User talk:James Arboghast/Archive01

Please do not edit or post replies to this page. this page is an archive

This archive page covers approximately between November 2005 and December 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User talk:James_Arboghast/Archive02.

Serif[edit]

I see that you have changed the paragraph to say "in dispute". Can you elaborate on your reasoning behind changing this wording?

As I see it, there is no real dispute on this terminology, and I have (apparently in vain) tried to explain this in Talk:Serif. However, people who know "serif" and "roman" only through computer programs may see it as in dispute because the computer-oriented terminlogy does not strictly follow the typographic terminology. Is this what you mean?

Thanks.—Gniw (Wing) 00:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC) (who is supposed to be on perpectual wikileave)[reply]

- Hi Gniw. First of all, I design typefaces and have worked with type and studied it for 15 years+ as a graphic designer and art director working in advertising. Most of my knowledge of typography comes from authoritive print sources, not from type-related software. Also, some of it comes from discussions with other typographers and type designers on Typographi.com and Typophile.

I was born in 1963, ie: I'm not new to this stuff. I won't self-promote here on Wikipedia, but if you want to know more about me as far as qualifications go, look me up on Google.

I have read the discussion on Talk:Serif. That very discussion illustrates the "dispute" I meant in the Serif article (altho I did not reference that discussion). The discussion on Talk:Serif does not support your contention that "there is no real dispute on this terminology". It seems that widespread ambiguity and confusion continue to exist regarding this area of type terminology.

The consensus view of typographers and type professionals at present is, essentially:

Serifs are serifs, and are not the equivalent of 'roman';
There are 4 or 5 main kinds of seriffed fonts classified as 
1. bracket, 2. slab, 3. latin (pointed triangular), 4. rhomboid, 5. rounded.

On that basis 'seriffed' cannot be equivalent or interchangeable with 'roman'; slab serif fonts are not considered 'roman', and text fonts with pointed triangular serifs are called 'latin'; Cooper Black has rounded serifs, and while the design is structured according to 'roman' or antiqua letter forms, Cooper is not considered a 'roman' font.

In current use, the term 'roman' has begun to take on a new meaning, refering to the 'regular' or base font in a family. Here are some examples:

http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/bitstream/humanist-521/humanist-521/ http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/bitstream/charter-bt-pro/ http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/bitstream/prima-sans/prima-sans/opentype-tt/244407/

In the case of Prima, even a sans serif font is called a 'roman'. That kind of nomenclature is confusing for lay persons who associate 'roman' with seriffed text fonts.

The emerging definition of 'roman' is: 1. A font (usually a text font) whose letter forms are based on the Aldine model (also known as 'antiqua'). 2. The regular or base font of a font family designed for text work.

Exactly how much confusion exists (both in lay circles and typographic circles) over the equivalence of 'roman' and 'serif' is hard to measure. Probably the best thing to do here is either revert my edit, or change "in dispute" to "remains controversial" (based on the discussion on the Talk:Serif page.

For relevant a perspective on the topic of serifs and seriffed type v.s sans serif, I recommend Wikipedians working on the typography articles read "The Serif is Dying" thread on Typographica: http://typographi.com/000276.php

Those who doubt the views I have presented here should visit http://www.typophile.com and consult the typographers who hang there, ie: start a thread on the genral discussions forum and you will get plenty of feedback. Typophile also has a huge archive of discussion threads you can search to glean more on this issue.

James 03:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute your statement that the current opinion is that "roman" is no longer interchangeable with "seriffed"; if you read my comments on the talk page, you should be well aware that I have accepted that this is the current situation. However, I still stand by my statement that, historically, "roman" was used in a way that was interchangeable with "seriffed".

That's fine. Sorry I did not make my intentions clearer. I was only supporting your position and that of the other 'pedians on this issue and offering the additional perspective of a type designer (self). I did read your comments on the talk page. James 12:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph was intentionally written in such a way to convey the fact that "roman" has historically been interchangeable with "seriffed" in one of its meanings, but no longer universally understood to mean that way (thus the wording "no longer… in widespread use", which you edited out).

sorry James 12:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the current paragraph is not clear enough of this, please edit the paragraph to show this more clearly, but please don't label it as a "dispute"; this is semantic drift, not a dispute of fact.

good point James 12:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, "roman" meaning "regular" is not a "new meaning".)

Yes, "emerging" and "begun to take on a new meaning" were bad word choices. I meant to say that the meaning has shifted, and here is the current meaning. Let's not quibble over semantics tho. James 12:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My typographic knowledge is also almost all from print sources; but if you ask me for references, you are essentially asking me what books I have read 10–15 years ago, and I really cannot answer. Not able to locate most of my reference books has, of course, not helped.—Gniw (Wing) 04:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]