![]() Maybe the distinction would be more explicit to those who are wondering about this subject.Īnd maybe it is the very point here, most of the time the font reproduce so faithfully the typeface that we could end confusing the two terms. ![]() We could think about fonts that could alter the distinctive style and design, or the visual semantic of the typeface beyond the classical categories. Here the idea is that the medium -the font as a device- reproduces faithfully the distinctive design and style -the typeface, the object of the font-, and in a specific visual semantic -the function of the font. font is about the medium conveying a specific visual semantic from a typeface -width, weight, etc.typeface is about the distinctive design and style of a set of characters °letter _ number _ punctuation mark _ symbol _ etc.° available among the typographic's market.The two terms are very differents, it would like say that a movie and its projector (in our case, with specific parameters to render a particular visual aesthetic) are the same entities. "Font Family" is synonymous with "Typeface" today, and is possibly a more useful term now that the definitions of "font" and "typeface" have become so vague. Today you'll generally see these referred to as a "Font Family" by type foundries. Some typefaces, especially novelty display faces, are only realized in one font. These variations are all properly called fonts, but they are all part of the same typeface. Some classic typefaces, like Helvetica, Univers and Futura, have a huge number of variations. "Red" says what hue is being referred to, just as "Garamond" identifies a definite typeface. "Bold Roman Garamond" could be considered analogous to "Dark Red". "Typeface" is to type what "Hue" is to color: it's the recognizable characteristic that differentiates it and is given a name. The Roman (or "Regular"), Italic, Bold, Semibold, Regular Display/Subhead/Text/Caption, Extended, Condensed, etc., of a typeface are all fonts within the same typeface. To a lot of the population in broad contexts, the difference between the two has no relevance to the context of what they are saying, so with no reason to specifically use one over the other, they may use the terms interchangeably.Ī font is a file that generates a particular style of characters in a given typeface. For example in metal typesetting a font was the collection of metal letters (sorts) for printing a typeface in a certain size and style. The term "font" does however pre-date digital typography. Modern fonts typically represent a single style of a typeface (weight, slant, variation etc) but contain scalable vector information that can be rendered at any size (though, different styles may be optimised for use at different sizes). Typeface refers to the overall design of the letter shapes, and not to any specific style or method of reproducing them.īy font we usually now mean a digital file which "generates" text (usually containing infinitely-scalable vector representation of glyphs). So, my question is: Does the difference between a 'font' and a 'typeface' subside in the language? Or are font and typeface now used interchangeably even by pros?Ī font creates letters in a given typeface using a certain size and style. It’s a subtle difference, but often a useful one. People might say that Arial is a poor typeface (derivative and uninspiring), but a valuable font (huge range of glyphs, great international support, reliable at all sizes and on all devices, etc etc). for international use or their hinting is flakey at certain sizes or their default kerning tables are inconsistent, etc etc. Lots of type foundries produce amazing typefaces that make for frustrating fonts because they lack important glyphs e.g. Most of the time, people use "font" and "typeface" interchangeably, but occasionally you need to focus on one or the other, like how sometimes musicians write great songs, but release bad recordings of those songs or never record them. Song/typeface …"), and "font" when you’d use "track" (" … so I’m Use "typeface" when you’d use "song" (e.g. Here’s an analogy I adapted from this Fontfeed article, "Font or Typeface?": That font is usually a package for a typeface, but not always: Wingdings, Chartwell and icon fonts like Font Awesome are fonts without typefaces. ![]() If you talk about the font, your focus is more on the product, the item or package that can be bought, downloaded or stored in a box, etc. It might have come from a font, or it might not: hand-painted signs, graffiti art, comic lettering, calligraphy, logos etc can all have distinctive typefaces without fonts. If you talk about the typeface, your focus is on the end result, some type’s appearance and aesthetics in use. They’re almost interchangeable – but there’s a difference of emphasis that can be useful. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |