> after a while, I noticed that I had started to subconsciously alter my designs to fit within the limitations of the display technology.
Isn't that what always happens? That's one of the reasons designs from different eras look different: not just that fashions change, but that the output technology changes and allows a different set of design choices. No matter how much somebody in the 1940s might have wished to set some type a smidgeon wider or narrower, that just wasn't possible until the advent of phototypesetting in the 60s, and 1940s designers would have subconsciously altered their designs to fit within the limitations of their technology.
At the fringes of every fashion era, there have been things that've peeked out into the future and tried to push things forward.
As a designer, if you aren't constantly trying to build stuff that's better than what other people think is currently possible, then you may have just become a cog in a machine.
Isn't that what always happens? That's one of the reasons designs from different eras look different: not just that fashions change, but that the output technology changes and allows a different set of design choices. No matter how much somebody in the 1940s might have wished to set some type a smidgeon wider or narrower, that just wasn't possible until the advent of phototypesetting in the 60s, and 1940s designers would have subconsciously altered their designs to fit within the limitations of their technology.