Try it Nick - it sounds like the best solution (if it works).

Nick Cooke

Nick,
If you have a light at 300 and a regular at 400, it seems logical—and helpful to your clients—to say your Book is 350. It would give the user the cue that it sits between the other two.
I think the word “Regular” is the toad though. It is looked at by software as the basic style.

ChrisL

Glad I’m not the only who has experienced confusion regarding regular vs. book weights.

http://typophile.com/node/31150

Mikey :-)

Why don’t you call it “Text” instead of “Book”?

But surely it’s not the name that’s causing the conflicts, but the number?
Is 350 OK — do applications such as InDesign recognize weights in multiples of less than a hundred?

Hmm... so you assume “Book” describes not the “proper” optical type design optimized for a small size - typical 9 pt - its just a style name for an in between style?.

For me a “Book” style is “a bit bolder” and “wider” than a “Regular” under the two assumption:

1. the Regular style is not bold or medium
2. the Regular is designed for common use (office stuff...) and optimized for 12 pt like it schould (beside display fonts)

—astype.de—

I had the same thought as Andreas.
What about Light - SemiLight - Regular?
I think 350 should be ok.

(Curious: Which effect does the conflict
have? Does one of the (same) weights
not show up?)

> But surely it’s not the name that’s causing the conflicts, but the number?
Is 350 OK — do applications such as InDesign recognize weights in multiples of less than a hundred?

I think it’s the name. AFAIK, for InDesign “Regular” and “Book” are two names to describe the same thing, so if the family has these two weights you might run into problems as only one will be visible.

I believe the number is used for sorting the weights in the Style submenu.

Thanks for your help everybody.
I guess the safest thing to do is rename the font “Text”, and give it a numerical weight of 350.

The conflict causes one of the fonts to not show in the InDesign CS2 menu, although both did in CS.
At least, that’s the report I’m getting — I assume my client isn’t having cache problems.

I agree with Andreas’ understanding of what a Book font is, but am constrained by the behavior of layout applications — and the FontLab interface.

Yes, it is a naming issue rather than a weightclass issue. However, you’ll also want to differentiate the weightclass values to get correct sorting by weight (as you have done already, now).

T

I’m surprising by some understanding of “Book”. I actually think that “Book” is typically a somewhat lighter style optimized for use in lower-quality enviroments where ink spread happens. At least this is how it’s handled in those families that have a “Book” and a “Medium” weight, e.g. Futura.

A.

Here’s my on the fly translation…

Futura Book,* 1932
Futura Book, whose stroke weight is in between those of the Light and Bold, was originally* intended for even text setting;* nevertheless, the formal proportions of this style are so harmonious that it has been cut for all sizes.*

Notes
* Book: Not quite “Buchschrift,” but close enough in this context

* originally: I assume Andreas misspelled “ursprünglich” as “ursorünglich” in his text above

* even text setting: “glatten Satz” is not really used anymore, I think. This seems to me to mean the even color setting that you typically find on the page of a book that only has text on it, if you understand what I mean

* sizes: Andreas, “Graden” here means sizes, not styles (i.e., light, medium, bold), right?

This is the info of the Futura Buchschrift (Book) from its time. Saying the type was optimised for body text only, but due to the fine harmonic design it was further developed for the whole range of type sizes. - So to me its no difference in understanding of the term Book. Like many type designs of this time the Mager/Leichte/Light version was the “native” Regular style.

Futura Buchschrift, 1932
Die Futura Buchschrift, deren Strichstärke zwischen dem mageren und dem halbfetten Schnitt der Futura die Mitte hält, war ursprünglich vor allem für den glatten Satz bestimmt, doch erwiesen sich die Formverhältnisse gerade dieser Garnitur als so harmonisch, daß sie in allen Graden geschnitten wurde.

—astype.de—

Andreas — Like many type designs of this time the Mager/Leichte/Light version was the ’native’ Regular style.

Funnily, Renner himself used the Halbfett rather than the Mager before the Buch [book] was available (in ’Kulturbolschewismus?’).

The original weights of Futura were Mager [thin], Halbfett [semifat], Fett [fat]. These weights and weight names seem to have been common in Germany and used in other sanserifs too (Erbar, Elegant Grotesk, Super Grotesk).
Futura Buch(schrift) [book] was added inbetween Mager and Halbfett. (Similarly, a Normal was added to Erbar.) Maybe it is safe to say that the Buch is neither a thinner nor a fatter version of any regular because there was no such Regular before, rather, the Buch is the missing Regular.

(German) weight names then and now differ, and it’s not possible to translate them directly.* It seems that these new sanserifs required rethinking of weights — weight names, number of weights, relation of weights — which was not an issue in earlier serif types.

* Interestingly, Syntax’s weights are called Mager and Halbfett, and a specimen (1968?) translates Mager as Regular, and Halbfett as Bold.

But this isn’t much related to Nick’s original question any more ...

[Yes, ’Grad’ is size.]

Thank you Dan for the better translation. Yes, “glatter Satz” means “justified text” - in this time used for the work of a common text setting job. So its directly related to book text setting done in small type sizes.

*those of the Light and Bold should be “those of Light and Semi Bold”

BTW. Typophile system updates the posting time/position on every edit.

—astype.de—

Hi, I am having this exact problem in Indesign CS2 — it can’t seem to have both Matrix regular and book open at the same time.

Could someone explain to me how I can change the “weight” or the names, as alluded to above (where do I do this?) to fool the program? I have an old CD design (yes, from the early 90’s — the Matrix moment!) that we are reissuing and it has both weights used in it!

Thanks!