Comments on: The full fonty: why type nerds went mental over IKEA

By: Mr Bascombe

Mr Bascombe — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 03:54:59 +0000

How about a typeface design that is so cleverly designed that it “…allow(s) more information to fit in a small space, thus saving paper, print time, shipping, and consequently, huge amounts of money”. Matthew Carter (that man again), did it with Bell Centennial – designed purposefully for the US phone book. Often a typeface is designed with a dedicated useful purpose in mind (ie. not just to be another ‘fabulously stylish’ thing).

http://www.nicksherman.com/articles/bellCentennial.html

By: Bullmore's Ghost

Bullmore's Ghost — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:34:11 +0000

Typeface fury/envy invariably reminds me of this scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoIvd3zzu4Y

By: Jeff Waugh

Jeff Waugh — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:31:51 +0000

Damon: You're most likely seeing Georgia, a wide serif designed for the screen by Matthew Carter -- yes, that Matthew Carter, of Verdana fame.

By: Mr Bascombe

Mr Bascombe — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:07:40 +0000

Yes - quite right. Higher res screens have changed the web playground a bit. Interestingly, The Times no longer uses Times New Roman (the typeface as created specifically for that particular newspaper in the 1930s) and online, The Times uses Arial for body text. One more little bit: some designers refrain from using Times and Helvetica/Arial as they’re too common, are ubiquitous and lack personality. Much of our work is in creating a distinctive voice for an organisation, a publication or a brand, which is, in part, expressed through typeface selection. As those fonts aren’t distinctive and help someone stand out in a crowded marketplace, we usually look for something a little more distinctive, appropriate and relevant to a client’s message. We don’t ‘hate’ those fonts so much… No hang on, I do…

By: Damon Schultz

Damon Schultz — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:40:28 +0000

re: serif versus sans serif. The old rule was that serif is for print i.e. paper and sans serif is for web i.e. computer screen. The rationale was that computer screens lacked sufficient resolution to display the serifs - semi-structural details on the ends of some of the strokes that make up letters and symbols - and hence using serif fonts would hinder rather than help legibility. With the advent of sophisticated anti-aliasing techniques and higher-resolution screens in modern display devices these concerns are probably outdated. As I type this comment in what appears to be Times Roman the serifs appear clear and crisp to my eyes and in my opinion aid legibility.

By: Mr Bascombe

Mr Bascombe — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:25:16 +0000

Erik Spiekermann’s ‘Stop Stealing Sheep & Find Out How Type Works’: a great ‘how to use type’ book, by a great type designer. This one is probably the nice little paperback you’re after (although not so much about type history from memory) … and there’s also:

The Bible: ‘The Elements of Typographic Style’ by Robert Bringhurst. Not exactly a light read, but ‘the’ book on type/fonts and their history and well, everything font-y that you could possibly think of.

Ellen Lupton’s ‘Thinking with Type’ – lighter, and excellent – more visual than the above one. http://ilovetypography.com/2007/10/09/thinking-with-type/

http://ilovetypography.com is a great type-related blog too.

By: Felix Dance

Felix Dance — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:21:28 +0000

I do admire a good type nerd, but the apostrophe nerd in me fumes over this article.

By: Paul Ferraro

Paul Ferraro — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:09:45 +0000

What an intriguing article (and associated comments).

Has anything been published on the history of fonts? Perhaps a nice little paperback which could be easily digested by a non-designer?

Suggestions anyone?

By: Mr Bascombe

Mr Bascombe — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:59:24 +0000

Century Gothic is one of the mysteries of the universe. If Arial is a bloodless, soulless copy of Helvetica (which is that way inclined itself), Century Gothic is perhaps even doubly so. It looks like it was designed by a (bloodless) work experience kid. I think vampires are involved…

By: Mel Campbell

Mel Campbell — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:35:12 +0000

ECS: Heh! This is what reading Mark Simonson at 3am gets you. Also, perhaps it’s a subconscious thing: I was obsessed with Gill Sans in 1996; thought it was the most elegant font evz. (1997-8 however were the shameful ‘Eurostile Extended’ years.)

Also, while I have the type nerds’ attention: can anyone explain why so many PRs write their pressers in Century Gothic?

