12 ms·

Introducing Cloud Typography Webfonts by H&FJ

90 points by halostatue 13y ago

huhtenberg 13y ago
... and it doesn't work - http://i.imgur.com/fURqtTc.png http://i.imgur.com/fURqtTc.png Presumably, because of blocked referrers. Damn. I was so looking forward to using small-sized Whitney as a body font, because it looks amazing.
- ics 13y ago
  If you use typekit, give Prenton a try. I was also on the hunt for a Whitney-as-body replacement and it's what I'm currently using. The proportions are very nice (versus the gothics you'll often see as recommended) and they have a condensed family if you need it. Freight Sans might work as well if you want something a little more modern.
bbrunner 13y ago
What makes this different from typekit? It's quite a bit more expensive ($99 for 250,000 pageviews on cloud.typography vs $49 for 500,000 on typekit) and I'm wondering what extras it provides.
- russelluresti 13y ago
  It's the same type of service, but H&FJ is their own foundry and none of their fonts were licensed through Typekit. This will, assumedly, be the only place to get H&FJ fonts (which is a big deal for typography nerds).
- muglug 13y ago
  Hoefler & Frere-Jones typefaces. Their typography foundry is held to be second-to-none among typeface quality and frequency of usage in print and elsewhere. In particular, their typeface Gotham is incredibly popular, and making it available as a webfont publicly is a big deal. Also, this effort has been underway for at least three years. Their attention to detail ensures that these webfonts are going to be some of the best available anywhere.
  - mortenjorck 13y ago
    An analogy might be that Typekit is the Netflix of typography, while H&FJ are the HBO of the market. Gotham is Game of Thrones. And this move is the typographic equivalent of making HBO Go available as a standalone subscription.
- ctidd 13y ago
  It doesn't seem to provide much in the way of competing directly with Typekit. Still, this is big news for a lot of people. H&FJ is practically THE type foundry for original typefaces. They compete on quality rather than price or other tangible benefits. Unfortunately, it's been impossible to license H&FJ type for real web use until now. The most likely group of people who will use this are type enthusiasts who prefer H&FJ type to the competition's. I can predict there are a lot of designers who will use this service for their personal or business sites. As a competitive offering, though, this doesn't cut it. Buying individual fonts feels outdated to web font users, and the prices don't match up to Typekit (free with Adobe CC) or Monotype/Linotype ($10/month without a ridiculous 5 font cap). H&FJ has chosen their business model, and they'd like to avoid the brand dilution of having poorly designed sites overusing their type. It's an interesting choice, and I hope it works out for them.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    H+FJ doesn't serve the kind of user who feels that "buying individual fonts feels outdated", or who does price competition in the two digit range between different foundries. Instead, they sell to people for whom any price they could reasonably come up with for this service would be a rounding error. Prior to launching Cloud Typography, H+FJ didn't sell web fonts at all. Things seemed to have been going pretty well for them.
    - ctidd 13y ago
      Of course -- H&FJ is an excellent foundry, and they're not competing in the same space as, say, Google Web fonts. That's what I mean by not competitive. It's a completely different league, as it sounds like you're well aware. The people who like H&FJ for the quality will subscribe and use this service, while those looking for a commodity option will avoid it -- perhaps even to the benefit of H&FJ. I know I'll subscribe shortly, which is why I hope this works for their business. It really is an interesting decision when compared to the providers whose offerings keep dropping in price to compete in a commodity market.
    - Silhouette 13y ago
      H+FJ doesn't serve the kind of user who feels that "buying individual fonts feels outdated", or who does price competition in the two digit range between different foundries. The pricing advertised on their site appears to contradict you. They seem to be aiming for the mainstream market rather than exclusivity, yet their prices are uncompetitive by mainstream standards, which seems an odd strategy.
- neilk 13y ago
  First of all - a lot of the fonts available on Typekit - actually, anywhere, are, ahem, inspired by H&FJ. This is the first offering that matches the H&FJ to quality. For instance, my favorite font at the moment is Ideal Sans. The concept here is to infuse a sans serif with an almost handlettered quality. There are no straight lines. Consequently it's hard to make it look good for the screen, period, let alone at small sizes. But they've done it. http://www.typography.com/fonts/ideal-sans/overview/ http://www.typography.com/fonts/ideal-sans/overview/ RandsInRepose.com has been beta testing it and it's gotten notably better over the past year, I think.
  - muglug 13y ago
