Howdy, Stranger!

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

Thomas Phinney


Thomas Phinney
Last Active
Invited by
Admin James Puckett
  • Re: What was the very first typeface described as “feminine”?

    @Robin Mientjes No matter which way you slice it, since genitalia is almost entirely binary,

    Your “almost entirely” is my “not at all near.” I have known too many people who didn’t fit that binary, even for physical genitalia.
    if you refuse to see gender in visual language you end up making lists like this
    which are oppressively gender-binary (if unwittingly so). It's an insult to everybody to pretend one needs to be obviously female to contribute female associations in visible language.

    That is unfair nonsense. The list was nothing to do with “contributing female associations in visible language.” It was exactly what it claimed to be: fonts made by women. Your obsession with labeling the *work* as feminine or masculine seems to have blinded you to this.

    Women are under-represented among type designers. Some people would like to encourage type design by women, and being aware of it is a first step, whether it proceeds to promoting their work or buying their typefaces.

    And yes, it is more complicated—see my above comments about people not fitting this binary. We can have an even shorter list of non-gender-binary type designers if you like.
  • Re: No Name Serif (first typeface)

    I think your alternate H is just as weird as the original.
  • Re: What are 'true italics'?

    The big difference comes with sans serif.  It used to be normal for a sans "italic" to be slanted roman.  Now, that is looked upon with a turned up nose.
    Well, to be fair, it used to be normal for a sans "italic" to be a slanted roman plus optical corrections. I believe the simple slanted roman per se has never been terribly common, apart from faux italics created by operating systems.

    Those are a somewhat different animal, as the operating systems seem to apply approximately a 20° slant for faux italics, while real italics tend to have half as much slant, but also have at least optical corrections, and usually some structural differences.

    As long as the optical corrections are present, and there’s no two-story italic a, I am not bothered by slanted romans. Perhaps call them modified slanted romans. The slanted two-story a just looks awful to me, though.  :)

    I am seeing a faux italic while entering this, for extra amusement. Oh, and the last revival I worked on has a modified slanted roman for an italic... but still has a two-story a, which bugs me no end. Oh well!
  • Re: The beginning of the end

    I don't see anything in there about a change in the price of the font licenses.

    At least a couple of the FF families are available in "free plans" and are thus free for limited web use. At least a few FF fonts included are available for "desktop sync" (regular desktop font usage) to anybody with a Creative Cloud subscription.

    So, that is a noticeable pricing change, IMO.

    Just getting in with Typekit at all is a significant experiment for Monotype. I will be very curious to watch the next several years....
  • Re: How do I tell if a given .otf file is TT or PS-flavored?

    It is probably worth mentioning that although technically an .otf file can have either TrueType or PostScript style (CFF) outlines, in general use .otf fonts with PS outlines are pretty nearly nonexistent. I am not sure I have ever seen one, other than fonts specifically intended as test cases for software and operating systems.