Well, shoot. I had no idea there were wiki pages about individual typefaces. I sense that several hours or even days of my life are about to go *poof*.

Hey, Bernard. One thing I noticed from that sample of fonts is the one called TITLE. In typesetting, was there usually a font for setting something in all caps? It seems to me (from hand lettering) that you’d want some different spacing and maybe even slightly different shapes, weights, and other characteristics, not just using the caps from the standard font.

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:
Hey, Bernard. One thing I noticed from that sample of fonts is the one called TITLE. In typesetting, was there usually a font for setting something in all caps? It seems to me (from hand lettering) that you’d want some different spacing and maybe even slightly different shapes, weights, and other characteristics, not just using the caps from the standard font.

A lot of typefaces come with a "small cap" font. These are caps usually about 'x' height, probably with their own distinct design elements. The Goudy Old Style TITLE states that it is a full height version of it's small cap font. So these caps are probably going to be slightly different from the regular caps.

To answer your question, no, not in the time I was a typesetter was there usually a separate font for TITLE. There is often one called Display, though, and it's cut to be more effective in large sizes, with features like ink traps, etc. But those usually come in upper and lower case.

As far as good fitting of characters, the same co-worker who became good at font ID was also good at kerning. Since we did high-end typography, time and money was spent to make the type look as beautiful as it could be. It all went downhill with the advent of desktop publishing.

...

Interesting.

Back to typewriters for a moment: IBM had two Selectric elements for Orator. One was caps and lc, the default one was large caps and small caps.

Naturally, as a type geek, I had both.

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:
Interesting.

Back to typewriters for a moment: IBM had two Selectric elements for Orator. One was caps and lc, the default one was large caps and small caps.

Naturally, as a type geek, I had both.

I loved the Selectric typewriters. They were 'easy' to type on.

Speaking of interchangeable fonts on a typewriter. A few years ago I purchased a Hammond Multiplex typewriter from the early 1900s. I had no idea that interchangeable fonts existed for typewriters before the introduction of the Selectric.

I have been in the process of restoring it. Most of the keys were frozen when I bought it, and the escape mechanism wouldn't work. I've now got all the keys but 2 working (still a bit of rust in the wrong place on those 2) and the escapement works. Big problem now is finding the special strip that goes between the ribbon and the hammer. I have to figure out if there's some material I can use to do the trick. (In the video, you can see it as the white strip behind the ribbon in front of the hammer. It's a fascinating machine and technology. Have have model 12 with the Ideal keyboard (the curved one).

https://youtu.be/2S3jwnCzOq0?feature=shared

Hey pj, maybe you know the answer to this one: Why do some sans serif fonts make an exception for the capital I and put serifs on top and bottom? It sort of bugs me. Makes the letter take up more room than it “ought” to.

Back when they were painting BLACK LIVES MATTER in huge letters on city streets, the I stuck out like a fat mistake.

For years, DOJ reports have been 12 point Times New Roman.

For the Minneapolis report, we went with a new style that whoever decides such things chose: 12 point Arial with blue text boxes.

Very controversial.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
For years, DOJ reports have been 12 point Times New Roman.

For the Minneapolis report, we went with a new style that whoever decides such things chose: 12 point Arial with blue text boxes.

Very controversial.

It’s funny how jarring it can be to switch fonts. Times New Roman is standard in lots of academic tasks too so it’s the font I’m probably most used to reading and writing in.

Separate from fonts, I guess this is about typesetting? There are lots of academic journals that still use a two column layout. Well that’s ok if you’re reading on paper, but if you’re reading on a tablet or other screen it’s super annoying. That seems to me to be a layout that no longer makes sense.

quote:

Originally posted by RealPlayer:
Hey pj, maybe you know the answer to this one: Why do some sans serif fonts make an exception for the capital I and put serifs on top and bottom? It sort of bugs me. Makes the letter take up more room than it “ought” to.

Back when they were painting BLACK LIVES MATTER in huge letters on city streets, the I stuck out like a fat mistake.

I’m guessing that’s just to give the I some presence so it doesn’t just get lost. I read WTF on my iPad and the font is sans-serif, but the I still has serifs top and bottom. In a stream of text, that also distinguishes the I from a lower case l.

So, yeah, I’d say the purpose is exactly for the I to “take up more room than it’s supposed to.”

I even add some serifs to an I when I’m writing by hand.

Cognitive psychologist here. OK, outdated cognitive psychologist here.

Back in the day there was research that clearly indicated that serifs were easier to read. They are a much richer visual display and your eyes get more things to hang onto. Piano analogy - many people report that playing something in C major is difficult, even though it's an "easy" key signature. The alleged reason is because you are completely on the white keys, which have no touch/space differential to help you know where your hands are. But I digress....

We were told in no uncertain terms in my early tech writing days that the body of the text, whether it's in a table, paragraph, or whatever, must be a serif font. Headlines, subheads, table/column titles could be san serif.

The DOJ is doomed, I tell ya, doomed!

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
Piano analogy - many people report that playing something in C major is difficult, even though it's an "easy" key signature. The alleged reason is because you are completely on the white keys, which have no touch/space differential to help you know where your hands are.

Not to hijack the thread, but in my experience, C major is harder for physiological reasons.

One of the easiest keys to play is B major. B major is easy to play because the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th fingers play on black keys where they physically fall very nicely, and the thumb continues to play (mostly) on the white keys.

C major is harder because one needs to make the longer fingers fit on the same plane as the shorter thumb which takes an engagement of the arm and finger muscles that is not as 'natural', 'intuitive', 'easy' [hard to find the right word here] as simply letting the longer fingers fall on the black keys.

In other words, black key keys 'fit the hand' better than C major.

quote:

black key keys 'fit the hand' better than C major

Yes, having some black keys helps. But having five flats is a nightmare to sightread.

Maybe changing the font would help?

(I love that fonts and music have converged in this thread!!)

Or, if you must teach the C major scale, start hands together with LH descending and RH ascending, then reverse.

quote:

Originally posted by ShiroKuro:

quote:

black key keys 'fit the hand' better than C major

Yes, having some black keys helps. But having five flats is a nightmare to sightread.

Maybe changing the font would help?

(I love that fonts and music have converged in this thread!!)

(Two of my favorite subjects. )

I get past the five sharps by pondering the inverse: How many notes (and which ones) are not a black key? In the key of B major that's only the 1 (B) and 4 (E). Two notes are easier to remember than 5 (at least in my mind). Ditto with F# major (6 sharps): Only 1 note is not sharp: B.

Looking at the inverse, in conjunction with the scale pattern as it looks on the keyboard, is my way of managing the keys for reading.

quote:

I get past the five sharps by pondering the inverse: How many notes (and which ones) are not a black key? In the key of B major that's only the 1 (B) and 4 (E). Two notes are easier to remember than 5 (at least in my mind). Ditto with F# major (6 sharps): Only 1 note is not sharp: B.

Looking at the inverse, in conjunction with the scale pattern as it looks on the keyboard, is my way of managing the keys for reading.

I’ll have to think about that and see if it helps when reading. I’m playing something with five flats right now and it’s ok-ish but my reading is not as good as it is with other keys.

Also, I have always found sharps easier to read, and I never really knew why. But your comment here makes me wonder if it’s because of the directionality… by which I mean, we read forward (to the right) in the music, and our eyes move across the page to the right. With a sharp, your fingers also move forward, i.e. to the right. But with flats, although our eyes are moving forward to the right, our fingers have to move backward, to the left…

Maybe that’s part of it?