hrant's picture

I really enjoy and respect the bravery of doing a "public beta".


Theunis de Jong's picture

Very iPad friendly! A joy to browse and read on my favourite user platform -- the couch.

eriks's picture

It’s also a good way to ask the future users.

Fournier's picture

I enjoy the return of the designers section which used to disappear from the former site.
The foundry section is excellent because of the use of the related logos.
I appreciate the overall uncluttered layout of this new site which lightens the access to informations.
The only weakness is the family section which does not feature the classification system—FontShop's trade mark: Sans, Serif, Slab Serif, Script, Graphic/Display, Blackletter.
Good luck.

I mistaken the category section by the family section. I went back to the old site to double-check.
The category section is absent from the new site, by the way, hence the confusion.

Albert Jan Pool's picture

family section: the family chart for Suomi lists Script and Handwritten as classification names, FF DIN FF DIN lists Sans and Grotesque. FF Antithesis though, does not list any classification names. Maybe because it is too new and FontShop did not have time to key in the classification tags in their database?

Or what do you mean by ‘family section’?

mike_duggan's picture

I like it. you might want to have a look at :)

Albert Jan Pool's picture


Fournier's picture

To FontShop,

Do you still sell the typefaces of Denis Dulude from 2Rebels?
I'm looking for Thin Man.
Thanks in advance.

Albert Jan Pool's picture

The category section is absent from the new site, by the way, hence the confusion.

fully agreed! The advantage of the category section is that one gets the possibility of accessing the library by visual means. Which on the old site got lost a bit on the second level, because many families appear several times. Also it was not possible to compare weights such as italics, condensed, extended, whatever between families. The FontBook app is better of course, but unfortunately lacks this kind of type browsing. I still miss a digital implementation of a ‘type browser’ like Berthold E3 Headlines or Photolettering’s One Line Manual of Styles. Or Photolettering’s Alphabet Theasaurus. Books like these were rather expensive to produce and for the user, finding the right category was always a bit cumbersome. One had to go through the alphabetical index first or guess in which classification slot a particular typeface could be hiding. And the text in which the typefaces could be compared was of course fixed. This could be made so much better, faster and flexible today, but no one has really managed to come up with something that comes even close to these books.
I think this could be extremely useful when one is looking for a condensed text typeface for small text on packaging. Or a bold condensed sans for magazine headlines. I think that the lack of this sort of dedicated browsing is one of the reasons that unexperienced designers who are looking for a typeface for a claim or a brand name usually pick a far too informal script instead of an italic. As far as I know, there is simply no web based type browser (my fonts, monotype, linotype, anyone?) that allows a user to fast and easily compare similar italics with each other in the way one can compare scripts …

Fournier's picture

I remember that the directory site Identifont allows to compare two typefaces.
Go to the upper Tools section and select the Difference section.
And tell me if that fits your request.

eyeRhyme's picture

I really like the new site...real web fonts in use, a responsive design, and lots of nice content to discover. [Gosh, I get design-geek shivers looking at nice web fonts on my mac w/ retina screen.] The only small suggestion I would make is to make your feature section on the homepage to have a little more structured grid on large screens. Currently, the content of each box has a lot of visual variety and seems to be a bit messy...where a bit more structure (quiet) would let each box wave its own flag rather than jostling with each other...

Albert Jan Pool's picture

An interesting tool! Checked FF DIN and DIN Next :–) It does not do what I expect from a digital type browser though. As a user, I either think I know what might be similar, or I do not know this yet. As a logical consequence, a digital type browser should primarily be able to show me what it thinks that is similar instead of asking me. In the case of this particular Identifont menue, I’d expect it to work it in a way that when I type / pick a name of a typeface I’d like to see in the left window, Identifont will present a range of fonts that I can klick through in the right window. The name field on top of the right window could be used to add fonts to Identifont’s choice, so that I can compare my own guess with that of Identifont.

Albert Jan Pool's picture

When it comes to comparing typefaces, this is what I think a digital type browser should be able to do today:
The comment below the images is an extended version of what I wrote earlier here.

The FontFont browser is great too, but unfortunately there is no way of excluding italics or viewing italics only.

Fournier's picture

Your criteria concerning type browsing are valid and relevant.
Identifont provides a very 'basic' tool to explain the type differences and it shows rapidly its internal limitations as you pointed it out.

If you're interesting in comparing the many designs of one single typeface,
try the Garamond comparing because it allows to witness the proportions:

Select two interpretations
Select the styles (Roman or Italic)
Click on a specific and idiosyncratic letter from the alphabet (Cf. "a", "e", "P", "6", "9")
Click on the 'Comparing typefaces' button

You obtain the template of type comparing.

Syndicate content Syndicate content