brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2014-01-23 03:34:47 +0000 UTC]

Ah. Some point in the middle of working on Hemlock I got married. Since then my "type" time has mostly vanished. I have worked on Hemlock on a few occasions since my last posts and it's improved at least a little. I plan to finish though, I've been working on other things and shall do Hemlock when I get a break from them.

So how's dA been Martin?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-04-12 02:45:14 +0000 UTC]

Hey, I took a look and answered your questions.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MartinSilvertant In reply to brianskywalker [2012-04-12 15:16:46 +0000 UTC]

Thanks!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

brianskywalker In reply to spicone [2012-04-01 23:01:52 +0000 UTC]

No prob.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

brianskywalker In reply to crenative [2012-02-28 03:55:34 +0000 UTC]

Thanks you. There was just another release a few minutes ago. And thanks so much for the points.

If you have any feedback, let me know.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

brianskywalker In reply to pakaworld [2012-02-28 04:01:20 +0000 UTC]

Thank you so much for your very kind words.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

brianskywalker In reply to eibhilinnn [2012-02-24 05:19:28 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome. Your photos always inspires me so. <3

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-02-17 16:42:17 +0000 UTC]

I'm a little pressed for time right now, but I want to do one on bezier curves and construction of some of the more difficult shapes.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MartinSilvertant In reply to brianskywalker [2012-02-17 16:56:26 +0000 UTC]

Ahh sounds perfect. I will concentrate on the type classification articles then.

By the way, I applied for the function of monitor of the 'Digital Art > Typography > Font Design' and 'Resources & Stock Images > Fonts' categories here on DA, and I'm also discussing a new (sub-)categorization with ^pica-ae . You can check the categorization (still subject to change) here: [link]

Do you have any thoughts or suggestions?

By the way, do you consider type design itself to be typography or not? I had a lengthy discussion about that with ^pica-ae . I'm of the opinion that type design is creating letters while typography is creating text, though the definitions do get blurry at some point.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-02-24 05:01:34 +0000 UTC]

That's great! Someone needed to fill in that gap. I have complained to myself several times about the category.

Honestly, I hate type classification. I like to pretend my forms are outside that. Or maybe, it's because I don't have a name for what I'm trying to do. Does "transitional with a modern jacket" count as a classification?

Regarding your new sub categorization: it's so much better. When I first glanced over, it seemed sufficient, however now I am thinking otherwise in certain areas.

Mechanistic:
(a) It seems misleading. Those styles all originate in the Victorian era. Mechanistic seems more a term akin to the early 20th century. Try "Egyptienne/Slab Serif" for this main category title.
(b) you leave out the subsections Antique (this would replace the Egyptienne subcategory), Clarenden, Latin/Antique Tuscan, and Tuscan. By the time you get to the last two, the serifs get a bit wild. Since this might seem redundant to you, let me explain:
* Antique/Antique Egyptienne: the classic, unbracketed slab.
* Clarendon: Bracketed slab serifs (This also includes those reversed stress French Clarendons used so much by American Western films.)
* Latin/Antique Tuscan: Wedge serifs, and flared slabs
* Tuscan: Building on the flared slabs of the previous category, the serifs become abstract ornaments to be manipulated at will.
(c) I propose also adding these subcategories:
* Modern Slab Serif: Rational slab serifs, including geometric slab serifs, and typefaces like Serifa and Museo Slab. This category could possibly be called "Rational Slab Serif", "20th century slab serif", or "Contemporary Slab Serif".
* Post-Modern Slab Serif: Experiments with slab serifs that go beyond modern, but could feature any number of variations. Two examples are Chaparral and Absara.

The terms "modern" and "post-modern" may or may not be a good approach at all. But I think it may be better than nothing.

Serif:
The term "modern" is confusing here, since Modern is a term so commonly used for "didone". Maybe it should be called "20th century serif", and there could also be a category for "post modern" Or just to disambiguate call it contemporary? An alternate term for Transitional is Neoclassical or Baroque (actually, they are sort of subcategories). Note that a better description is "Typefaces which have characteristics of Garalde and Didone traditions.

Blackletter:
Among Enlish speaking people, I think "Textura" is the prevailing term, not "Textualis". That might be confusing.

Non-Latin:
There should be an "other" category.


I think calling the main category for hand-written and scripts "Chirographic" was the right step. Strictly speaking "Chancery" under this category, and Venetian under the Serif category overlap. But I can't think of a reasonable solution better than what's already there.

I wonder if you can put images in the category descriptions. The classification terms are esoteric enough that not everyone making fonts on dA will be familiar.


> By the way, do you consider type design itself to be typography or not?

I think the problem is really an ambiguous definition for typography. I think there are at least two senses of typography in common use: Text typography, the art of typesetting and laying out text. And letter typography, the art of the letters themselves.

Smeijers, in Counterpunch, held that there are three types of letters: writing, lettering, and type. Writing (Chirography) being the chicken scratch marks used for grocery lists, to the most mannered calligraphy. Lettering is letters that are not written but drawn. Type is letters that are made using mechanical means, with the simplest typographic machine being the typewriter.

I almost want to agree with you here, but really I'm a little stuck. I would say that type design is a specialized type of lettering. Maybe it is.

I don't know anyone who argues that a font isn't typographic. If the use of a font is typographic, is not the making of a font? Maybe type design is a different sense of typography, and a niche. A specialized area of typography and not separate from typography. Car engeering is not a subclass of racing, though, although a racer uses a car as his tool. Unless the engineer specializes in racecars. But when asked what he doesn he wont say "racing", but "racecar engineer".

I think I partly agree with you here, although I haven't totally convinced myself. I think the problem is the question. Of course type design is a part of typography, just as racecar engineering is a part of racing. But racecar engineering is not racing. And neither is type design typography. If the typographer is the racer, and the type designer is a racecar engineer, what is "racing"?

And now I'm back to my "at least two senses of typography" argument. Only now the senses have changed. One sense of typography is the sense of the typographer: the racecar driver, the one who sets the type - typesetting. Another sense is the sense of racing, which includes both the racer and racecar engineer, as well as others. Both are required for racing to work. This is a second sense for typography, which requires both the typographer and type designer. In this sense, type design is a part of typography.

Let me rehash this one more time. In my analogy, a typographer is a racer. The racer does racing (1st sense). But that's not the only kind of racing. Racing is also the thing that lots of people work together to do: the racing crew - crew chief (main designer), driver (typesetter), pit crew. But there's another fella who does his part, the car engineer (type designer). This is the second sense.

In the first sense, no TD is not typography, but in the second it is. The cause of confusion is the multiple definitions of typography, not whether or not TD is a part of it.

So I think I have my answer now. Sorry for the rambling, maybe I'll organize these thoughts better later.

Thoughts?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MartinSilvertant In reply to brianskywalker [2012-02-26 22:20:33 +0000 UTC]

I agree with the term 'mechanistic' being confusing. Eventually, instead of coming up with rather generic terms we should simply go for the least confusing — though admittedly not entirely correct — 'slab serif' as the main category. It really could be a sub-category of 'serif' as well, but then the levels go too deep and the fact that some slab serifs are more like the sans than serif regarding structure makes me want to put it in a separate class. As for slab serif's sub-categories, I don't think I've seen any Antique Tuscan or Tuscan on DA, but if there are some perhaps we should merge the two. Though perhaps this is getting too specific and confusing. I also don't like the terms you proposed for "modern slab serif" (except for rational, logically speaking, but perhaps not for DA); better just call it 'modern slab serif'. I already spoke to Ryan ($liquisoft ) and he likes the new categorization but he also acknowledged that the system should remain as simple as possible. I did warn him however that while it should remain simple, it also shouldn't be dumbed down too much. I actually think adding a picture or pictures to the gallery for each category is a very good idea and I hope to be able to convince Ryan of that. Actually, with pictures we could become more specific in the categorization and the terms though that only seems to become relevant at the point type design becomes more popular here. In a way it might even be selfish for us to command all these sub categories while 'traditional painting' also deserves a categorization of many styles, and possibly adding pictures to the gallery descriptions etc. It would become madness. Fortunately for us though Ryan already acknowledged the typeface categories need a better categorization.

Serif: I also had my doubts about 'modern'. I like contemporary. I will change that.
Blackletter: I didn't realize I wrote Textualis. Textura is the way to go.
Non-Latin: I already planned a Miscellaneous category to be added as many languages are either absent or not yet popular enough on DA to deserve a separate category.

I might just remove Chancery as I haven't seen it on DA. What do you think? We could mention Chancery in the description of the Venetian/Humanist category, right?

As for your whole analogy, I understand it and I find your thoughts and distinctions to be logical to some extent, however I tend to make a distinction in a much more simple way. I agree that there's writing, lettering and type and I think they're all typographic because regardless of whether it's conscious or unconscious, you're basing your practice on typographic principles. Having said that, with the design of the letter itself you certainly think of those typographic principles as you work with stroke weight, direction, stress, x-height, texture, negative space etc. but taking typography into account is not typography itself. In this design process you essentially have to take into account how the letters should look IF typography is done (arrangement of letters, words and sentences) and as a type designer you undeniably have to do typography, but type design is not typography. Typography is a part of type design but a typographer is no type designer. I think that connects with the "two senses of typography" argument. However by my reasoning I should conclude that type design does not belong as a sub-category of typography even though type design does have a typographic aspect.

"Of course type design is a part of typography, just as racecar engineering is a part of racing."
I would say of course typography is part of type design. I have to admit though no matter how I think about this (and I re-wrote this comment several times), I still end up having to draw a conclusion I don't want to make, which is that typography can be divided into (among other things) writing, lettering and type while I still think typography is a division of type design and not the other way around. Could it be both? Perhaps I'm thinking too deep about this; all I know is that I found ways to work around your analogy so there's still something about it which bothers me even though it makes sense. I still like to be stubborn and simply say type is the design of letters while typography is the arrangement of letters.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-03-23 14:46:18 +0000 UTC]

How is the new type classification for dA coming by the way? (I haven't been on in a while.)

Also, over complication may just make a system seem silly, at least if it's unnecessary.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MartinSilvertant In reply to brianskywalker [2012-03-23 15:44:55 +0000 UTC]

The Font and Type design categories won't be placed under 1 category as I proposed. Apparently that was too much work (?) and they want to keep the Fonts in the Resources & Stock Images category. DA is currently working on the categorization (based on the work I compiled from my knowledge and your and Anne's feedback) of the Fonts category though, so that's a big improvement.

As for the Type design category, last I heard they wanted to introduce a simplified categorization there but I'm not seeing that. It might just get confusing again.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-03-23 17:27:23 +0000 UTC]

Hmm. That's too bad. Your categorization was quite exciting.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-02-02 04:10:01 +0000 UTC]

No. I'm not even sure how. I hope you can figure it out.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MartinSilvertant In reply to brianskywalker [2012-02-02 05:42:43 +0000 UTC]

The blog disappeared again a few times but it seems to be a loading issue of some sort; nothing a refresh can't solve.

Anyway, I added the welcome text to the widget containing the submission guidelines so I could remove the Group Info widget and clean the composition up. I also found out how to specify the text size in the Blog article so now I made the titles without heading tags and the lists without list items to avoid all that white space. I added some colored bulletins for emphasis and a friendlier atmosphere. I think it all looks pretty nice now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-02-17 19:33:44 +0000 UTC]

It looks good. Glad you figured out the issue.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MartinSilvertant In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-02-02 00:19:38 +0000 UTC]

I just checked when you were last online and that was 5 days ago so it couldn't have been you. But I just checked the Group again and the Blog is back. Really strange. A moment ago it said there were no articles to show.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-02-02 04:20:03 +0000 UTC]

You can do it with Fontforge. It wasn't intended to run on Windows originally, but it can be done. The easiest way in my experience is with an unofficial port. There's a download here: [link] You probably want the file called "fontforge-cygwin_2011_06_06.zip". I think in the zip file is an executable which you can just run. Fontforge can open UFOs, OTFs, and TTFs quite well. Once you open both fonts you wish to interpolate, then select Element > Interpolate Fonts... and enter the details there. Anyway, there are intructions on the site, just run it through a translator. If you can't get this to work for you, then I can interpolate for you.

Did you say before that you have a copy of Fontlab? You can interpolate in that as well, though I've only done a quick test. But it should be straight-forward.

Can't wait to take a look at it!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MartinSilvertant In reply to brianskywalker [2012-02-02 05:47:50 +0000 UTC]

The installation procedure for FontForge seemed pretty confusing so I let that be for a while. I might have to force myself through the procedure if I have no other options. Well, at one point I would like to install FontForge anyway because I like what you told me about being able to program the OT features without code.

I do have Fontlab. I had no idea it supports interpolation. I will have a look at it soon. Thanks for the information.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-02-17 19:33:25 +0000 UTC]

I hope the Fontlab interpolation works for you. Like I said, I've only done some quick tests.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-02-02 04:11:25 +0000 UTC]

I think a "Book" weight is slightly heavier than a Regular. Either that or lighter. I can't seem to make up my mind which it is. I might have to look this one up.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MartinSilvertant In reply to brianskywalker [2012-02-02 05:32:16 +0000 UTC]

So it really is only a weight? It doesn't imply detail changes in the serifs compared to Regular?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-02-17 16:45:55 +0000 UTC]

I think it really is only a weight... I personally try to stay clear of the weight because of it's ambiguity.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MartinSilvertant In reply to brianskywalker [2012-02-17 16:58:45 +0000 UTC]

Alright then. By the way, I believe a book weight is slightly lighter than Regular. At least, I hear quite often that people find Regular from a specific typeface to be too dark for text while Light is too light so I think Book fills that gap.

What do you mean by the latter sentence?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-02-17 19:28:48 +0000 UTC]

Book, when I make a font, I steer clear of the weight. Though maybe I wont. I think Neuton does need a "book" weight, although I was going to call it "blonde".

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MartinSilvertant In reply to brianskywalker [2012-02-17 23:10:55 +0000 UTC]

Haha could you explain it in other words? I don't know what 'steer clear of the weight' means.

Why does Neuton need a book weight? Are you going to expand its application to beyond web? Because for a (free) web font it's a very big family already and doesn't really need Book I think. Why call it 'blonde'? I actually considered naming my weights according to their Dutch names but I better just use the default names to avoid confusion.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-02-24 05:18:50 +0000 UTC]

When someone is driving, and they want to avoid something, they "steer clear of it". So I was saying I like to avoid "book" weights in my own fonts.

Let me explain. I plan on making a Pro version of Neuton, with some slightly reworked letterforms, ornaments, and more weights for added sublety in print. For a book face, I feel Neuton is going to be a bit too heavy for most typographer's tastes. So I thought a "blond" would work, because it's not really a semi-light, but wants to be lighter than than Regular. A book weight would work too, but I don't like it's ambiguity. Perhaps the problem was just my own foggy memory. Saying I try to avoid book weights was a bit premature since I don't really have that much experience with type design, especially book weights.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MartinSilvertant In reply to brianskywalker [2012-02-24 17:34:10 +0000 UTC]

Ahh I get it now.

"since I don't really have that much experience with type design" sounds a bit strange to me though. At one point would you say you're experienced?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-02-24 20:44:19 +0000 UTC]

I don't know what point I become experienced. I suppose I've been playing with fonts for almost 4 years. The obsession with type and typography started much earlier though, and much of my reading regarding type happened in that time, although I still read more books often.

I suppose it's a relative term. I don't have much experience when compared to, say, Matthew Carter. And I just don't know about every area. Of course, the more I learn, the more there is to learn.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MartinSilvertant In reply to brianskywalker [2012-02-25 03:40:43 +0000 UTC]

Well, when compared to Matthew Carter I suppose lots of type designers are not experienced.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

brianskywalker In reply to MartinSilvertant [2012-02-25 08:10:31 +0000 UTC]

There you have it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

brianskywalker In reply to pica-ae [2012-02-02 04:20:16 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pica-ae In reply to brianskywalker [2012-02-04 10:51:09 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

brianskywalker In reply to buckymcnasty [2012-02-02 04:20:21 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0