    Maybe, but the most popular (Proxima Nova) has roots that predate its doppelganger Gotham (H&FJ's most popular typeface) by six years: http://www.marksimonson.com/notebook/view/first-public-use-of-what-became-proxima-nova http://www.marksimonson.com/notebook/view/first-public-use-o... Nevertheless, its recent popularity is due to its status as best-legal-webfont-alternative to Gotham - at least, until today.
- thufry 13y ago
  They're not trying to sell this to startups, they're trying to sell this to the Goldman Sachs website. These type of clients: 1) don't want the same fonts as everyone else, 2) want the high-quality typefaces of H&FJ, and 3) don't give a hoot what it costs.
ics 13y ago
Literally days after spending another couple days searching for a Whitney replacement for a site I'm working on and finally getting set up with Typekit. Still, this is something the entire design community has been looking forward to for a long time. I'll probably wait a while to give it a try for myself, but I am very interested in seeing how their fonts look across the web as others start to pick them up.
michaelpinto 13y ago
I love Didot! My only wish in this department is that the type houses would make it cheap to license fonts for mobile applications.
publicfig 13y ago
Price wise, this is quite a bit less than I was expecting, especially considering that you get 5 free with subscription. Now just to wait and see how long it is before every site is using Gotham.
- Anonymous238 13y ago
  I run a couple of sites that generate 2 million page views a day. Using their prices, I'll be spending more on font subscriptions than the two dedicated servers I'm running. It's a pass here. I'd gladly pay maybe $50/yr to get permission to use their fonts, and a nice interface to preview, browse and generate the fonts I'd like to include. However, if they think I'm going to spend $700+ per month to include three or four webfonts on my site, they're out of their mind. There are countless similar webfonts available for free, and the difference in quality is not nearly worth the price to me, or my users. I think they need a new approach and pricing structure.
  - publicfig 13y ago
    I'm curious, where are you seeing $700 a month at?! On pricing, the most expensive option is $299 a YEAR.
    - Anonymous238 13y ago
      Click on show larger plans, which go up to 20 million monthly page views at $299/mo. I'd need roughly 60 million page views, so $900/mo, although they'd probably cut a wonderful deal at $700/mo. The pricing is absurd. They think I'm going to shell out $10k/yr for using their web fonts? Where's the value here? Where's the return on my investment? If I'm spending $10k/yr on fonts, they better generate some additional revenue on my end. Also, my users better be jumping out of their seats at how impressive the difference is with and without their fonts. That's simply not the case though. I'm not in the business of throwing money out the window, and it could be better invested in countless other places.
Fauntleroy 13y ago
Yet again I'll have to use someone's arbitrary font-serving service instead of using @font-face and hosting the fonts myself. I'd really prefer to just purchase the font, but this is surely more profitable. Also, check out this section for a laugh: http://www.typography.com/cloud/how-it-works/#the-delivery-agent http://www.typography.com/cloud/how-it-works/#the-delivery-a... . "It constructs an application capable of recognizing requests from different browsers." Apparently a few lines of CSS counts as "an application" these days.
- rjvin 13y ago
  You can absolutely just buy the font and serve it yourself: http://www.typography.com/fonts/whitney/styles/whitneyscreensmartpro/latin-x http://www.typography.com/fonts/whitney/styles/whitneyscreen... edit: ok, I didn't read their EULA. Nevermind.
  - garrettdimon 13y ago
    Technically, you may be able to, but legally, the license doesn't allow for it.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    And then you can wait for the cease and desist letter to arrive, since none of H+FJ's typography.com faces are licensed for use on the web outside their service.
  - ernesth 13y ago
    The price for "serving it yourself" on the web is not listed: if you serve it yourself, more than 50 computers will be able to download it!
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I don't think there is a price for "serving it yourself on the web"; outside of a small number of early beta users, the professional websites you saw using H+FJ fonts were probably using image replacement.
IzzyMurad 13y ago
There are just too many excellent free alternatives to justify such subscription.
- larrywright 13y ago
  There really aren't. H&FJ make some of the best typefaces out there.
  - eps 13y ago
    H&FJ are unusual not in their type design quality (of which they are just one of many) but in their very strong focus of branding and marketing. They are, basically, cool type design outlet and they are milking that as hard as they can.
