4 ms·
First: it's not a font, it's a typeface. Second: This typeface is a creative expression. Readability is but one of many goals that a new typeface can have.
by awolf 15y ago
First: it's not a font, it's a typeface.
Second: This typeface is a creative expression. Readability is but one of many goals that a new typeface can have.
- c1sc0 15y agoRight on! ... Quote: The man who invented the Macintosh and misnamed what should be the “typefaces” menu the “fonts” menu. He never forgave himself for his incorrect usage of English. ~ Aza Rasking (source: http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/my-father-final-gift/ http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/my-father-final-gift/)
- narkee 15y agoI don't understand that distinction. In selecting a typeface, you're also necessarily selecting the font, so why make the distinction? From an artistic and technical point of view I get it, but from a user perspective the two are not separable quantities.
- ars 15y ago> In selecting a typeface, you're also necessarily selecting the font No, the reverse of that. A typeface of the overall look, a font specifies the size and things like bold, italic. So what is commonly called the font is really the typeface, and what is called the size is actually the font. Back when fonts of a specific size were physical thing this mattered a lot - you only had a limited number of fonts for each typeface.
- Drbble 15y agoTypeface plus size plus bold/italic/etc is the font.