Howdy, Stranger!

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

Thomas Phinney

About

Username
Thomas Phinney
Joined
Visits
1,356
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
844
Invited by
Admin James Puckett
Posts
919
  • Re: Raeniao

    Looks like you might have unusually good spacing for a first effort. Congrats.

    Descenders seem unusually short to me.
  • Re: Vietnamese diacritic ascender adjustments

    Nick, your example does not show reduced height; rather it shows the diacritics integrated with the base letters. Reduced height has never been very widely used, that I have seen.

    The umlaut integration is practical in German because there is only one diacritic, the umlaut. All a reader has to be able to tell is whether there is a diacritic or not; what that diacritic is is irrelevant, because there is only one possibility.

    Vietnamese is different; there are many possible options. Plus the diacritics stack two up. So reduced height would have to be even more reduced, and integrating diacritics “cleverly” into the main glyph is not going to work.
  • 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
    http://www.victoriarushton.com/fonts-by-women
    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!