Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Typeface vs Font
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Typeface vs Font - Page 2

post #16 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by gfreeman View Post
The Tractatus!

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOBD View Post
I love typography talk.

...there's some pretty neat typography in the Tractatus.
post #17 of 30
..
post #18 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. White View Post
When I discovered that Word Perfect 8 included Futura fonts, I thought I was the only man in the world who understood its usefulness. Back then (late '90s), the only place you'd find Futura was on the COMP USA sign. Until I installed WP on a machine, the local college's computers (where I did my printing) had only Univers, Times, and a typewriter monospace font similar to Courier.

I see Futura everywhere, but I almost never see Univers installed on computers.

Quote:
should have been able to automatically kern between letters of a word, and so on.

Fonts have automatically kerned since the advent of Postscript.
post #19 of 30
^^^ That first blonde girl is GORGEOUS.
post #20 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. White View Post
I'm disgusted with the slow progress in fonts. By now, word processors should have been able to provide the full array of line weights, outline/inline, etc., should have been able to automatically kern between letters of a word, and so on.
Word processors do what they say. Which not necessarily includes correct handling of fonts. You need a proper lay-out program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tagutcow View Post
Fonts have automatically kerned since the advent of Postscript.
My thoughts exactly. Still the kerning is as good/bad as the hardcoded tables, and might look bad in your/someone's local tongue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumamubyagoke View Post
...порно ролик в подарок немного...
...that camel-toe is kerned too tight.
post #21 of 30
I've seen documentaries with mating rituals of her. I'll try and remember the name. Edit: To my great shame that didn't take long; Ash l y nn Bro o ke<-- I'm hoping this will confuse search engines.
post #22 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDFS View Post
I've seen documentaries with mating rituals of her. I'll try and remember the name.

Edit: To my great shame that didn't take long; Ash l y nn Bro o ke<-- I'm hoping this will confuse search engines.

Once again, your "knowledge" of American "culture" comes in handy!
post #23 of 30
Helvetica is so fucking awesome.

Here's to hoping the world gets over its obsession with Myriad Pro and returns to Helvetica sometime soon.
post #24 of 30
Don't use fucking Helvetica, please.
post #25 of 30
post #26 of 30
what would you prefer over helvetica
post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post
what would you prefer over helvetica

Not that you asked me... but I really like Martin Majoor's Scala Sans (and the "avec" as well):




See:

http://www.martinmajoor.com/pdf/leaflet_ScalaSans.pdf
post #28 of 30
-lost interest in fonts some time ago. Prefererred standard sans serif: franklin. But it is a personal taste. As any of the professionals above would tell you, it depends on the job.
post #29 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
The quick answer as I was taught:

Typeface: the unique design of a set of typographic characters (i.e. what it looks like)

Font: the physical manifestation of those characters (i.e. the actual thing itself)

In the dark ages, a font meant all the cast metal pieces that would form a typeface at a single size, say 12-point Times Roman. The metal pieces have since been replaced by digital vector files which can be scaled to any size. The two terms are now practically interchangeable.

That's correct, and to add to it the definition of a typeface family (or font family in this day and age) refers to all the fonts of a single design, with different weights, width, and italic/slope variants.

For example:

Gotham is a font family with 64 total fonts. It has four widths. Each width has eight weights, and each of these has a roman and italic. Gotham Black Italic is an example of a single typeface from this family.

However, if the design of two typefaces are significantly different, they're not considered part of the same family even if they're conceptually related. For example, Gotham Rounded is not considered part of the Gotham family, but Gotham, Gotham Rounded, and Gotham Serif are all considered part of the Gotham superfamily. As another example, Scala (serif) and Scala Sans are not considered part of the same family, but can be grouped together as a superfamily.

Now, to illustrate where the distinction between "font" and "typeface" can apply even with digital fonts, take a look at H&FJ Didot. Notice that the fonts here are designed for use in different sizes. (The details at the larger sizes are much finer.) So, there are 7 fonts that make up the typeface Didot Light Roman, designed for use at 6, 11, 16, 24, 42, 64, and 96 points in size. This is a throwback to the metal type era when each size of a typeface was cut separately, so the larger sizes could be given finer detail since the details would still hold up when printed. Just by looking at the sample page, you can see how the fine lines in Didot 96 basically disappear because it is shown at a smaller size than it was designed for.
post #30 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post
What would you prefer over Helvetica?
Georgia/Arial. Georgia is by far my favourite typeface for web design! Very easy answer to OP's question: typeface = the shape of each letter (A-Z, numbers and punctuation); font = what you do to those letters afterwards (e.g. italics, etc). Anything to do with font families is about typefaces in the same strain. It's was also used a lot in html, before CSS, and therefore has been confused with typeface and font.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Typeface vs Font