Cheers

Is dictionary design so ossified that all that needs to be mentioned in the typespec brief is “dictionary design”?

At the very least, the relative merits of condensed, normal and extended might be discussed, in relation to how much cramming is necessary (assuming the product is in print, which is another spec that might be relevant).

For the record, the new 2nd edition of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (over 2,000 pages, published earlier this year), uses Arno and Myriad. To my eye it looks good.

Not Just a Pretty Face: The Contribution of Typography to Lexicography also by Paul Luna from his Dictionary Design blog, is a much more involved article and goes into quite a lot of detail about the history of typography in dictionary design.

You're right! There aren't many faces with IPA characters…

Nick, dictionary typography is scarier than you might think. And bilingual dictionaries... wow. It's one of the reasons for Nour&Patria's complexity (although that turned out too bookish for dictionaries).

hhp

Hi Nick,

Ok, I see your point…

Layout would vary but mostly A5/Octavo or smaller.

Dictionaries are always printed on relatively thin, moderately absorbent papers, so the typeface would need to account for some ink squash, maybe with built in ink traps, and pared counter and apertures.

I love the "Extroversion" of Whitney by H&FJ, meaning headwords would be cohesive in a tightly packed environment.

Beyond this, there are all the usual requirements for a small font size and its condensed nature: enlarging the x-height to retain clarity and legibility, and at the same time, ascenders and descenders need to be kept relatively short to facilitate the tight leading required.

Thanks

Sounds like the spec for newspaper text faces.
Matched Shinntype sans and serif which fit the bill:

Sense and Pratt