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    H&FJ make some of the best typefaces out there. So do Adobe, and Ascender, and other professional foundries, and several of their font families are available completely free. Despite all the praise for H&FJ's quality from some posters here, I've got Photoshop and a 400% zoom that says their screen fonts still have to fit on the same limited number of pixels as everyone else's, and inevitably, the pixels that get turned on are similar to other well-hinted fonts at small sizes. I've tried a few experiments, and I'm not seeing anything to suggest that H&FJ have some magic new technology that means their fonts are going to render better than everyone else's. Indeed, the quality of rendering in Firefox on Windows 7 appears to be somewhat variable: even some of the fonts on the linked page, such as the Whitney small caps used in headings, are far from crisp. The Archer small caps if you click through the "Learn More" link also seem to have obvious rendering/hinting problems at the top of many of the glyphs (and don't look anything like the "Firefox Windows" screenshot they show on their "Render Quality" page).
    - jrochkind1 13y ago
      Maybe, but i'm excited by http://www.typography.com/cloud/the-fonts/ http://www.typography.com/cloud/the-fonts/, where they mention that all their fonts have: real small caps; old-style (text) figures; full range of individually drawn (not interpolated) weights; ligatures; even some old-style non-lining symbols like dollar signs. If there are free web fonts that have all those, they are hard to find. (I don't even know how to use old-style figures ordinarily, although I'm not an expert in these things. But they imply that they have some custom (probably hacky cause that's what it would take) solution to some special glyphs "Cloud-typography includes tools for implementing advanced typographic features, and delivering them even to browsers that aren't designed to support advanced typography"; ) But yeah, clearly the market is people who care about things like in that list. Some of which are _very_ rarely seen on the web right now; if this leads to them being seen on the web more, it may increase the number of people who know what a 'non-lining figure' is, and then increase the market of people who want such things. And hopefully increase the number of free fonts that have em too (although you can have all those features and still be a poorly-designed font), as well as lead to actual standard ways to do things like text figures on the web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_figures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_figures
jwarren 13y ago
I love H&FJ fonts, but they're very vague about which typefaces you get access to. If I knew what they were, I'd be highly likely to sign up.
- rjvin 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure it's all of them: http://www.typography.com/cloud/the-fonts/ http://www.typography.com/cloud/the-fonts/
- superchink 13y ago
  Join Cloud.typography and get your first five webfont packages FREE. Choose from among H&FJ’s complete library of type families, known for their plentiful styles and rich typographic features, each carefully engineered to be fully functional in the browser. and Already purchased H&FJ fonts? Log in and start your subscription, and you’ll find all your fonts available to use with Cloud.typography at no additional cost. Buy fonts for your computer, and they’ll instantly appear in your Cloud.typography webfont library, too. …seems to indicate that you pay for a base subscription (based on pageviews) and they handle hosting/serving all the fonts that you've purchased. It's not "all-you-can-eat".
- russelluresti 13y ago
  I believe it's all of them. If you go to any of the fonts (from the Font menu drop-down), there's a new "Webfonts" tab at the top (next to "Styles") that allows you to preview the fonts on the web. It seems to be there for every font, and it seems to include every weight and style.
tonetheman 13y ago
I would rather pay once for type faces. I am sure if I was the content producer I would feel differently.
aclevername 13y ago
Take this with a grain of salt since I can't find the source, but I vividly remember a designer wanting to use a H&FJ typeface (Gotham) on a project I was working on about a year and a half ago, only to have the H&FJ FAQ state that they don't allow web embedding and aren't developing it for what amounted to aesthetic reasons (i.e., web font technology was not far enough along for them to feel comfortable with the display of their type on screen.) Now, instead, they're using the same technology as just about everyone else, under their own service, and just rehinted their typefaces to match the tech.
- zeitg3ist 13y ago
  Actually the service itself launched as a private beta in early 2012 [1], while on the H&JF FAQ there has been a "work in progress" statement since at least 2011 [2]. [1] http://kottke.org/12/03/kottkeorg-redesign-2012-version http://kottke.org/12/03/kottkeorg-redesign-2012-version [2] http://web.archive.org/web/20110707053012/http://www.typography.com/ask/faq.php?path=head http://web.archive.org/web/20110707053012/http://www.typogra...

