Purpose

Typography depends on discussion, yet most platforms used for critique treat type as static images embedded in linear, text-heavy conversations. This disconnect makes it hard to link opinions to the exact forms they refer to. Character Diversion addresses this gap by enabling glyph-based discourse: opinions are directly connected to specific characters, parts of characters, and variable font states. This tight coupling of argument and artefact makes agreements, disagreements, and design intent more legible and comparable.

The platform is intentionally open to controversial topics—such as typographic hierarchies or cultural implications of multi-script design—on the premise that discourse is only meaningful when conventions can be challenged.

Design Process

The project began with an analysis of existing typographic forums, design showcase platforms, and font-development tools. While each supports discussion in some form, none are built around the structural realities of type design: large glyph sets, subtle formal differences, and variable fonts.

From this, three guiding principles emerged: glyphs must be first-class elements, opinions should remain concise, and the interface should support exploration rather than linear reading. These principles informed a structure built around three interconnected views—About, Glyphs, and Opinions—allowing users to move fluidly between context, form, and discussion. Selecting a glyph reveals related opinions; selecting an opinion highlights the exact glyphs and configurations being discussed.

To keep discourse focused, opinions are intentionally constrained in length and supported by simple voting instead of nested threads. Visually, the interface is restrained and typography-forward, using muted tones and functional accent colors to emphasize form, comparison, and interaction rather than decoration.

Outcome

Character Diversion proposes an alternative model for typographic discourse—one where discussion is structured around the artefacts themselves. The project demonstrates how interface and interaction design can shape not just how designers talk about type, but how clearly and inclusively that conversation can unfold.