>Adobe is not dumping. I did the math. It's 25c per font per CPU.

Dumping is not about per unit calculations. The issue here is a software giant's ruthless marketing practices.

Like most foundries, ShinnType has several kinds of volume discount. However, at the Adobe Classics for Education rate, I'd have to sell my complete collection of 108 fonts for around $25. That would smart.

Maybe the smart thing for me to do would be to offer educational institutions my entire catalog for free -- a great way to get impressionable young designers hooked on my fonts.

Hrant said

(regarding clients)
>Fortunately those dinosaurs are getting rarer.

What business sense does it make to denigrate clients?

There are many times when face-to-face is a good thing. (No, I don't mean webcam to webcam.)

There are times when working one-on-one with customers in a conference room, etc., can be great. Very beneficial.


(regarding fonts)

>And along with them the types of fonts
>they've so adore for 30 years already.

(atop the earlier)

>a studio and a library of
>70s throwbacks won't do jackshit for you


Again, what are you referring to as far as typographic style, with such sweeping statements?

Please enlighten me. I'm curious.

Joe

> What business sense does it make to denigrate clients?

The more you care about "business sense", the less likely you are to develop rewarding human partisanship among your peers, and the less likely you are to mark your place in culture. That's how humans work - but of course, to each his own. Personally, I think Capitalism is criminal.

In the late 80s I used to work as a salesman at Creative Computers (long live the Amiga), and my best moment wasn't when I sold a $13,000 system through an honest laudation of its merits, but when I put a primadonna customer in his place: he was a bit too demanding about returning something, so I became a little rough with him. He challenged "Are you the owner of this business?" My reply was of course: "I would never own a retail store."

I have no reason to blame you for accepting work from dinosaurs, but if that makes you complacent about adapting to a changing employment dynamic, you might end up stuck in the cold.

> what are you referring to as far as typographic style

Too many type designers -and type users- are stuck in the past.

Specifically, the 70s style might be described as having among other attributes: pulpy, flowing connections between stems and arches/horizontals; mannered terminals; and a goddam obese x-height. Think ITC.. then banish the sewage from you mind! :-)

hhp

<em>It's killing the software and design industries in a single blow.</em>

There's a bit of irony in it, though, as this is basically what free capitalism is...and graphic design, for the most part, is a big part of keeping free capitalism what it is.


<em>So there's not that much of a comparison between graphic designers and strictly type designers. </em>

Huh? Both have pretty much the same needs you listed. The same could be said for a lot of folks...architects, accountants, writers, etc.

Paul, I think your view is seriously skewed. Graphic design isn't just done in places with high cost-of-living, it's done everywhere, and it's very fair to say most non-Western big cities are much cheaper to live in, and not just in terms of renting space, but daily expenses, like goddam pet insurance and other idiocities. I was in Armenia for 9 weeks in 2000, and I paid more per day for my dog's kennel back in the US!! Plus I was talking about type design, which has much lower overhead costs than graphic design in general.

It's not impossible to nab clients that are used to paying a lot more to get the same results but would like to save money, either by traveling to the client once in a while, or through a nice website, etc.

Clients will gradually require less-and-less physical contact, prepare yourself!

hhp

To Paul Davidson -

(re costs of doing business)


Excellent post. Didn't sound like a rant at all. I thought it was very well thought out and presented.

Thanks very much.

Joe

go to : http://instruct.uwo.ca/mit/220/dreamweaver/tables2.htm

and see why you don't need "free"/free fonts. see the "Great" design - "Bodoni Bold Condensed" (the title about the designer)


David Hamuel

Obviously, the graphic came out of the research, not my own imagination! About five years of research at this point, and still going strong, although with diminishing "returns". I admit I haven't done my own field research (too expensive), but by reading and analyzing probably a hundred empirical and anecdotal pieces of reputable research by now, I've managed to "converge the model" so to speak. BTW, a large part of this has been published in my "Improving the Tool" essay in Gunnar Swanson's "Graphic Design & Reading". Feel free to have a rebuttal published! I always welcome any objective challenge.

I have nothing to gain by promoting or striking down obese x-heights - in fact my early Armenian work suffered from such obesity! I did a font for a magazine, and everybody thought it was very legible and handsome, but after about 3 issues there were enough letters from readers complaining of reading strain that we had to change it, and they commissioned me to make a digital version of an old-standby, Aramian, an ugly font by all accounts but with a proven track record of good readability. Back then I had no idea why Aramian worked better, but now I've come to understand how my original was fatally flawed: mostly it was simply the obese x-height. Armenian actually has a greater dependence on extenders than Latin, but Latin still relies on extenders heavily for readability.

BTW, I don't expect anybody to automatically take my word for it, but if you're going to counter somebody's theories, you need to do some research of your own! If you don't bother doing that, you just have to trust those who have.

--

James, if you're thinking about your own extensive experience with signage, I'd point out a key difference: you don't use the parafovea in that type of reading. Two parallel clues are that: sans fonts work better for signage, but not for for books (I hope you agree); and that signage likes loose letterspacing while books like it tight.

Another "mainstream" clue is that all-caps text is harder to read (which I hope everybody accepts). The only real reason for this is that all-UC boumas are far less distinctive.

That said, any "conclusion" is always tentative, I admit. If one day I see enough evidence that I'm wrong, I'll have to change my stance.

Here's another "mushy conclusion":
http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/read_rx.gif

This is what might be called a "qualitative graph": the deeper the level of detail, the more tentative it is. For example, the point where the curve touches the maximum up top, and especially the way the curve changes concavity has to be seen in more abstract terms than for example the fact that it goes up and back down, which is a very reliable piece of theory.

In contrast to Readability, here's a graph of Legibility:
http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/read_lx.gif
which is actually derived from combining Visibility (simply being able to see something is there) and Decipherability (the ability to map a shape to a meaning irrespective of perception):
http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/read_dvx.gif

hhp

Hrant wrote:
It was only later (1986?), when Apple apparently commissioned Bitstream(?) to adapt ITC Garamond to some weird amalgam of normal, semi-condensed and condensed letters, that things started to go haywire, with an apparent in-house version then snaking its way into their print.

I really don't agree with that. The Bitstream version is mush better than the ITC condensed version. Firstly, it was condensed by only 80% rather than ITC's 64%. The joints and details are much better drawn than the original ITC. I had already pointed this out in another thread: http://www.typophile.com/cgibin/show.pl?30/13191

<img>

Early on in my typography 'career' (i.e. high school) I really had an ITC Garamond 'phase'. We used it on our school magazine. It was my idea because I thought it was such a beautiful face. I actually thought that it was the original Garamond. While it could hardly be called a Garamond per se, it was nonetheless a significant player in our type history. I wouldn't call it an abomination. But that's just me.

Dorling Kindersly still uses ITC Garamond for their eye-witness guides. And it works very well.

It's more than a "review", it's an attempt at extracting usable conclusions, and using them! I don't think the definition of "research" is limited to hooking up tachistoscopes to college students.

My graphic is not Proof - I generally avoid using that word anyway. It's a way to convey/visualize what really happens during reading, and even though it's simplified, it helps.

True, there is no direct empirical evidence of what's a good x-height - that's way too specific for there to be any money in it, and contemporary academia runs on money invested by corporations who make sure the results are useful to their bottom line. And it would be very difficult to quantify it anyway - instead it's a matter of grasping the bigger picture.

There is in fact a lot of "adjacent" empirical evidence (like the fact that all-caps is harder to read even though it's bigger, and that about 2/3-rds of [immersive] reading happens in the parafovea) as well as a lot of anecdotal evidence, like the kind that says serif fonts are better for reading. That's certainly true - even some of the Bauhaus boys had to break down and admit it - but that hasn't been proven either!

One telling indication that an x-height can be too large for good readability (just like it can also be too small) is that the optimal x-height varies with point size. But there are many other "clues", and once you have in your head a relatively clear model of how [immersive] reading actually works, almost all these little observations/opinions come together very nicely.

--

Keith, I didn't write that stuff, Joe did. (Although "abomination" was mine.)

And Sarah was half right. :-)

hhp

>

> > It's more than a "review", it's an attempt at extracting usable > conclusions, and using them! I don't think the definition of > "research" is limited to hooking up tachistoscopes to college > students.

Whatever you think is the proper term. What you are doing is "A review of the literature", which is then followed by the formulation of hypothesis, development of a research model, and then the research experiment. Then your data would be analyzed to see if it supported your original hypothesis and if your findings were statistically significant. This is the bases research.

Any conclusions you come across in the review would be the conclusions of the original researchers.

In saying "Extracting usable conclusions" you mean that you can come up with original conclusions from a review of the literature, this jumps the gun by several steps and can only be an unsupported hypothesis, until proven with the proper experiment.

Call it what you like, but I review of the literature, is a review, not research. And you can use your extracted conclusions, but don't ask any of us to accept them for more than what they are, unsupported hypotheses. ie conjecture. Hence my original statement about you presenting conjecture as conclusion.

Hrant wrote

>Did you even read what I wrote?

Always. Thoroughly.

I understand, of course, that your views must work for you just fine.

The only reason I'm bothering with debating this is for the benefit of recent graduates entering design, primarily. To counter disinformation that they might otherwise take to heart and derail their understanding process with, because they don't know any better yet.




>The more you like the 70s or Old-Style
>or anything else, the less you can mark
>cultural progress.


Absolutely not so.

For example, in my case, I enjoy the older stuff, then I set it aside and move ahead. From the very first typefaces I designed, for me, it was all about learning from the past, but starting fresh.



>x-Heights: anything close to to 70s x-height is indeed bad, for readability.

(and, to my commenting about my TF Habitat)

>> While not setting any wider.

>This is dead false.


Oh, baloney.

I should know how my own typefaces were designed to work, and do work, should I not?

I don't mean to sound self-serving, but I've been successfully designing typefaces this way for nearly 30 years. (Although, I never wake up in the morning and say, "Dang it all, I'm designin' me a tall x-height typeface to-day! Yessiree!")

And for us (as an example), for the most part, the kind of features/advantages I mentioned are what our customers respond to. Breathlessly. Because they so rarely get those features elsewhere (to quote them directly, often, before we get around to telling them).




> Step back and study type for yourself.
>Study readability first, (...)

(and later)

>...but if you're going to counter
>somebody's theories, you need to do some
>research of your own...


I beg your pardon?



>BTW, throughout your arguments is seems
>that everything is eventually brought
>around to the businessof type...

Well, this is, after all, a business. Why apologize for that? Treating our business as a business has been a good thing, and continues to be. (And again, we all want the economy to get better, right? Businesses being run as businesses, responsibly, will go a long way toward economic recovery.)

Let's stop this casting 'business' as an evil ogre. It's merely a classification. Like 'serif'. The type industry would not have survived over the centuries and be here today for all of us to enjoy and be a part of, if not for those who ran their typefounding and typesetting businesses as businesses.

If you want to run a type design career as a hobby, well, have fun.
(Really. I think you should have fun going about what you do.)

But the only thing that matters to me in the midst of a type concept is the proper fleshing out of the design.

Of course, unless you spend all your time cloning, or doing randomly selected, open ended 'research', and if you expect to have customers, it's important to create what customers might actually want at some point. Yes?



>Yeah, where would we be without ITC Garamond...
> :-/ One of the worse abominations in our craft.

Too bad. Again, if you haven't seen the original Tony Stan workmanship.

Clue: What you see in the MacConnection catalog is an example of how some licensing foundry (or otherwise) got hold of it and screwed it up. Horrid digitizing. Horrid spacing. Not the original. It's not the normal width version, squeezed, either. No idea what it is.



>And the fact that users admittedly don't
>realize a large x-height is bad for them
>is the reason they need us designers in
>first place! In fact it has been empirically
>shown that users prefer font sizes somewhat
>too large for optimal reading. The reason is
>the difference between deliberative versus
>immersive reading.


Is that right??! Well, Shazaam!

Now when you say 'users' above, do you mean 'art directors, publication designers, graphic designers'? Or, 'readers'?

Just curious.



(and later, about one of your own earlier magazine typefaces)


>...but after about 3 issues there were
>enough letters from readers complaining
>of reading strain that we had to change it...


Fine. That happens sometimes. Live and learn. As you know, especially in editorial environments, things are often rushed (including creative).

There's no need to feel badly (not that you do) for having to tweak things over time. And of course, the other thing worth saying is that, especially in an editorial environment, you're lucky you got feedback you could use to effect change that was right for that kind of publication, that culture, that history, that reader.


>Back then I had no idea why Aramian
>worked better, but now I've come to
>understand how my original was fatally
>flawed: mostly it was simply the
>obese x-height. Armenian actually has
>a greater dependence on extenders than Latin,
>but Latin still relies on extenders heavily
>for readability.

Ok; fine.

The project actually required more research at understanding the reader that simply wasn't done, and neither the publisher, editors or writers volunteered any opinions upfront. And so, it was launched into as 'art for art's sake' (I'll assume, from your description). And later, with feedback, you had your market research for free (except for the disgruntled readers). Great!

By the way, that kind of outcome is exactly why upfront, face-to-face meetings are a good thing; often crucial. And cannot be replaced by virtual meetings. Otherwise, designers and clients often learn the hard way, as you, unfortunately, did in that instance.

I still don't see how that transplants to a despising of all fonts whose x-heights transcend the lowercase mean line.

And what's with the use of 'obese'? Having an x-height above the mean line does not render a typeface 'obese'.

Not to split hairlines, but as a vertical measurement, it doesn't seem an x-height can possibly be 'fat', which is what 'obese' means.

'Tallish' might be better description, if I may suggest it. (Granted, it lacks sensationalism.)

Oh, and unless the design is just plain flawed, a tallish x-height does not (emphatically) impede readability due to an inability to properly provide ascenders and descenders. Ascenders and descenders themselves are a related but separate consideration and must be designed properly.


On legibility research: Quote a bibliography of what available empirical research that you're referring to, by date, location and sample size, if you're so inclined, please.

And most importantly, list the specific typefaces, by typeface weight and point size.

I would think that doing so would be doing your readers a great service.

Thanks!

Joe

>

> Unsupported by direct empirical research, but otherwise supported very > nicely. > In the end, it's all based directly on research, not my personal > fancy. >

Where is the support without direct empirical research?

If you desire to make a point based on someone else's research, I suggest you get in the habit of included annotations to the appropriate research.

>> don't ask any of us to accept them for more than what they are > > I'm not! But don't use your personal emotional preference for large > x-heights to avoid the logical conclusions I've drawn from a reliable > aggregate of scholarly research spanning a hundred years.

I don't see any emotion on my part of this at all. In your previous post you admit that there has been, now let me quote:

> True, there is no direct empirical evidence of what's a good x-height > - that's way too specific for there to be any money in it, and

And now your having us believe that you have hundreds of years of of reliable scholarly research that supports your view.

> I've been successfully designing typefaces

Don't you realize by now that we have very different measures of success?

> I beg your pardon?

What do you know about how humans read, and where did you learn it?

> Treating our business as a business has been a good thing

For whom?

> Let's stop this casting 'business' as an evil ogre. It's merely a classification.

Yeah, and child laborers in sweat shops are a classification of worker.

> things are often rushed

My original font was not rushed. The magazine was begging me to finish it because the launch of the magazine was waiting for it - I told them they would get it when it was ready.

And nobody understood why it wasn't working, certainly not the readers! The reason was "subvisible", not something a focus group could have pinpointed. You can't rely on readers for precise feedback on subconscious issues.

> There's no need to feel badly (not that you do) for having to tweak things over time.

Considering it was my second-ever outline font (the first was a disaster) I don't feel bad at all. I'm just very happy I snapped out of large x-height lala-land.

> exactly why upfront, face-to-face meetings are a good thing

No amount of face-to-face meeting would have prevented that problem. It was a matter of people reading a lot of text in it, and contacting the magazine/me (preferably via email these days) with their complaint. Sure, this could/should have been done in advance, but that has nothing to do with "face-to-face".

> a despising of all fonts whose x-heights transcend the lowercase mean line.

Huh?
First of all, I don't "despise" large x-heights - they're useful for very small sizes and display purposes. But they reduce readability. Do you care? And secondly, what do you mean by "mean line"? If you mean 50% of the ascender height, that's actually pretty small for an x-height!

> a tallish x-height does not (emphatically) impede readability due
> to an inability to properly provide ascenders and descenders.

The vertical em-space is taken up by: x-height, ascenders, descenders, and internal leading. Obviously, the larger the x-height the less room left for everything else. Duh.

> Quote a bibliography

Read my essay in GD&R - a good chunk of it is there.

> list the specific typefaces

You're not reading what I'm writing.

--

> Where is the support without direct empirical research?

Where is the support for the opinion that serif fonts read better in books?

> I suggest you get in the habit of included annotations

In a discussion group like this?! For now, please read my essay! But eventually I'll get more formal, don't worry. I'm not ready yet.

> I don't see any emotion on my part of this at all.

On Typo-L you recently wrote:
"[My fonts] have that large x-height that I have become so attached to recently."

> now your having us believe that you have hundreds of years
> of reliable scholarly research

You're completely skewing what I said. I said one hundred years (starting from Javal), and I was saying that these days it's extremely unlikely to see funding for research that specifically measures optimal x-height.

--

Dear huge x-height boys: just give it up! Your fonts are less readable.

hhp

Hrant wrote

>Yeah, and child laborers in sweat shops
>are a classification of worker.


I abhor child labor, too. But which typefounders, now or past, employ(ed) underage workers?

And how does unfair child labor out there in the world apply to running a typefoundry as a business?




>What do you know about how humans read,
>and where did you learn it?

Um, apart from the documented research, about 30 years of drawing typefaces, and about 20 years of successfully selling fonts to hundreds of thousands of customers, nearly world wide. And continually engaging customers and learning from feedback.



>You can't rely on readers for precise feedback
on subconscious issues.

I'm sorry; I thought you had said that readers were (quite consciously) saying, (quote),

>>...but after about 3 issues there were
>>enough letters from readers complaining
>>of reading strain that we had to change it...




>The vertical em-space is taken up by:
>x-height, ascenders, descenders,
>and internal leading. Obviously,
>the larger the x-height the less room
>left for everything else. Duh.


Oh, yes, sorry, I forgot to mention: Duh to infinity.



>You're not reading what I'm writing.

Yes, I think that I am. To the extent that it's readable.



(re providing annotation)
>In a discussion group like this?!
>For now, please read my essay!
>But eventually I'll get more formal,
>don't worry. I'm not ready yet.


Oh, ok.

I guess I'd hoped that you had annotated material (such as your essay) on hand to quote from, with copy and paste.



>On Typo-L you recently wrote:
>"[My fonts] have that large x-height
>that I have become so attached to recently."


Wasn't me. I haven't bothered with Typo-L in probably more than a year.

And besides, if a type designer says that, so what?



>You're completely skewing what I said. ...

Oh, ok.



>Dear huge x-height boys:
>just give it up! Your fonts
>are less readable.


Sorry. Not likely.

There are several kinds of fonts that are less readable:

1) Fonts suffering from bad concept;
2) Fonts suffering from bad execution;
3) Fonts whose weight range is badly selected;
4) Fonts whose width doesn't suit the concept;
5) Fonts that are a bad selection for their reproduction environment (too light for newsprint);
6) Fonts whose point size, leading and weight are wrongly selected for the material and platform (book, ad, etc.) and reader (toddler, young, midage, elderly) where they are being expected to perform.

Other than that, x-height itself doesn't injure fonts.

Yes, there have been some bad designs out there over the years that also have tallish x-height.

Now, it might be possible for a later type designer to see that a different x-height might've better suited the original concept.

But the x-height itself would not have been what made it a bad design.

By the way, I don't believe that either Jim or myself are "huge x-height boys". I, for one, don't like that pigeonholing.

I, for one, design with an open mind.

Joe

Hrant said

>? What research is that, exactly?

Sorry, I'm not the one widely quoting research here.

Nor do I have the time. As I said, the only reason why I'm bothering with this at all is to dispel disinformation.





>The act of drawing typefaces
>teaches nothing about how they are read as text.

>Sales are only slightly related to readability.


Is that so?




>Readers can and do report general problems,
>like "I get tired quickly when reading this
>magazine." They can't and don't say things
>like "The font's x-height is so large that
>it's inhibiting good bouma formation."

And of course, one would never expect them to.

But at that point, that's where more research is then needed, such as focus groups that would be probably more intrusive than usual.

And even so, you might never get guidance that's adequate.

As mentioned earlier, I believe (from seeing the phenomenon for thirty years) that research and meetings upfront, rather than in hindsight, are where more effective guidance will spring.

It avoids art for art's sake, which can be counterproductive in the commercial world. And it will save a lot of expense in the long run if shooting-from-the-hit decisions without research prove to be incorrect.




>> Wasn't me.

>The rest was James. Do you not really
>read his stuff either?

What in the world are you referring to?

I not only read your 'stuff', I try probably more than necessary, to avoid using it out of context.



>When you're finished reading all the
>references in there, I'll give you
>another batch... and then another.

>By the time you catch up to me,
>your business will be broke.


Two things:

Why in the world do you believe that I need to 'catch up' to you?

and

Why in the world would you say a hateful thing like 'By the time you catch up to me, your business will be broke.'?

Oh, and thanks for the passing reference to the Ovink material.

Excellent for its time. I especially enjoy the tables on pp. 144-153.

But it's from 1938.



>Please don't try designing a book face.

Well, if I were trying to be nasty, I might suggest the same thing of you, sir.

Sorry, I've designed plenty of faces perfectly appropriate for long text such as books.

And faces that many, many publication designers around the world (and who, after all, are really the ones dangling above the flame) have used successfully, and repeatedly, for very large books.

Too bad they apparently don't fit your narrow view of what constitutes a successful face usable in a so-called book environment.


>...you'd get it.

Hrant, believe me, I get your argument, already.



>Let others be the judge.
>And I'm not talking about people
>who you already know share your
>aesthetic (and anti-technical)
>sensibilities.


Anti-technical?

Frankly, I find that knowing when to close the books and actually do some real work is important.

You should try it.

Joe

Sorry, in an earlier post this evening, I misspelled 'shooting-from-the-hit'.

It was supposed to read 'shooting-from-the-hip', of course.

Joe

Woah, I know some people here who need to have a time out.


Who would've thought you could have huge arguments over fonts?

What!?

It's just one of those exclamation point/question mark combination thingys....

;-)

Joe

To my

>> Why in the world do you believe that
>>I need to 'catch up' to you?


Hrant wrote

>Because you don't understand readability
>even remotely - it's clear from your
>explanation of where you learned about it -
>virtually nowhere. But don't worry too much,
>you're not alone. On the other hand,
>after 20-30 years of focusing on making money,
>one would hope for a little bit more
>intellectual curiosity. But reading all you
>have to write here, it's pretty safe to
>assume that it's simply too late for you.


Thanks so much for that. Sorry, but you're quite off base.

How in the world could you possibly draw such a conclusion without knowing anything about what human interface and type design ergonomics research I've studied?

Too late for what? As with all responsible designers (type designers or not), one's whole career is a living laboratory.

But I didn't just stop there, and let projects and client politics and profitability lead me around by the nose.

My research started before I ever entered the field. And has continued - er - continually, throughout.

And why do you keep repeating that you believe the most important thing to me about typography is making money?

Would you please stop that?

If it was the most important thing, why then do you think that I would have started Treacyfaces with the concept of solely learning from the past's mistakes, and then seeking to do better?

If I were most concerned with money, at the time we incorporated (1984), I could easily have taken an approach like (for example) The Font Company, knocking off everyone in sight in one way or another.

Ultimately so top-heavy with me-too faces that they had to close, selling off their so-called inventory in a fire sale. But before that fire sale, wow, wall to wall investor cash.

Well, look where such an approach leads. They're long gone.

(I've never even used outside investors....)

I've always been quite happy eschewing financial gain to pursue furthering the craft first.

First and foremost, I love type.




>And don't go dissin' Ovink on me -
>has was a giant.


Why do you assume that I'm (ahem) dissin' Ovink? Because I both quote him verbatim, and then can draw my own conclusions from the presentations?

I can't help it if, at that point in his career, he was down on Cassandre, Peignot...and...the French!

;-)

But seriously: I didn't say that he didn't do a lot of work to assemble his research. I respect him for the very laborious work, and certainly, for his very labored presentations.

But really. It was from 1938.


Sorry, I don't talk like a statistician. Never have, never will.

And you'll never, ever, ever see me citing research notes referencing cuddly beagles.

I'm not going to fill my writing (as least as far as a setting like this is concerned) with needless typographic pseudo-laboratory psychobabble.

But that doesn't mean, as a responsible designer, that I don't care about factual studies that are in fact meaningful to consider regarding a project.

I simply think you're looking at it from too much a bean counter's view. And to get back to the beginning, I think that your pseudo-citing innuendo can be quite dangerous to graduates entering the field.

And that is of course why this will most likely not end in agreeing to agree.

I respect you for respecting the research and so taking it to heart.

I choose instead to read the research, and then simply take the research with a grain of salt.

Especially when it comes to designing something new. Especially when much of the research done has been inconclusive. Especially when so much of typography has moved on since the research. (As much as I respect it.)

And especially as the research regards display type (of its day). Er, like Peignot!



>> Peignot ... Long text? Sure

>You're hallucinating.
>Make sure to stop anybody who might ask
>you set a book for them.


I think you really need to open your mind a little.




>The argument is much more than over fonts,
>it's about how to mark cultural progress,
>as opposed to milking nostalgia and
>complacency for money.


Well, if you say so.

It seems to me that from the body of research done, and how leading foundries and their most talented creative directors and artists, punchcutters, phototypesetting filmmakers, digitizers, etc., have learned from it over the 20th century, that quite a lot of 'cultural progress' has indeed been made in type design and manufacturing.

And, as has been noted in type and design industry writings many times during the last century, type design developments have tended to well echo human cultural change.

Who's milking complacency here?

Joe

Back on topic, kinda...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3117505.stm

hhp

> They sure do a great job with their graphics.

Nah, their graphics pale in comparison to their reportage, which comparatively makes virtually all US media channels look like the "Nuke the Japs!" cowboys that they are.

> What will happen to typography when ....

What are you talking about? That already happened to type years ago!
Not surprising considering font files are much tinier than song files.
Next in line are movies.

And what's happened to creativity? Well, like you said, and I agree, this is indeed the Golden Era of type design!

hhp

"For the benefit of the group,"

I think the group has long left you two alone in here ;o)

Somebody wrote:

"My point was simply that Adobe has probably long ago paid for the fonts it is including in the student pack."

This is simply not true. Many of these are relatively recent designs. What *is* true is that few or none of them invoke per-unit royalty payments. This was necessary to get the price down to the level that the educational market would buy it.

Nick Shinn made some comments about the "ruthless" nature of the pricing of the Type Classics for Learning package at $99/user. I found those comments actually bordering on offensive, but it's probably worth explaining why it exists.

The pricing of Type Classics for Learning has little to do with ruthlessness or even direct competition, and a lot to do with the realities of the market:

- schools aren't willing to pay much for fonts
- schools and their students will use (and pirate) fonts if they don't pay for them
- ergo, we are probably better off licensing some fonts cheaply to the schools. We get some money, which is better than none, and they get a legal license, and we promote legitimate licensing over piracy.

Personally, Nick, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for you to license your whole set of fonts for $25/user to the education market. It's not like Adobe is magically shutting you out or something. Sure, we've got a bigger set of better-known fonts, but that's sort of the permanent reality for small, newer, independent foundries trying to compete, and not particular to the education market or our pricing of Type Classics.

Regards,

T

Hrant,

Usually you combine your gratuitous insults with some content, but I don't see any content in that one. Although I try to avoid reading your posts, occasionally one slips in. This just reminds me of why I try to avoid reading them.

I will not reply to any further post of yours on Typophile, and nobody else should expect me to respond to them either, regardless of what you write.

T