**This issue has probably been talked about to death, and if it has, please point me to the relevant discussions.**
It seems to me that naming weights in a typeface is largely subjective and often applied inconsistently. Sometimes even by the same foundry or designer. For example, here is a list of 'black' fonts that are all part of larger families I quickly complied (sorry it's not an exhaustive list) and it quickly becomes apparently that what 'black' means varies.
http://myfonts.us/td-qF5KcRIs there a more consistent way to name weights?
Would there be value in a more universal weight-naming system?
What am I missing?
Comments
There is a general standard for the relative order of weight names. Something like this:
Ultra Light / Hair
Extra Light / Thin
Light
Semi Light / Demi Light
Regular / Normal / Roman / Standard [no weight name]
Medium
Demibold / Semibold
Heavy
Bold
Extra Bold
Ultra Bold / Black
Extra Black
Ultra / Ultra Black
Two names which are not given a consistent place in this order are “Book” and “Heavy” which is why I recommend that font makers avoid those names.
100 Thin
200 ExtraLight
300 Light
400 Regular
500 Medium
600 Semibold
700 Bold
800 Extra Bold
900 Black
Thin
Light
Regular
Medium
Demi
Bold
Heavy
Black
In a style link context, weight style links cover all these weights except the lightest and heaviest. They look like this:
Light + [Bold style link] = Demi
(Regular) + [Bold style link] = Bold
Medium + [Bold style link] = Heavy
I avoid long weight names, because of the font name length limitation in some contexts. The shorter the weight name, the better. Also, I avoid "Extra" as part of a weight name, because I might use that for another part of a font name.
@Stephen Coles Yes I see it being impractical, and would probably only really work for monoline (or close to monoline) families, as it becomes complicated to decide which part of the character to base the weight-name one, especially if you are using a numbered system and aiming for consistency.