Typewriters

The terminology of typography has changed over recent years. Mainly that is found in the "font vs. typeface" debate.

Let's lay out the terms as they were before digital type:

Typeface Family (which denotes the entire group)
Helvetica regular
Helvetica bold
Helvetica italic
Helvetica bold italic.

Typeface (only one element of the above group)
Helvetica italic

Font (only one typeface in one particular size):
12 pt. Helvetica bold

Because type was originally cast in metal, it would be cast at a particular size, thus the relevance of "font" in the terminology. Digital type, of course, needs no reference to "font" because it can be output at about any size you need...often in 1/10 point increments. (72 points in an inch, 12 points in a pica, 6 picas to an inch)

Today, "font" can mean "typeface" or "typeface family." There is apparently also "official" terminology that uses "font family" as a synonym of "typeface family" to further confuse the issue.

To further confuse the issue further, Google has inserted their own definition:



Confused yet? I guess (and I'm not quite sure) that Google is saying that the digital file where the typeface data is stored is the "font" while the expression of this data on the screen or paper is the "typeface." If I'm wrong, well, god help those who don't have even a cursory background in typography.

So, as daddy said (or should have said), "Ignore anything Google says because they're a bunch of arrogant, woke, tech oligarchs who would swallow you whole if there was money in it (and there is, and they do)".

But point taken about the font menus leading to the munging of the terms "typeface" and "font." It is what it is now, and now "font" and "typeface" mean the same thing, although no one knows for sure (even me) if "font" also means "font family" (the latter being the supposed equivalent of "typeface family"). Does it matter? I'm not sure. But that's some of the background on all this.

No wonder that finding word origins can be so difficult. Here we can kind of track a change that has occurred in the last twenty years. And it's reasonably to assume that in 100 years it could be difficult to nail down these changed meanings.

That's another good kind of font.

As for old typefaces, Claude Garamond is renowned for capturing the old styles and formalizing them into typefaces, although this Britannica article said some were misattributed to him.

It's funny, Mr. Kung. I certainly don't consider myself an artiste. I've known some and worked with them. I'm a jack-of-all-trades, master of none...and mediocre in many of them.

But it's funny to watch one's own aesthetic development. Back in the day of using phototypesetters and press type dry transfer lettering (Letraset, Prestype, and Chartpak were the big-three), we used and experimented with all kinds of wild typefaces, particular for display or headline type.



That's not all bad. For a circus poster, for instance, that is appropriate. But because we had easy access to all kinds of typefaces, we (probably more "I") would often misuse them. Some restraint was needed.

Now I'm more of the school of "Helvetica for headlines, Times or Garamond for body text." And this restraint can give a much more refined look.

But by all means be goofy and experiment with type. You can find all kinds of free fonts online and I frequently make use of them for specific purposes. And some of them are pretty wild. But used sparingly, they can really work.

One can thus have more respect for, and appreciation of, a Claude Garamond when one has been dancing with Bozo the Clown.