Howdy, Stranger!

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

André G. Isaak


André G. Isaak
Last Active
  • Re: Are foundry initials an inherent part of a type family name?

    Btw, there was a thread recently mentioning that ITC wanted ITC Kabel sorted like 'Kabel' in lists. So again, have the cookie and eat it. Plus it makes some users unhappy.

    Actually, that was me mentioning that I would prefer ITC Kabel sorted as Kabel. I have no idea what ITC would prefer (though IIRC, the version of Kabel from ITC is called ‘Kabel ITC’, whereas the one from Adobe is called ‘ITC Kabel’).

    Adobe apps still sort ‘ITC Kabel’ as ‘Kabel’, but they also sort ‘New York’ as ‘York’ — which illustrates the dangers with apps trying to impose their own rules on sorting — their internal rules might make sense in some cases (e.g. sorting ‘New Baskerville’ as ‘Baskerville’), but generally not in all cases.

  • EULAs: No Modifications Clauses.

    Some font vendors (e.g. Adobe) specifically allow modifications of their fonts, but many (I suspect most) specifically prohibit any form of modification in their EULAs.

    I can think of a number of reasons (three main ones, really) why foundries might want such a clause but, as someone who isn’t actually involved in the type business, I have no idea of whether the reasons I’ve come up with are actually the same reasons which motivate font vendors.

    I was wondering if anyone who includes a no-modification clause in their EULA might be willing to share their rationale on this issue.

    Any insights would be appreciated,

  • Re: Type-design education: its importance and (future) role

    Where type design is concerned, I’m what what could best be described as a rank amateur and I pretend no expertise whatsoever, but I did want to chime in on the topic of formal education more generally.

    I have worked in academia and in my experience, autodidacts can often develop a very good understanding of specific topics which interest them while still having gaping holes in their knowledge of which they are completely unaware.

    Within my own field there are very many areas in which I don't know nearly as much as I ought to (and the more I study my field the more poignantly aware of these deficiencies I become), and it seems to me that this is common among academics. But those with formal educations in a given field tend to at least be more aware of these existence of those holes.

    There's an old adage that as the circle of one’s knowledge grows, so does the perimeter of one’s ignorance, but I’ve become convinced that this is wrong — knowledge isn’t a circle; it’s some sort of weird fractal shape where the perimeter keeps getting larger while the area stays the same.

    I’m not claiming that self-trained individuals cannot excel in type design (or in other fields, for that matter), but I think it is a mistake to dismiss the value of formal education even if one has successfully managed to “go it on one's own”.

    Just my $0.02

  • Re: Cyrillic lowercase shha (һ) - ascending vs non-ascending

    If there's no authoritative data available on this point, then why not simply provide both? In absence of evidence, we don’t even know if the different languages which use this prefer the same form.

  • Re: Call for design suggestions: Anglicana W

    Oops -- a usenet habit.