The League of Moveable Type

Posted on June 3rd, 2010 in Typefaces, Web Typography by admin

leagueofMovetype

This is another group that have sprung up fighting the cause to make more fonts freely available for web design using @font-face. It is still embryonic but there are some nice fonts available (Raleway by Matt Mc Inerney for example) – and its hard to criticise anything that is free. The fonts can be used subject to the SIL Open Font License.  It will be interesting to see how it grows over the coming months. Also, check out the Open Font Library (OFL), but the new site is quite buggy.

Slow but steady, not forgotten…

Posted on September 6th, 2008 in Typefaces, Web Typography by admin

Another very lengthy gap between posts. Anyway…it seems typographic developments on the web move just as slowly.

Font embedding is still the ongoing discussion on most of the boards, particularly because it was the theme of one of the Panels at TypeCon08 in July. Basically, Microsoft’s Bill Hill put forward the case for Embedded Open Type (EOT) which Microsoft in conjuction with Monotype and Ascender Corp have submitted to W3C to make it an open Web Standard. EOT enables web designers to embed Open Type fonts in a web page using a Microsoft tool, WEFT (Windows Embedding Font Tool).

EOT is supposed to offer several advantages for type designers, and web designers. For type designers EOT creation tools must respect the embedding permissions built-into their fonts, and EOTs are bound to a specific web page or site. This means that they are only for use with a specific URL. For web designers an EOT can contain a subset of the glyphs, and it can be compressed so download times are shorter. Ascender have launched a website explaining EOT in detail. However, the response to EOT is very mixed. It has been a hot topic of debate for some time now, with various discussions on Typophile (1) and (2), Bill Hill’s and Richard Rutter’s blogs etc.

Simon Daniels’ summary of the TypeCon panel is interesting if brief. David Berlow appears again – his viewpoint is strongly articulated in the Typophile discussions.

Anyway, while the squabbling continues about licensing and whether or not users should be able to download fonts or pay for them, some other important issues are being overshadowed. For example, what existing typefaces (designed for print media) are suitable for screen reading? This requires some serious study as clearly many print typefaces are not suitable for web design. What design characteristics should be present in a typeface suitable for on-screen reading? Also, with the exception of Microsoft’s C fonts and the various clatter of mobile phone typefaces, there is much less type design for the screen platform despite its ubiquity and massive growth potential. Interestingly, Ascender Corp and Microsoft carried out a survey of free fonts to identify important characteristics that would be helpful in determining the quality or integrity of these fonts. While this is useful in checking if these typefaces will actually work with the various OS’s and what type of embedded license data they contain, it does not assess their suitablity for readability/usability on the web. There is also no discussion of the merits of the type’s form and its characteristic representation on screens.

David Berlow wryly notes that there are no winners in the 5,000 fonts surveyed by Ascender and that the study proves ‘what most of us here, have known for a long time — Fonts that are good for the web, take work in the TrueType hinting tables, Code Pages, Name tables, Embedding restrictions and etc…’

The forthcoming Atypi conference in St. Petersburg has an interesting line up, notably the panel The war over web fonts, chaired by Roger Black (The Font Bureau) with presentations from Si Daniels (Microsoft), Thomas Phinney (Adobe) and Håkon Lie (Opera). Two other interesting screen typography presentations will be given by Adam Twardoch (FontLabs), one of which discusses the minute of optimising typefaces for screen while the other presents Setting web typography free.

Fontstruct is awesome!

Posted on May 14th, 2008 in Screen Technology, Typefaces by admin

Fontshop have just released an online font design and creation tool called Fonstruct. It is fantastic. It was devised and developed for FontShop by Rob Meek, a designer/programmer based in Berlin. Meek has been working on projects like this for quite sometime before joining forces with FontShop.

The Fontstruct interface seems easy to use and there are lots of simple clever functions to make the job of font creation easier. Additional functionality such as the ability to share your font with others via a Creative Commons licence, or to create an embedded Flash version for display on your personal website show how Fontshop have really made the effort to integrate with the best of other successful web technologies and services.

As an educational tool for would be typographers, type designers and design students, it presents a wonderful learning opportunity. It presents a simple entry point to understanding the basics of letterform design and construction without the steep technical learning curve of other professional type design software. It is easy to see how this tool could be integrated with traditional methods of teaching and learning. For example, take a look at Ellen Lupton’s modular type design exercise in her book Thinking with Type as proof of this. I look forward to experimenting with it in class in the next academic year to see how it can augment and extend current curricula.

Latest on Web Typography

Posted on November 28th, 2007 in Typefaces, Web Typography by admin

A couple of interesting things have emerged this week.

Firstly, A List Apart have at last featured another article on How to Size Type in CSS, by Richard Rutter (of webtypography.net). Its pretty good and clearly explains the process in incremental stages. However, I would also have welcomed some discussion on the semantic nature of sizing with respect to H1, H2, H3 etc and Medium, Large, Largest, Smaller and their relationship to web standards. It is also interesting that Rutter is recommending a departure from the 62.5% rule for setting 1 em equal to 10px. It was certainly much easier from a calculations perspective. There is a good discussion about this on ALA.

Secondly, Thomas Phinney published the results of his survey on web fonts (which I previously mentioned). The results are not really surprising – designers want to be able to use all of their print fonts on the web. The main issue prohibiting progress is licensing. Foundries and designers often have divergent views on this. Johnathan Hoefler, of Hoefler & Frere-Jones, suggests that while the will is there on the part of the foundries to make their fonts available for font embedding on the web, they won’t move until someone sorts out a technologically safe solution that will protect them from pirating. It seems like a bit of a deadlock, but perhaps Adobe may take the lead on it. Incidentally, I asked Erik Spiekermann (after his talk in Dublin, during Irish Design Week) what he thought could be done to improve typography on the web – his answer was ‘Sort out the licensing issue’.

I think that we also need a critical reivew of contemporary typeface design to establish what fonts are actually suitable for screen delivery. This would be a significant research project for someone to undertake – ISTD or ATypI maybe? Many of the best contemporary type designers and foundries (Hoefler & Frere-Jones, Underware, Ascender, Bruno Maag, FontFont etc) have already created bespoke fonts for screen. It would be great to see some of them become available. Web design is still the poor relation in typographic terms.

Next Page »