Best Of
-
Re: Terms and Definitions - a Cheat Sheet - Help/Insight
@"Thomas Phinney" good ole "stroke" does suit! As much as possible I prefer not to over-complicate, so the fewer terms (that are correct, of course) the better in my mind. Will up…1 -
Re: When did non-traditional cedillas appear?
Thanks for the memory jog, Simon. What I like about that Didot cedilla design is its relationship with the other diacritics—namely that it has has (1) a similar presence (weight and size) to the othe…1 -
Re: Terms and Definitions - a Cheat Sheet - Help/Insight
That’s certainly correct. I advocate the use of “numeral”. “Figure” has the downside of being ambiguous. Not only can it stand for both numeral and number. In the context of design and publishing, it…4 -
Re: Terms and Definitions - a Cheat Sheet - Help/Insight
… ‘Superscript’: your example on (with understroke) I would call a logotype, that is a whole word made as one single lead type or glyph. Typical use case: catchwords and frequent conjunctions like of…4 -
Re: Terms and Definitions - a Cheat Sheet - Help/Insight
Also, "numeral" is fine, but type designers usually call them figures. And the part of the "p" you marked "lobe" is usually called a bowl. (I don't think I've ever seen …3 -
Re: Terms and Definitions - a Cheat Sheet - Help/Insight
The main use of "flag" in my experience is the stroke at the top of a figure one.2 -
Re: Terms and Definitions - a Cheat Sheet - Help/Insight
I would reverse the direction of the arrows. Otherwise, great!5 -
Re: Terms and Definitions - a Cheat Sheet - Help/Insight
Very nice. I love the looks. You're right; much typography terminology is a bit fluid and can differ from place to place and person to person. However, I don't see any glaring errors or omissions. Go…2 -
Re: When did non-traditional cedillas appear?
And ring, and dot, and caron, and acute... It all depends on the designer. But in most cases, this is due either to the style of the font or to the logos.1 -
Re: Terms and Definitions - a Cheat Sheet - Help/Insight
It has maybe a minor error or two (in my opinion) but actually pretty darn good as such things go. Many of these diagrams have more things I find questionable. I wouldn’t call the diagonal of the “v”…2