By: Mr Bascombe

Mr Bascombe — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:32:30 +0000

Eric: it is thought that serif type is easier to read with long passages of text than sans serif type. Athough that argument seems to have developed around the time when there were simply more serif fonts around than sans serif fonts (ye olden days). Nowadays, sans serifs, serifs (and a couple of other styles, but I won’t go there) co-exist in harmony, each with an intended purpose for their usage and after designing with both styles for many years now – I’m convinced the argument that ‘serifs are easier to read than their sans cousins’ just doesn’t hold water (well, perhaps it does just a little, in print). Most web designers think that sans serif type is way more legible on screen as bodytext too (research demonstrates this too). As GEF05 says ‘context is everything’: spot on.

By: Elizabeth Carey Smith

Elizabeth Carey Smith — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:43:52 +0000

Mel: Don Draper’s office door is in Gill Sans (a minor mistake.)

Lucy: Why should you listen to type designers’ opinions on type design? Really?

Verdana was commissioned by Microsoft. It was designed by one of type’s greatest designers of all time, Matthew Carter. No one is saying it’s a bad font. It’s just the wrong one for Ikea’s purposes.

By: gef05

gef05 — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:44:58 +0000

“Why can’t designers understand that the most readable type faces have serifs?”

Because (good) designers understand that such generalisations only serve to confuse the situation. No one style suits every situation - context of use is paramount, and if you make a concrete assumption (such as you have) you will be wrong as often as you are right.

But then, you probably double-space after a period, don’t you? (Admit it!)

By: Eric Lawson

Eric Lawson — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:31:27 +0000

TYPE FACES
re that IKEA catalogue ( which I have not seen and don’t wish to see)
Why can’t designers understand that the most readable type faces have serifs? Pick up any newspaper and you will find that its body type is Times/Times Roman or similar face. I spent a lot of my working life trying to convince graphic designers to use serif types for the sake of readability but the moment my back was turned out would come a publication with a sans serif body type. To make matters worse they like to use a light spindly 6 point sans serif type on a coloured background to produce something my ageing eyes cannot handle. OK I will accept Helvitica or Helvitica bold in headings but that’s about its limit.
As I have often said, designers love to make things look pretty but they do not read!
Maybe Crikey could try a nice readable Times Roman some time!
Eric Lawson

By: Kathryn

Kathryn — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:28:05 +0000

Lucy, the reason for disliking Verdana as a printed logo was given in both the articles and the comments - it was designed to be easily readable in pixelated form on a computer screen, and was not designed to be either printed throughout a catalogue or blown up to massive size as a logo. It is irrelevant that it was designed by Microsoft - this detail merely helps to explain what its purpose was, ie to be easily read on-screen.

By: Lucy

Lucy — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:56:43 +0000

Banning a font by law! What is this, a dictatorship of the font-cognoscenti? Are designers really in one mind about Verdana, and if so, why precisely are we supposed to listen to them when a simple rulebook would suffice?

The golden quote: “I haven’t seen it myself, but apparently it’s really lumpy and uneven at that size”… that about sums it up. This is just more hating on Microsoft by people who can’t see the difference between true evil and ephemera. Next.

By: Will Grant

Will Grant — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:24:10 +0000

Both articles are great reads - but Jeremy, use the power of the internets and whack in some picture examples!

By: Mr Bascombe

Mr Bascombe — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:13:40 +0000

To designers, who care for their type and fonts like policemen care for doughnuts*, IKEA swapping Futura for Verdana is an exceedingly dumb thing. Futura (or IKEA’s own cut of it), along with the Swedish names, was ‘IKEA’, it signified ‘IKEA-ness’, and IKEA had successfully embedded their unique Swedishy visual language into our collective psyche (and a suburb or two in each state). Brand-wise, moving away from it is especially brave and/or crazy. The font now chosen to represent ‘Swedish flatpackingness’ is Verdana, which was designed solely for the web/screen, not the printed page. Using Verdana in print is like using your underpants as a hat. Not the done thing to do in polite society, or in suburban über-malls. People will point.

* US only, I think.

By: Jane Doe

Jane Doe — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 03:51:13 +0000

What a lovely type-nerd article. I am an Arial hater, because the I and the l are indistinguishable. Kim Jong Il, or Kim Jong the second???