90 points by halostatue 13y ago

... and it doesn't work - http://i.imgur.com/fURqtTc.png http://i.imgur.com/fURqtTc.png Presumably, because of blocked referrers. Damn. I was so looking forward to using small-sized Whitney as a body font, because it looks amazing.

ics 13y ago
If you use typekit, give Prenton a try. I was also on the hunt for a Whitney-as-body replacement and it's what I'm currently using. The proportions are very nice (versus the gothics you'll often see as recommended) and they have a condensed family if you need it. Freight Sans might work as well if you want something a little more modern.

bbrunner 13y ago

What makes this different from typekit? It's quite a bit more expensive ($99 for 250,000 pageviews on cloud.typography vs $49 for 500,000 on typekit) and I'm wondering what extras it provides.

russelluresti 13y ago
It's the same type of service, but H&FJ is their own foundry and none of their fonts were licensed through Typekit. This will, assumedly, be the only place to get H&FJ fonts (which is a big deal for typography nerds).
muglug 13y ago
Hoefler & Frere-Jones typefaces. Their typography foundry is held to be second-to-none among typeface quality and frequency of usage in print and elsewhere. In particular, their typeface Gotham is incredibly popular, and making it available as a webfont publicly is a big deal. Also, this effort has been underway for at least three years. Their attention to detail ensures that these webfonts are going to be some of the best available anywhere.
- mortenjorck 13y ago
  An analogy might be that Typekit is the Netflix of typography, while H&FJ are the HBO of the market. Gotham is Game of Thrones. And this move is the typographic equivalent of making HBO Go available as a standalone subscription.
ctidd 13y ago
It doesn't seem to provide much in the way of competing directly with Typekit. Still, this is big news for a lot of people. H&FJ is practically THE type foundry for original typefaces. They compete on quality rather than price or other tangible benefits. Unfortunately, it's been impossible to license H&FJ type for real web use until now. The most likely group of people who will use this are type enthusiasts who prefer H&FJ type to the competition's. I can predict there are a lot of designers who will use this service for their personal or business sites. As a competitive offering, though, this doesn't cut it. Buying individual fonts feels outdated to web font users, and the prices don't match up to Typekit (free with Adobe CC) or Monotype/Linotype ($10/month without a ridiculous 5 font cap). H&FJ has chosen their business model, and they'd like to avoid the brand dilution of having poorly designed sites overusing their type. It's an interesting choice, and I hope it works out for them.
- tptacek 13y ago
  H+FJ doesn't serve the kind of user who feels that "buying individual fonts feels outdated", or who does price competition in the two digit range between different foundries. Instead, they sell to people for whom any price they could reasonably come up with for this service would be a rounding error. Prior to launching Cloud Typography, H+FJ didn't sell web fonts at all. Things seemed to have been going pretty well for them.
  - ctidd 13y ago
    Of course -- H&FJ is an excellent foundry, and they're not competing in the same space as, say, Google Web fonts. That's what I mean by not competitive. It's a completely different league, as it sounds like you're well aware. The people who like H&FJ for the quality will subscribe and use this service, while those looking for a commodity option will avoid it -- perhaps even to the benefit of H&FJ. I know I'll subscribe shortly, which is why I hope this works for their business. It really is an interesting decision when compared to the providers whose offerings keep dropping in price to compete in a commodity market.
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    H+FJ doesn't serve the kind of user who feels that "buying individual fonts feels outdated", or who does price competition in the two digit range between different foundries. The pricing advertised on their site appears to contradict you. They seem to be aiming for the mainstream market rather than exclusivity, yet their prices are uncompetitive by mainstream standards, which seems an odd strategy.
neilk 13y ago
First of all - a lot of the fonts available on Typekit - actually, anywhere, are, ahem, inspired by H&FJ. This is the first offering that matches the H&FJ to quality. For instance, my favorite font at the moment is Ideal Sans. The concept here is to infuse a sans serif with an almost handlettered quality. There are no straight lines. Consequently it's hard to make it look good for the screen, period, let alone at small sizes. But they've done it. http://www.typography.com/fonts/ideal-sans/overview/ http://www.typography.com/fonts/ideal-sans/overview/ RandsInRepose.com has been beta testing it and it's gotten notably better over the past year, I think.
- muglug 13y ago
  Maybe, but the most popular (Proxima Nova) has roots that predate its doppelganger Gotham (H&FJ's most popular typeface) by six years: http://www.marksimonson.com/notebook/view/first-public-use-of-what-became-proxima-nova http://www.marksimonson.com/notebook/view/first-public-use-o... Nevertheless, its recent popularity is due to its status as best-legal-webfont-alternative to Gotham - at least, until today.
thufry 13y ago
They're not trying to sell this to startups, they're trying to sell this to the Goldman Sachs website. These type of clients: 1) don't want the same fonts as everyone else, 2) want the high-quality typefaces of H&FJ, and 3) don't give a hoot what it costs.

ics 13y ago

Literally days after spending another couple days searching for a Whitney replacement for a site I'm working on and finally getting set up with Typekit. Still, this is something the entire design community has been looking forward to for a long time. I'll probably wait a while to give it a try for myself, but I am very interested in seeing how their fonts look across the web as others start to pick them up.

michaelpinto 13y ago

I love Didot! My only wish in this department is that the type houses would make it cheap to license fonts for mobile applications.

publicfig 13y ago

Price wise, this is quite a bit less than I was expecting, especially considering that you get 5 free with subscription. Now just to wait and see how long it is before every site is using Gotham.

Anonymous238 13y ago
I run a couple of sites that generate 2 million page views a day. Using their prices, I'll be spending more on font subscriptions than the two dedicated servers I'm running. It's a pass here. I'd gladly pay maybe $50/yr to get permission to use their fonts, and a nice interface to preview, browse and generate the fonts I'd like to include. However, if they think I'm going to spend $700+ per month to include three or four webfonts on my site, they're out of their mind. There are countless similar webfonts available for free, and the difference in quality is not nearly worth the price to me, or my users. I think they need a new approach and pricing structure.
- publicfig 13y ago
  I'm curious, where are you seeing $700 a month at?! On pricing, the most expensive option is $299 a YEAR.
  - Anonymous238 13y ago
    Click on show larger plans, which go up to 20 million monthly page views at $299/mo. I'd need roughly 60 million page views, so $900/mo, although they'd probably cut a wonderful deal at $700/mo. The pricing is absurd. They think I'm going to shell out $10k/yr for using their web fonts? Where's the value here? Where's the return on my investment? If I'm spending $10k/yr on fonts, they better generate some additional revenue on my end. Also, my users better be jumping out of their seats at how impressive the difference is with and without their fonts. That's simply not the case though. I'm not in the business of throwing money out the window, and it could be better invested in countless other places.

Fauntleroy 13y ago

Yet again I'll have to use someone's arbitrary font-serving service instead of using @font-face and hosting the fonts myself. I'd really prefer to just purchase the font, but this is surely more profitable. Also, check out this section for a laugh: http://www.typography.com/cloud/how-it-works/#the-delivery-agent http://www.typography.com/cloud/how-it-works/#the-delivery-a... . "It constructs an application capable of recognizing requests from different browsers." Apparently a few lines of CSS counts as "an application" these days.

rjvin 13y ago
You can absolutely just buy the font and serve it yourself: http://www.typography.com/fonts/whitney/styles/whitneyscreensmartpro/latin-x http://www.typography.com/fonts/whitney/styles/whitneyscreen... edit: ok, I didn't read their EULA. Nevermind.
- garrettdimon 13y ago
  Technically, you may be able to, but legally, the license doesn't allow for it.
- tptacek 13y ago
  And then you can wait for the cease and desist letter to arrive, since none of H+FJ's typography.com faces are licensed for use on the web outside their service.
- ernesth 13y ago
  The price for "serving it yourself" on the web is not listed: if you serve it yourself, more than 50 computers will be able to download it!
  - tptacek 13y ago
    I don't think there is a price for "serving it yourself on the web"; outside of a small number of early beta users, the professional websites you saw using H+FJ fonts were probably using image replacement.

