Finally decided to properly organize my fonts by category, and I'm having a bit of a hard time.

edited January 13 in Education
I've been looking into different sources, mostly relying on Smashing Magazine, a Quora post and other articles, but I'm not into this too professionally. And there are a few things that I can't really tell the difference.
So far, I've categorized my fonts folders like this:
Serif
- Humanist / Venetian
- Oldstyle
- Transitional
- Didone / Modern
- Lapidary / Wedge
Sans serif
- Grotesk
- Neogrotesk
- Geometric
- Humanist
- Flared / Glyphic
Slab serif
Monospaced
Blackletter
Calligraphic
- Brush
-- No texture
-- With Texture
- Manuscript
-- Casual
-- Formal
Display
- WHATEVER ADJECTIVE THERE IS
Super families

I'm having a hard time figuring what the differences are between Humanist Sans Serif vs Flared/Glyphic, and Humanist/Venetian Serif vs Oldstyle Serif. Besides that, is this classification accurate?

Comments

  • Thats the traditional way to categorize typefaces.. It doesn't work
  • Thats the traditional way to categorize typefaces.. It doesn't work
    Is there a better way or is it a futile effort in your opinion? 
  • The grouping alongside the main historic styles is common practice and has some merits, but is also very limited. It can happen that Venetian and Textured apply to one typeface the same time. Or Blackletter and Calligraphic, and so on. A smart sorting scheme would, i.m.h.o., need to be at least two-dimensional.
  • I'm having a hard time figuring what the differences are between Humanist Sans Serif vs Flared/Glyphic, and Humanist/Venetian Serif vs Oldstyle Serif. Besides that, is this classification accurate?
    That type of classifications made sense in 1950 maybe.. now is totally useless IMHO
  • Ray LarabieRay Larabie Posts: 1,267
    I did a sorting project for my use and simply went with the name of the most famous representative font from each style. If it's an open sans, it's a Meta. If it's a square sans, it's a Eurostile. That way, I could easily divide overpopulated categories or merge underpopulated ones. Akzidenz and Arial aren't Helvetica, but I can classify them as Helveticas instead of neo-grotesques. Gotham? That's a Franklin.

  • I sort mine descending by license cost.
  • edited January 13
    Hm I'm not a type designer, but these classifications have made 100% sense to me when searching for typefaces for my clients' projects. Now I've decided to organize myself because of the adjectives, characteristics, and uses that come with those categories, and use the ones that align with the project's needs.
    And for data points like those @PabloImpallari references, I just use FontBase, which, although very limited compared to Pablo's classification, allows me to search fonts by weight, width, contrast, and x-height.
    and you will hate font managers apps...
    Really? How so? So far, the one I've been using has been a godsend for me.
    PabloImpallari said:
    The thing is.. find what works for YOU at your current level of interest.
    You will evolve over time and you will keep improving your categories.

    If you are now wanting to organize your fonts.. means you got the sickness already :)
    Have fun!
    Hehe, ok :)
  • Cory MaylettCory Maylett Posts: 236
    edited January 14
    Finally decided to properly organize my fonts by category, and I'm having a bit of a hard time.
    That sounds like a frustrating exercise in futility to me.

    Categorizing seems inherent to human nature, and I suppose it works quite well when there are hard lines between the categories. It doesn't work nearly as well when one tries to divide up a chaotic mix of things, like type styles, into neatly organized piles.

  • Mark SimonsonMark Simonson Posts: 1,511
    edited January 14
    I just put them in alphabetical folders, i.e., "A", "B", "C", etc. Fonts such as "ITC Garamond" go in "G", not "I".
  • Maybe these programs will help someone:
    https://github.com/GerHobbelt/FontOrg-and-FontRenamer
    You must enable net framework 2.0 and 3.5 in windows features to fontrenamer works.
    Sami
  • Rob BarbaRob Barba Posts: 82
    edited January 15
    My current ones are cataloged as so:
    • Serif
    • Sans
    • Slab
    • Script/Handwriting
    • Display
    • Blackletter/Uncial
    • Dingbat
    • Japanese
    • Demo (mainly a testing folder)
    I figured with subcategories, that way lies madness.
  • Thanks John for bringing that beautiful poem back to life!
    I was desperately looking for it but since Typophile is dead I thought It was lost
  • John HudsonJohn Hudson Posts: 2,552
    edited January 15
    Elena wrote a nice blog article about classification, which included my Borges parody, along with Miguel Catopodis’ translation into Spanish:

    Se atribuye «a cierta enciclopedia china que se titula Emporio Celestial de conocimientos…» que las tipografías se dividen en las siguientes categorías:

    1.  aquellas usadas para componer las palabras del Emperador
    2.  las que ya no estan disponibles
    3.  aquellas que son buenas para “la letra chica”
    4.  las que has usado la semana pasada
    5.  aquellas que te recuerdan a tus ex amantes
    6.  las fabulosas
    7.  las de formato desconocido
    8.  aquellas incluidas en la presente clasificación
    9.  aquellas que has olvidado
    10.  innumerables
    11.  aquellas que son demasiado livianas para usar en este trabajo
    12.  etcétera
    13.  aquellas en las que la “g” simplemente se ve mal
    14.  aquellas que serán usadas para componer esta lista
Sign In or Register to comment.