Job:03171 Title:Typography Referenced (Rockport)
Page: 146
Job:03171 Title:Typography Referenced (Rockport)
Page: 146
142-165 03171.indd 146 9/23/11 11:42 AM
Text
Job:03171 Title:Typography Referenced (Rockport)
Page: 146
146
Typography, Referenced
Text
Job:03171 Title:Typography Referenced (Rockport)
Page: 146
Web designers used to be limited to a mere dozen Web-safe fonts.
But thanks to new tools such as Typekit, designers can browse
through nearly any type specimen online. Typekit’s online
catalog allows the designer to see a range of styles and weights,
along with how the font will appear in a variety of browsers and
operating systems. This range of testing is akin to seeing how
a font would appear on one type of paper versus another.
designers sort and select type have come and gone, but
sorting by history, features, tools used, usage clas-
sifi cation, and the Vox system are the mainstays:
•
Historical classifi cations position typefaces or their reviv-
als within the time period during which their visual
attributes were invented.
•
Classifying by features such as shape, proportion, or use
clusters typefaces into visual categories rather than within
an historical canon.
•
The tools used to create the typeface can also become a
mode of classifi cation. This is more prevalent for predigi-
tal typefaces, when myriad tools were used such as chisels,
pens, geometric measuring devices, rulers, or brushes.
•
Last, usage classifi cation includes categories such
as text or display, coated or uncoated paper, off set or
digital printing, and—to fragment even further—
digital as well as small screen.
•
Of all the classifi cation methods, the Vox system has the
widest level of consensus. Maximillien Vox created it in
, and the Association Typographique Internationale
() adopted it on the merits of its traditional terminol-
ogy and historical criteria. The fi rst four categories relate
to early serif type forms including the Venetian Human-
ist, Garalde, Transitional (), and Didone (). The more
familiar categories such as slab serif () and sans serif
each have their own subcategories. And Glyphic (),
script, and graphic round out the list, helping to neatly
position some of the typographic outliers.
Any of the above systems work under the proper circum-
stances, and depending on the piece at hand, designers
still take liberties with the way they sort and view type-
faces. But one constant remains: dispute. Many designers,
typographers, artisans, and printers consider many of the
new typographic breed weeds among the fl owery time-
tested faces included in this chapter. Everyone seems to
have his or her own opinions about what is timeless and
what is purely functional.
Put a graphic designer and a typographer in the
same room and ask them to share with each other their
list of top fonts. Chances are good that that list
would have as many similarities as diff erences. But those
on which they agreed would likely have unique propor-
tions, characteristics, shapes, or uses. After their voting,
if they had to research the history of their chosen fonts,
as well as those they left off of the list, chances are they
would have a newfound perspective on those they
selected and neglected.
Typefaces will continue to become popular or
unpopular, but a broad, conceptual understanding of
these time-tested typefaces can go a long way toward
ensuring that designers have a springboard for the
continued use and celebration of typography.
142-165 03171.indd 146 9/23/11 11:42 AM