|WikiProject Typography||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Font article.|
Major reversion needed
The disambiguation page should be moved back here, becuse there are too many common meanings for one to dominate. dramatic 07:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
meta: wikipedia font
As a term-of-art, I've seen the term "font metrics" used frequently, but I don't see any mention of it here. Would someone more familiar with the term please integrate it appropriately? Thanks. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good suggestion. I have added a paragraph on this term. --Thomas Phinney (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Font vs. typeface
We used to have a single article on typeface, and font redirected there. Then someone decided we should have an article on the topic of just the traditional definition of "font", i.e. a set of all the characters in a typeface in a specific weight (usually in a drawer of lead type). See this revision and the history of the article being a redirect for years and years. Now, this article has expanded to included content that is completely redundant with the typeface article. I am proposing merging and removing the "Font characteristics" section with Typeface#Typeface_anatomy. The question I ask, if we are using "font" as a synonym for "typeface" then why do we need two articles? We need to make sure that we aren't splitting up content that really belongs in one place.-Andrew c [talk] 15:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. In modern usage the term font is used in place of, and is more prevalent than typeface. The articles should therefore be merged under the title of font with the History section making the relevant historical distinction. FreeFlow99 (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
This section reads like it was written by somebody coming from a CSS background rather than a typographic one. This "CSS-like" usage of the phrase "font style" is not one I see anywhere else in typogtraphy, and in fact seems contrary to general typographic usage. The description itself is kind of backwards as well.
- Au contraire! Whilst font once had an old-fashioned 'lead and hammers' printing meaning only, its current meaning is dominated by the computer publishing usage which accounts for the vast majority of all modern publishingand document processing. In this context the meaning of font is different from that in the historical one. To cling on to a minority definition on the grounds that it once was the only definition is to make the article into one about typesetting and printing history rather than one relevant to modern publishing usage.
- Recommend creating a 'historical' section which describes the old usage and meanings of font, typeface, etc,. and make the emphasis of the article into the modern computer publishing usage of the terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
"non-typographers": historical anomaly
- "However, this distinction is often ignored by non-typographers, who often instead use font as a synonym for typeface."
This would seem to belong to historical definitions, rather than current practice. Nearly all current typesetting / publishing uses computer-based systems. In computing terminology "font" refers to a particular design of lettering and is independent of the sizes at which it can be rendered. "Typeface" has little, and ever diminishing, relevance in modern publishing / printing since "type" is now a small, even old-fashioned, means of producing printed text.
Consequently, the tone of the article should, I suggest, be updated to reflect current practice as the norm and old terminology as part of the history of printing. Perhaps create a historical section to include the old use of "typeface", etc.
At the very least, the quoted reference to "non-typographers" with its implicit claim on the old usage as being the important one should either be removed or the point-of-view be changed to reflect current practice. i.e., replace the quoted text by something along the lines of:
- "However, this distinction is only retained by pre-computer-based publishing "typographers", who sub-divide "font" (current usage) into "font" (historical usage), referring to a style of text in one size only, and "typeface", referring to a set of letter blocks all of the same font and in a range of sizes.
- Well, that suggestion would be completely incorrect by any definition of typeface... or are you also redefining "font" without telling us your new definiton? "Typeface" includes all the styles in the family. I've actually done a survey on current usage, and it supports what is currently in the article. It is not a historical anomaly. There is no reason to put "typographers" in scare quotes, nor is it accurate to suggest that the only typographers who make these distinction are pre-digital ones. I learned typography from day one on computers starting back in the mid-80s (although I have also studied all the other major forms of typesetting). I am increasingly grumpy with people outside of my field trying to tell me what the definitions and terms are in my field. What basis do you have for your assertions? See my basis here: http://www.thomasphinney.com/2009/04/font-terms-survey-results/ Thomas Phinney (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I've seen a few easter eggs hidden in fonts by viewing them in Character Map. Like in the font "Press Start", there's a Pac-man (on the Š slot) and ghost symbol (on the š slot) Pgj1997 (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
- As far as I can see, the page is not semi-protected, nor has it been for a while, so it does not need a semi-protection padlock notice. If you are for some reason concerned that the page should be protected, you can request this to be done at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. You can read more about it at: Wikipedia:PP#Semi-protection. If you need any help, just get in touch. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 13:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I cannot find any reference in the article about "random" or "dynamic" fonts. See e.g. this rather old paper. Can an expert please shed some light or add further references to latest developments here please? Thanks. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Ambiguity needs resolution
I cannot tell from the introductory paragraph whether the page is intended to discuss the present or former meaning of "font". If the former meaning, the definition given is wrong: "In typography, a font is traditionally defined as a quantity of sorts composing a complete character set of a single size and style of a particular typeface." A font *was* traditionally defined, in the words of Webster's 3rd as "an assortment of type, matrices, or characters of one size and style including a *due proportion* of all the letters in the alphabet, points, accents, and figures." A font was the unit by which type was ordered and sold. It is an inexact *measure* of quantity, not qualities. What constituted a "due proportion" varied by foundry and by type face and size. E.g., a due proportion for 72-point Helvetica would not need as many lower case characters as are needed for a 10-pont Helvetica, since the latter would be used for text rather than display lines. I will never forget the tongue-lashing I got from an old journeyman the first time this then-young apprentice got when I incorrectly referred to a type face as a "font". Marbux (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)