Re: Font choices

Subject: Re: Font choices
From: "Dick Margulis" <margulis -at- mail -dot- fiam -dot- net>
To: Dick Margulis <margulis -at- mail -dot- fiam -dot- net>, <michele -at- krautgrrl -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 21:14:53 -0400

Michele Davis wrote:

... some amusing stuff that I've snipped (but Michele, what about the kitchen?), and then she wrote:

There are certain fonts that kick and some that totally don't, and man Times is a font that certainly doesn't kick.
>

I absolutely agree. And I could add that Garamond doesn't kick, either. Especially the wan version Microshaft distributes. But Times New Roman has its uses, especially if you are a newspaper publisher printing from stereotypes. ("Times" is to Times New Roman, by the way, as store brand vanilla is to whatever it was you were touting there. Times New Roman, if you've ever seen the original, does kick in its own subtle way.)

A font that kicks, though, also draws attention to itself--or at least to the designer. That's a desirable feature if you are designing a billboard, a poster, maybe a color brochure. It is gauche, to say the least, if you are designing a user manual.

Far better in that circumstance is to use a well made but not terribly idiosyncratic font and to use a publishing program that knows how to set type (thus eliminating Word from consideration). Still, the choice is not totally arbitrary and not totally a matter of personal taste. You have to take into account the geometry of the page, the length and complexity of the manuscript, the paper, the production method, ... . The list goes on. Then you can make an intelligent font choice.

Dick




Previous by Author: Re: Font choices
Next by Author: Site to download corporate logos?
Previous by Thread: Re: Font choices
Next by Thread: Re: Font choices


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads