What is the current day difference between a typeface and a font?

Mark Simonson

I guess I was aware of that. Kind of weird that a set of type came to be called a font, then, as in "a font of type". I wonder if it's possible both senses were in play. Also seems weird then that the French term for font is police de caractère.

Vasil Stanev

Alex said:

Vasil Stanev said:

Alex I always thought of a Typeface family in matter of expanding the design of a single Typeface, itself based on some idea, revival, or something else. Then there is the Type System, in which various typefaces are harmonized with one or more non-letter typedfaces, like Panton, which was designed in our company to incorporate web icons and letter typedfaces. There are Super Familes, but I have not yet heard of a Super System.

Interesting point! Does that mean that you would include Garamond and Cormorant (a Garamond revival from Google Fonts) into a Typeface Family?

yes

Ben Blom

John Hudson: I really don’t see a reason to have a word that means both an individual typeface and a typeface family.

I agree that using these two meanings interchangeably, can be a source of confusion. So, as far as possible, it is better to use “family” only when it has more than one member: Use “font” when it is a singe font, and use “font family” when it is a family of more than one font.

Mathematicians use the concept “set”. A set can consist of zero, one, or more items. As far as I know, mathematicians do not have a problem with this. But hey, we are not mathematicians here.

When “font” and “typeface” are used interchangeably, this can be interpreted as a mixing of two meanings: a single item, or a family of items. This imprecise use suggests that in many contexts, the difference between a single item and a family of items, is irrelevant.

Chris Lozos

This imprecise use suggests that in many contexts, the difference between a single item and a family of items, is irrelevant.

It only suggests that what was once historically precise, is now open for interpretation. It is a case where translation has not worked.  We old curmudgeons may cling to the old model that does not work as a metaphor for the current state of users, but we need to find communication pathways to make it all clear again. To me the word "System" may work for the extended meaning of family, and the word "set" may work for a subset group or segment of that system.  We still have to agree on the primary unit. To me, that is a "font". A system may be made up of fonts that are part of sets: the Italic set, the condensed set, the expanded set, but we have the possibility of the italic font as part of the condensed set or part of the bold set.  Univers was a brilliant solution here using a numerical distinction to address everything.  Current naming frameworks, as they interact with software naming, has caused problems with a numerical system. Certain combinations of letters and numbers in naming do not parse well in the hierarchy. The original "Univers 55" was changed to Regular when digitized to get around it. If we can write the software that uses type to accept a numeric nomenclature, we can solve the problem.  The software people would cry out, "Why do we have to fix your mess!" very quickly though ;-)

Ben Blom

This imprecise use suggests that in many contexts, the difference between a single item and a family of items, is irrelevant.

It only suggests that what was once historically precise, is now open for interpretation.

Imprecise use is not that silly, when one uses “font” or “typeface” only to indicate the general design—without considering a specific item or a specific set of items. I think this kind of use is quite common.

To me the word "System" may work for the extended meaning of family, and the word "set" may work for a subset group or segment of that system.  We still have to agree on the primary unit. To me, that is a "font".

I agree that “font” would be the primary unit. I would use “subfamily” for a subset of a big family, when it has, in itself, the characteristics of a usual family, like a condensed subfamily. I would use “super family” for a big family. I would use “system” for a number of related families, each with a different general design, that are designed to work well together. 

Depending on what one considers to be the general design, “super family” and “system” may be used interchangeably. I would decide about the choice between “super family” and “system”, like this: If it would be possible to put everything in a single “variable font” file, I would call it a “super family”; if this would not be possible, I would call it a “system”. (With this, the custom to consider italics of a different general design to be part of a family, requires an exception: In such a situation, when everything can be put in exactly two “variable font” files, it can be called a “super family”.)

Chris Lozos

Depending on what one considers to be the general design, “super family” and “system” may be used interchangeably.

Then why have the separate terms other than to cause confusion?

John Hudson

Super family is a good term for a collection of related type families, e.g. a family of sans serif types and a family of slab serif types constituting a super family, or even something like Palatino and Palatino Sans, despite being designed more than half a century apart.

I reserve the term system to apply to combinations of types in use. So, for instance, the typography of a book may be constituted of a type system involving a number of different types in different rôles. Those types may or may not belong to a single family, or to a super family.

Ben Blom

Then why have the separate terms other than to cause confusion?

My wording was not careful. The terms are not synonyms. The point is, that people may disagree about which of those two terms to use. What someone considers to be a general design, is in the eye of the beholder. So, for instance, when one person recognizes a single general design in a collection of fonts, another person may recognize more than one general design in it. To solve such an “ambiguity”, I suggest to use the “variable font” file “test” as described above.

Sujan Sundareswaran

Here is an analogy I like to use— Typeface is the source code, and a font is the output application.

The source code resides with the owner/creator, only the application is distributed and installed on the buyer’s machine. In the same way, the typeface stays with the designer, he/she only sells the output of that source code, ie, the fonts to the general public.

Thomas Phinney

I am not liking the source code analogy, since fonts have actual source code as well, in the form of the FontLab or Glyphs or UFO file(s). I don’t think anybody here thinks of that as being a typeface in a way that the OTF or TTF is not....

Dave Crossland

Also - a lot of source code is published