Sure. And it's no different than any other field. "What kind of idiot would use/buy a __________?" Fill in the blank with PC, Mac, Ford, Jaguar, Teflon pan, cast-iron pan, etc. etc. - Herb

Of course once there are too many it won't be worth it. Meta-snobbism.

hhp

Being a snob is different from being knowledgeable. A snob is someone who offends others by his/her air of superiority. A snob can be knowledgeable or can be clueless; it's their attitude that makes them a snob.

Yeah, I think font/typeface is mostly a lost cause; "font" is used by most folks even when it isn't the correct term.

And this has nothing to do with typography, but my pet peeve is folks that use "less" when they should use "fewer" (such as "I have less books than I used to"). I even see well-educated folks making that mistake, so I guess the rules have just changed over time.

It's hard to blame people for using the word font to mean typeface. Programs don't have typeface menus, you don't install typefaces, and none of these exist: TypefaceShop, TypefaceTypefaces, MyTypefaces, Typeface Bureau, TypefaceHaus, Typefaceographer, TypefaceLab, DaTypeface, Typefaces.com, RoboTypeface, etc., etc.

I think we're stuck with font, and I think that's fine.

I've heard that typeface represents a font with multiple weights while a font that has one weight is simply a font. Who knows. Fonts and typeface mean the same thing to me.

(… I sort of thought H&FJ might have grabbed it.)

They use typography.com and Jeremy Tankard has '.net'. It seems strange that no one has taken it though.

For me, the distinction between typeface and font is always present, because I tend to be talking about one or the other in a fairly precise way. Most people are only ever talking about typefaces -- 'I really like Helvetica: it's a great font' -- so don't need to make the distinction. If you are in the business of designing type and making fonts, the distinction is useful and aids clear communication; that isn't snobbery.

Nothing new in type snobbery.
Type culture, and design culture in general, has long looked down its nose at "trade".
For the longest time, book types have held the privileged position.
For instance, 19 th century sans serif (and other commercial genres) were omitted from type histories until quite recently.
Similarly, the historicist movement of the early 20th century, which completely dominated graphic design, has played second fiddle in most design narratives to modernism, which was rarely seen in mass media.

^+1!

I thought long and hard for a typetastic name and url which I thought would cross over several diiferent communities who where already aware of letter shapes. I chose ... font rageous.

So as I'm setting up my website developing awesome visuals, I continue to approach several, and very divergent, communities ranging from adult entertainment, to classical music, to grocery stores, etc.. All of them know what a font is (prolly thanks to using their own PCs or whatever), but not so many knew/know what a typeface is.

n.

No, you design typefaces, make fonts, and sell licenses.

Personally I find most people, even creatives, very unaware about fonts and type. So, no, I don't come across a lot of type snobs. Except the ones that always seem to want Copperplate.

Good point. Equestria? They seem happy with pictographs and greeking.

Is it wrong to educate those who use the terms in the wrong way?

Speaking for myself, I am always going to regard "typeface" as a practical description for a design family of raised mechanical letters that press or strike directly against paper. The term is useful and correct as it relates to letterpress or typewriter printing, but it is not more educated or professional than "font" when applied to photo or digital typography.