Howdy, Stranger!

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

Christian Thalmann

About

Username
Christian Thalmann
Joined
Visits
3,124
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
415
Posts
838
  • Re: What, no Covfefe font yet?

    МДКЭ ДМЭЯIСД GЯЭДТ ДGДIИ
  • Re: Graphology

    What a revealing thread! I had no idea that rationalism was such a force here considering that we spend so much of our time deliberating on the beauty of a curve and how we feel about groups of them.
    While I might expect low levels of rationality from drug-addled rock stars, I'm not surprised we type designers are a rational-minded lot. After all, the acquisition of competence in type design mirrors the scientific method in that we often have to overthrow our subjective theories, philosophically attractive as they may be («a perfect geometric typeface is just monolines and circles!»), in the face of empirical evidence, and slowly work out the actual rules of the game by repeated experimentation and evaluation.

    Hrant wrote:
    People can put too much faith in graphology... but also in science.

    True, but the areas where the scientific approach fails are generally due to unobtainable information (e.g. the nature of the universe as a whole), sheer complexity (weather reports, human behavior), or erroneous application (human error). The answer to these things is not mysticism, which by definition has zero predictive power (otherwise it would be science). At least heuristics (intuition, gut feelings, etc.) give us a way to handle the complexity problem, albeit not always successfully. The only honest solution to the lack of information of problem is «we don't know», and to the human error, «I'm sorry». :grimace:

  • Re: Start Grotesque

    If you're going that way, I think a descender is a must.
  • Re: Replace ß by smallcap eszett or smallcap ss?

    As for «predictability»: I would argue that switching fonts will generally change the appearance of a given text more drastically than exchanging SS with ẞ... and while using SS for ẞ can cause loss of information, sticking to ẞ never does. After all, if the user typed ß before capitalization, they meant ß rather than ss. Anyone who can read ß can also read ẞ without hesitation — if not, the ẞ is badly designed.

    But then again, I'm not a typographer.
  • Re: Fonts similar to Tahoma

    Tahoma is not a knock-off of anything.

    I thought Tahoma was a deliberate knock-off of Verdana, in that it was a reproportioning of the typeface for print instead of the screen. Am I mixing something up here?