children big books, composed in big body sizes of sans serif typefaces. Why? The physiology of children would require the contrary approach in the typography of initial readers and so does the principle of perception. Experiments result again and again in the solid fact that children need small books composed in a small body size of a typeface that is dominated by translation2. (To put it less precisely, but in more familiar terms, the typeface should be classic, such as Times, and not classicist, such as Baskerville.) By meeting this demand typographers could reduce the category of so-called poor readers considerably if only pedagogy would accept sound typography.
My view on education is pessimistic. There is no practical method for any improvement. The school would say that this is not the way of teaching children. When I show the mature hands of of the children in my village the school would say that they don’t write childish enough. When I repair dyslexic damage, the school would say that my treatment is restricted to the effect of dyslexia (though there is nothing else to worry about). Any of us would be considered by the school as not qualified. My long experience in education on all levels makes no difference: I am a designer and designers cannot understand the metaphysics of pedagogy.

(Gerits Nōrdzejs, ņemts no Education as Fate, Letterleter 3, Letterletter, 2000)