For the creation of an International Association of Type Designers. Post your proposals here.
Comments
-
This is actually a serious proposal. Die in-dryfoun is well-known and respected in the industry, by his given name.
I propose that anyone who has designed and published four typefaces be eligible for membership, except present employees or contractors of Monotype, Apple, Google, Microsoft and Adobe, as those businesses are not owned by type designers.
7 -
It's important to keep this idea alive, even if defining such an organization is not an easy task.
At this point, we might be at the beginning of a paradigm shift, where is important to know that there are many independent type designers (probably the majority) who feel a similar way and who dare to believe that a better type market is possible. That energy is rising and it's evident, and starting to become the movement. We should speak, to our followers and customers that it is already happening!
I don't see this as trivial negotiations about percentages, because recent events in the type industry showed that the game is not only about the profit but more and more about control.
As per a bit more specific proposals, my current perspective is that decentralization of the market is our goal, so the foundry websites become more important. That would unburden the association of myriad technical problems since foundries already manage all of that for themselves, and put the accent of the new attitude.
That would also lead to more appreciation for classic affiliate marketing which is way cheaper than font stores.
3 -
Re. decentralisation
This suggests to me not only an organisation to provide a structural framework for information sharing, cost sharing, advocacy, etc., but also specific technologies to enable decentralised entities to compete effectively in a market that has clearly favoured centralisation: a kind of fediverse of fonts. We could have, for example, technologies to aggregate participating foundries’ offerings in a single search environment to challenge the dominance of one-stop-shopping sites like MyFonts, and technologies to provide customers with low-friction purchase paths from within that search environment.
And if subscription font services do become overwhelmingly the norm for users, as I hope will not be the case to the detriment of a more diverse font ecosystem, we need to seriously consider—now rather than later—what a collectively owned subscription service would look like and how it could be funded.11 -
Nick Shinn said:Die in-dryfoun is well-known and respected in the industry, by his given name.14
-
@Christopher Slye, no, you are not.
1 -
We need a new kind of type conference where there are no secret, exclusive VIP parties hosted by Monotype, Morisawa and others, aimed at pampering the representatives and leaders who should defend us from those same companies.We need a board with leaders interested in the common good and the problems of type designers and not individuals only concerned with their professional careers and in obtaining some benefit from corporate sponsors.2
-
@Igor Petrovic That's pretty much the way to go. The paradox of decentralized projects is that they only work if they are run by a small (very honest and very focused) group of people - from two to four + helpers.I have a good name/domain for such an organization.
1 -
@Enrico Sogari I agree, the decision-making process is the most complicated issue to solve here. As a very general strategy, people in the executive body might be considered as temporarily elected workers (fairly compensated for their work and time), but not decision-making owners.
That opens ten new questions, and that's why I vote for more of an ideological than technical stance in the first phase until the idea gains momentum. A small website or Medium article with a very concise manifesto could be a good start to communicating the problem with the rest of the world and raising awareness. Here we could try to more or less agree on the text.
John's proposal that we need a kind of independent font browser is an idea with nice potential. It could be maintained through fair affiliate link percentages. I guess it could be non-profit, just a fair amount for the stable and decent functionality and maintenance.
However, one important issue with every browser is the algorithm of presented results, since the search algorithms are elements of centralization. That's something to be worked out.
As per ideas about browser functionality, indie foundries could fill out the form while submitting the fonts to the search base, choosing the search parameters about the style, licensing, etc.
Also, a reasonable initial fee per uploaded font may serve as a threshold preventing generic and very low-quality uploads and could fund the human quality check.
4 -
I'm really not comfortable taking it on faith that "Die in-dryfoun is well-known and respected in the industry, by his given name". I'm going to abstain from this thread.1
-
I don’t know who @Die in-dryfoun is, but I have an idea whom it might be. It doesn’t seem particularly relevant, though, because we’re not signing up to anything: we’re discussing ideas and the merit, or not, of the ideas are what matters. Personally, I am not convinced that a formal association is what is needed initially, let alone publishing a manifesto, both of which consume energy and time that could be spent coming up with practical initiatives.
I don’t mean to imply that a formal association isn’t ultimately something to consider—I agree with Nadine that structures provide longevity—, but I believe structures should come about to maintain and advance the practical initiatives, not precede them.9 -
It's not about you @JoyceKetterer, it's not about me either. This proposal should be about all of us, about the common interest of type designers.
I protect my identity because monopolistic corporations often retaliate against those who oppose them.
I think this project is really important and I don't want to be an obstacle for it to continue.So, this is my last post. If we don't unite and defend our interests in an effective, organized way, the precariousness of our work will become even more accentuated.Good luck!4 -
I'm also not comfortable with nom de plumes in this forum. I respect and support Joyce's decision, although I am going to chime in because I think this is a very important idea, bigger than any one person. Even though I don't have much to say (yet) but I'm very, very interested in this idea as long as it's done well.
My hope is for an intersectional organization with lots of transparency.
5 -
more confused than ever
1 -
I think it’s fine that @Die in-dryfoun doesn’t use their name. They’re just getting the ball rolling, not claiming to be a leader. In a way, it’s nice, as their’s no ego involved (for those of us who don’t know who it is).What we need to do is figure out what is and isn’t possible for an organization like this.
Maybe it’d be nice if people chime in with what is important to them; we start a running list of those things, then we can figure out the legality of it once we have something of guide to follow.
EDIT:
Before any talk of how to structure this or any other organizational matters, we really should establish what it is that independent designers want—that means listening to a lot of voices, including a lot of people not present on this forum. If that’s not clear, the type of organization isn’t going to matter.7 -
I thought I knew who Die-in-dryfoun is, but having exchanged messages with them, I realized I was mistaken, so am as much in the dark as everyone else!2
-
I must have participated in group discussions about this very subject more than a dozen times over the past 20 years. James is right. It always starts with a mission statement. Find out what everyone wants and plan it out from there. The first discouraging sign is "everyone" in our case implies a global scale. But I'm afraid even if that gets nailed down with any semblance of clarity, the odds are overwhelmingly against it working in practice. Just look at the history of attempts at organization in the type industry, and the behavioural patterns become depressingly obvious.The grievance that triggers this kind of conversation is always the same: We're being screwed by our distribution channels. Add platform consolidation to that, and the helpless cries get louder for a while then merge with the background and nobody hears them anymore. Corporations squeezing independents is nothing new. The examples are plenty: Music labels, Walmart, Amazon, the big publishers, the tech companies, etc. The carrot is access to customers/market, and the stick is the cost of that access. Whenever we try to get together to fight the squeeze, most of us back out upon the realization that we would need to put our money where our mouths are — a going-on-strike deal like pulling some or all of our fonts from the squeezing channels, which means forgoing whatever revenue we're getting from such channels. That's usually where the attempt at organization breaks down. The big players are the industry now, and most of us would rather play nice with them than risk whatever alternative we think waits on the other side.Over the past few years it's been kind of fashionable for us to dump on Monotype — rightly so, I believe. Some have used this sentiment to lure some independents to their own platforms with pitches like We're not Monotype or We pay more than Monotype. And as soon as enough people sign up, the not-Monotype morphs into a replica of Monotype or even worse, a Monotype without the crumbs Monotype drops for us. Monotype is inevitable, and all the initial benevolence in the world ends up drowned by the incessant temptations of money and power. Be weary of calls for organization without clear goals that fit your individual situation, or platforms that pitch themselves as good alternatives to the major squeeze. I've seen plenty of organizations go up pure as snow then in no time turn into personal career ladders.Am I content with the fact that this entire industry is controlled by people who do not have a single kerning pair to their combined names? Of course not. Am I willing to get into a scrap with them to keep my own front yard? Sure, I am. But from my experience, I seem to be in the minority there. The groupthink is go along to get along. Given how many independents are out there now, all with different circumstances and degrees of risk tolerance, I'd say putting together a group free of ulterior motives or special zeitgeisty interests is nearly impossible.11
-
I agree with much of that, Patrick, except for the inevitability of any alternative distribution channel ending up like Monotype or worse. If that is a concern, though, then collective ownership by folks with kerning pairs to their names seems even more critical.
Ownership is eveything.
3 -
Nick Shinn said:
I propose that anyone who has designed and published four typefaces be eligible for membership, except present employees or contractors of Monotype, Apple, