New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
So, you thought House Industries (ahem, Mister House Industries) was all grown up, having added the Neutraface and Benguiat families in recent years. Well, they just upped the ante with Paperback, a serious text face with optically sized masters, patterns, alternate figures, dingbats, et cetera. Everything you'd want if you're designing for, well a paperback, or maybe for newsprint.
You have been requesting a comparative review of Mercury and Farnham in Bald Condensed, and I am happy to announce I will be able to offer twice the fun. Hoefler & Frere-Jones' Mercury will be compared not only to Christian Schwartz's Farnham, but to Matthew Carter's Fenway -- the type family he designed as a replacement for Times Roman in Sports Illustrated -- and Erhard Kaiser's DTL Fleischmann as well. Funny thing is that DTL Fleischmann -- which is the odd one out as it is the most faithful (and quirky) digitisation -- unexpectedly has a new competitor in Mário Feliciano's as of yet unreleased Eudald. This is a Didone which is based on the work of Eudald Pradell, a Spanish imitator of Fleischmann. So five typefaces in total will contend for the coveted title of Most Totally Awesome Fleischmann Digitisation™.
I love Czech Type.. I do.. I do..
( I think I fell in love with the typographic quality of my northern, neighbouring country, as well.. :)
What is a blog without blogtent? Here's an attempt to post some real content on my new, super-spiffy Typophlog. I would post this on my own blog, but TypeOff is taking some time to build. And by the time it is finished this content will be even less newsworthy (it has already been a few weeks since the conference). I swear that this is the last thing that I will post about Beirut, though.
Below is the text of the paper that I presented. I will not be posting the images. Most of them can be seen in some form or another over at TypeOff anyway (if you snoop around long enough). I have a review of the conference over at Typographica. Here is the direct link.
I added entries for Edward Johnston, Stanley Morison, William Morris, Dard Hunter, Victor Hammer, Hermann Zapf, Hartley & Marks (link probably won't work due to a bug in the Typowiki parser), Robert Bringhurst, Elements of Typographic Style, and John Hudson (who will probably be bemused by what I chose to write about him). All of those are sketchy, to greater or lesser degrees, but you gotta start somewhere. I note without comment that a lot of you are writing about yourselves and your / your company's products. I thought some history might be nice to have as well, especially as a lot of this stuff isn't yet in the Wikipedia (although I suppose I should add some of this to that as well).
I went ahead and added a wiki entry for sans serif as well. Get in there and expand, edit, and clarify it; right now it's rife with my own personal opinions, which some of you are sure to find violently offensive. You get what you pay for!
In an effort to see what the wiki's like, I added entries for Rudolf Koch and schaftstiefelgrotesk types, as well as filling out the entry for blackletter. I have no doubt that others are going to want to rework what I did, as I mostly concentrated on the historical aspects of blackletter I find most interesting, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling.
Funnily enough, there's not yet a category in the wiki for typefaces.
I work here. It's a terrible website. I know. I take full blame. My bad. But it was 2001 and I was in love. We all do things we regret. I will soon have the opportunity to fix that mistake. We'll talk more about that as the project progresses.
But what I want to talk about right now is our logo. For that I take no responsibility. That is not my child.
Mistral? The only reason that font was used was because it installed with Microsoft Word. And why do the P and L swirl around in a surfboard shape? When the owner of the company designs the logo, there's little for me to do but hang my head in shame.
What started out as a set of nerdy, cryptic notes to myself is gradually evolving into a full-blown blog of its own. I called it "typography/typology", which was lame and boring and NOT AT ALL NECRO. Since I'm all about the darkness, you can now find it under its new name, Typomancy. I also gave it its own domain (it used to be stashed away as a mostly unpublicized subdirectory of my personal homepage (despite which Stephen and Dan and Luc Devroye, among others, managed to find it).
Why have my own blog when there's already Typographica, Typographer, and this fine blog? There isn't an ironclad reason, but part of it is that I'm still going to use Typomancy as a place to stash my private notes to myself. Another, better reason is that I'm more interested in the lower-level aspects of type design, specifically dealing with font formats and the politics thereof. Also, it's fun to have a place to do my own experimentation with nameplates and site designs and the like.
It's been quite the day. We've all been burning the candle at all ends to get this launch out. And despite a significant number of both cosmetic and functional bugs, we felt it more important to launch when we said we would.
Behind the scenes, we were shooting for a 12:00 noon PST launch. We didn't want to launch too late in the day, when it no longer really "felt" like 05/05/05. As it turns out, we needed the extra time as we were plagued were a swarm of latecomer bugs that had us frantically working until about the 5:00 hour. Sometime in the late afternoon, Yves Peters popped on and pointed out that the Typographica boards were blowing up with people asking about the launch.
me thinks that all typographic work will grind to a halt on 6-5-05
Wow. Typophile has been live for over an hour, and there aren't any blog posts yet? This cannot be; Typophiles don't strike me as a group that would shy away from new features! I have a hunch that the personal Typophile blogs (someone is going to have to create a cool acronym or cool name for these things) might turn out to be the best new feature on this site.