IzzyMurad 13y ago

There are just too many excellent free alternatives to justify such subscription.

larrywright 13y ago
There really aren't. H&FJ make some of the best typefaces out there.
- eps 13y ago
  H&FJ are unusual not in their type design quality (of which they are just one of many) but in their very strong focus of branding and marketing. They are, basically, cool type design outlet and they are milking that as hard as they can.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  H&FJ make some of the best typefaces out there. So do Adobe, and Ascender, and other professional foundries, and several of their font families are available completely free. Despite all the praise for H&FJ's quality from some posters here, I've got Photoshop and a 400% zoom that says their screen fonts still have to fit on the same limited number of pixels as everyone else's, and inevitably, the pixels that get turned on are similar to other well-hinted fonts at small sizes. I've tried a few experiments, and I'm not seeing anything to suggest that H&FJ have some magic new technology that means their fonts are going to render better than everyone else's. Indeed, the quality of rendering in Firefox on Windows 7 appears to be somewhat variable: even some of the fonts on the linked page, such as the Whitney small caps used in headings, are far from crisp. The Archer small caps if you click through the "Learn More" link also seem to have obvious rendering/hinting problems at the top of many of the glyphs (and don't look anything like the "Firefox Windows" screenshot they show on their "Render Quality" page).
  - jrochkind1 13y ago
    Maybe, but i'm excited by http://www.typography.com/cloud/the-fonts/ http://www.typography.com/cloud/the-fonts/, where they mention that all their fonts have: real small caps; old-style (text) figures; full range of individually drawn (not interpolated) weights; ligatures; even some old-style non-lining symbols like dollar signs. If there are free web fonts that have all those, they are hard to find. (I don't even know how to use old-style figures ordinarily, although I'm not an expert in these things. But they imply that they have some custom (probably hacky cause that's what it would take) solution to some special glyphs "Cloud-typography includes tools for implementing advanced typographic features, and delivering them even to browsers that aren't designed to support advanced typography"; ) But yeah, clearly the market is people who care about things like in that list. Some of which are _very_ rarely seen on the web right now; if this leads to them being seen on the web more, it may increase the number of people who know what a 'non-lining figure' is, and then increase the market of people who want such things. And hopefully increase the number of free fonts that have em too (although you can have all those features and still be a poorly-designed font), as well as lead to actual standard ways to do things like text figures on the web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_figures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_figures

jwarren 13y ago

I love H&FJ fonts, but they're very vague about which typefaces you get access to. If I knew what they were, I'd be highly likely to sign up.

rjvin 13y ago
I'm pretty sure it's all of them: http://www.typography.com/cloud/the-fonts/ http://www.typography.com/cloud/the-fonts/
superchink 13y ago
Join Cloud.typography and get your first five webfont packages FREE. Choose from among H&FJ’s complete library of type families, known for their plentiful styles and rich typographic features, each carefully engineered to be fully functional in the browser. and Already purchased H&FJ fonts? Log in and start your subscription, and you’ll find all your fonts available to use with Cloud.typography at no additional cost. Buy fonts for your computer, and they’ll instantly appear in your Cloud.typography webfont library, too. …seems to indicate that you pay for a base subscription (based on pageviews) and they handle hosting/serving all the fonts that you've purchased. It's not "all-you-can-eat".
russelluresti 13y ago
I believe it's all of them. If you go to any of the fonts (from the Font menu drop-down), there's a new "Webfonts" tab at the top (next to "Styles") that allows you to preview the fonts on the web. It seems to be there for every font, and it seems to include every weight and style.

tonetheman 13y ago

I would rather pay once for type faces. I am sure if I was the content producer I would feel differently.

aclevername 13y ago

Take this with a grain of salt since I can't find the source, but I vividly remember a designer wanting to use a H&FJ typeface (Gotham) on a project I was working on about a year and a half ago, only to have the H&FJ FAQ state that they don't allow web embedding and aren't developing it for what amounted to aesthetic reasons (i.e., web font technology was not far enough along for them to feel comfortable with the display of their type on screen.) Now, instead, they're using the same technology as just about everyone else, under their own service, and just rehinted their typefaces to match the tech.

zeitg3ist 13y ago
Actually the service itself launched as a private beta in early 2012 [1], while on the H&JF FAQ there has been a "work in progress" statement since at least 2011 [2]. [1] http://kottke.org/12/03/kottkeorg-redesign-2012-version http://kottke.org/12/03/kottkeorg-redesign-2012-version [2] http://web.archive.org/web/20110707053012/http://www.typography.com/ask/faq.php?path=head http://web.archive.org/web/20110707053012/http://www.typogra...