Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Johannes Neumeier

About

Username
Johannes Neumeier
Joined
Visits
699
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
101
Posts
116
  • Re: Anybody else want to commission a open source Wordpress type tester?

    @Stuart Sandler yea, I've seen some sites using this kind of server side rendering, but the responsiveness of those kinds of solutions is just sub-par, in my view. Users nowadays are used to any font rendering immediately in their browser, so typing-and-waiting just doesn't cut it - personal view.
    Also for the use-case of a Wordpress plugin, which often runs on shared hosts and LAMP stack and with no or restricted shell access, most of those solutions are out of the question to begin with. The other question is that of how fonts then are rendered; meaning PNG's or even SVG files don't enjoy the same font antialiasing that actual webfonts receive in the browser, so again the display quality would be further removed from how the files will actually render when purchased in full. I really wish there was something in the browser one could do without significant trade offs or providing just the idea of protection through obscurity.

    In the end it all boils down to just how difficult you want to make it for people to rip fonts, it will always be possible. And at the same time, those people that do rip fonts, are they likely to become paying customers just because it is more or less difficult for them to technically do so? Personally, I believe it's more a question of morality, and enforcing DRM is something that might just rather give someone an excuse to rage against the machine and go ahead and rip that font. Philosophies on this vary, I gather :)

  • Re: Is it ok to call a "typeface design" the UI of a font software program?

    The objective is to differentiate "font software" from an "image of lettering", clearly and quickly with minimal jargon. 
    Perhaps I am of a simple mind, but is it not, in fact, quite obvious to your average Joe or Josefine that the one is the font and the other is the stuff you make with it?

    I would go so far as to say that the idea that fonts are software is foreign to most people to begin with, and inventing a remedy for this self made problem might be solved simply by calling things what they are in the users' mind.
  • Re: What are 'true italics'?

    After four years of dormancy this topic seems to take the turn from discussing nomenclature to discussing marketing, and rightly so. If anything this thread shows that the various terms are largely up for interpretation, especially so when you ask your average buyer. The real issue is ab/using the ambivalence of said terms as a means to sell type. Designers are desperate to appeal to potential users with terms they presumably identify as marks of quality. All in all, this is the same issue that brings families with 64 styles and 5000 glyphs each to the market, no matter if the design calls for it or not. More is not less, in type design?
  • Re: Norse Sans, Geometric & Grotesque

    Good work, keep at it! One thing you could have a look at are round bends. It is most perceptible in the lowercase u where the sharp inner curve and the more lax outer curve create a visually thinner width in the bend overall. The same happens in the bowled capitals like P and R, which, additionally, still seem to be visually thicker in the horizontals.
  • Re: Norse Sans, Geometric & Grotesque

    ...to be a comfortable read on displays, both body sized text and larger titles...
    I think this is a face that has trendy and quirky traits, and in so far as trendy is comfortable to the eye, it could be said to be comfortable to read. Aside from that, this claim easily rolls off the fingers, but I wonder how you justify it? Or, if in partial alternative, that isn't the actual aim of the typeface, but it should like a positive thing to say about the design?
    The letter spacing is very tight, the proportions in both directions seem to play with juxtaposition rather than harmony, and neither grotesques nor geometrics are inherently known to have legibility as their strong suit. When the tight spacing seems somewhat appropriate for the heavier weight, it seems over-emphasised in the lights, thus changing the character of the type too much from geometric to grotesque as it moves towards the lighter weights.
    Personally, I like the lowered horizontal emphasis in the caps, but the lowercase seems very undecided. In the heavier weight: Looking at terminals of l, t, a, j, f, y, r - it seems every letter tries to impress by itself with a new invention. The "less geometric" shapes in the lowercase, like in a, s, g seem uncomfortable, the s and S in particular having a bit of a backward slant. Optical weight compensation for u, c, x could be refined. The even stroke width in the round shapes could also need more horizontal weight to truly make them look even, to my eye they now have too much weight at the top and bottom. In the caps, many characters also have too much weight in the horizontal - too much, that is, if they are supposed to look even, instead of having a quirky base- and capline emphasis. Look at H or T or Z: The horizontals look heavier than the verticals. The numbers are part idiosyncratic, part too average geometric. The 3 looks squished on the bottom, 5 too wide, the 2 slants away to the right.

    Getting bored with a typeface design is good. It makes you return to the project with fresh eyes :)