New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Create an account
Typophile RSS | More Feeds
Our latest newsletter, featuring our new text family Kinney, can be viewed here
How can it be friendly and neutral?
I'll explain it when you are a little older.
It's gorgeous. Reminds me a bit of Typejockeys' Ingeborg.
James, I don't think that question deserves mockery. And a person can be forgiven for being skeptical of marketing wordage... You could just expect to be challenged and make the small effort to defend your decisions. This is not a magazine ad.
>How can it be friendly and neutral?
I was wondering the same thing, but what an offputting response...
Well,I think "neutral" is because of cultural history here in the US. I wonder if it will look neutral to European eyes.
This looks to me like its ancestry is the Century family, which recently has also had other grandchildren, or great grandchildren: Benton Modern, from Font Bureau, Chronicle, from Hoefler & Frere Jones, and Worldwide by Nick Shinn.
I guess if I were thinking of using this genre, I'd want to compare these and others. James's fine craftsmanship always makes his entries contenders.
I concur that friendly and neutral appears to be an oxymoron, but perhaps it is a paradox?
Please explain (I'm old enough).
This is not a magazine ad.
Of course it is. It's the release section.
Nick, we live with oxymorons all the time: Famous Type Designer?
It served us well through the Cold War. How could the U.S. have survived without Friendly Neutrals?
James, I love it.
Reminds me of Doyald´s Prudential (And that's a big compliment!) and I see your signature also.
And quoting him: "It´s friendly because we have seen Century for 200 years, and probably you first learned to read with Century Schoolbook, and that familiarity makes it friendly, it´s not the shape of the forms itself"
And it´s neutral because it´s not screaming for attention (like display fonts).
Friendly and Neutral can coexist in harmony.
1) The shapes themselves can be friendly or not as well.
2) That's a pretty low bar for "neutral".
I was just trying to friendly explain the main point, not to set any bar, nor begin any aggressive discussion.
Just pretend I'm Brazilian.
looks great James.
What a terrific typeface. It reminds me of a set of beautiful old wood chisels I inherited from my father. The forms are elegant, but the main thing about them is, somebody really skillful made them to be used.
You can be friendly AND neutral indeed. Like Jeeves.
Regardless of how you've chosen to describe it - it looks great. Congratulations.
And if James himself were friendly OR neutral that would be better.
Hrant makes a funny! I like it.
Is that what that was?
I find most everything from James M. is friendly and neutral, except the Typophile posts of the past few years. Good job!
except the Typophile posts of the past few years.
Fortunately it is inadmissible (in the majority of cases) to conclude from a character trait in togetherness to the quality of the creative work of a person. Unfortunately most people don’t know that. Fortunately most people here seem to know that. Unfortunately potential customers don’t necessarily know that.
The friendliness of a typeface for body copy is in its readability. And a certain neutrality is one of the requirements for the readability. A typeface for body copy tendentially is friendly, if it is neutral, but not cold. But if it looks neutral or friendly or whatever, it already may drag attention to itself. So a typeface is a counterpart (face). It is neutral, if the reader is able to receive the content of the text. If you compare a typeface with the face of a beautiful woman and if faces primary had the function, just to communicate thoughts, than the face of the woman can be dysfunctional. But letters are not extensively in contradiction to the faces of living beings. The human skin is not white space. So the spaces in and between letters ease the look through them into the content that the text transports with the help of the letters.
> The friendliness of a typeface for body copy is in its readability.
1) I wouldn't call that "friendliness".
2) We're never 100% immersed in reading, certainly not for the duration of a given reading task. For the portion of attention that we're not immersed, aesthetics -which appeals to the consciousness- does kick in. This is why there can never be a "perfect" typeface for reading.
Since I call all typefaces, that are highly readable, friendly, the term friendly is inept for the description of the specific properties of a typeface. They are friendly, because they serve. If I would feel unfriendliness, when I come to consciousness during the reading process, I would be more irritated and would less easier find back. I doubt, that a typeface for body copy, which is unfriendly, would be often used for body copy.
I don’t think, that your second remark is a contradiction to my comment. I agree in it.
>They are friendly, because they serve.
Clearly you have never flown on Aeroflot. ;-)
Concerning my second point: maybe where we differ is
that I think consciousness and the subconscious "enjoy"
BTW, James, show me an ad where third parties talk shop...
maybe where we differ is
that I think consciousness and the subconscious "enjoy"
No, I also agree in that. Except you wanted to say, that the reader only enjoys the content of the text, while he is reading. During the reading process the friendliness of the typeface can be subconsciously perceived like the presence of a loyal servant.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
What a clever fellow you must be. Pity we have never met.
But not clever enough, I have to admit.
BTW, we've sort of met, twice. We made eye contact at ATypI-Boston in '99, and I was passing out election forms or some such thing during the ATypI general meeting in Dublin (which you declined - maybe you felt too much like an observer). Anyway.
To be fair I guess: I was alluding to earlier on in the thread where I said this is "not a magazine ad" and you said it's the "release section". Anyway.
Oh now I understand the comment.
I just didn't think all of this bloviating about my choice of adjectives was talking shop.
I was passing out election forms or some such thing during the ATypI general meeting in Dublin (which you declined - maybe you felt too much like an observer)
That was you? You should have introduced yourself. But I suppose you were involved with carrying out your ATypI duties and the time was not right. Pity. I declined because I was not a member, and thought my voting would be in bad form. Next time perhaps.
> I was not a member
Actually John B had announced that anybody registered for the
conference automatically earned membership for the remainder
of the year. Not that I'm the biggest fan of elections...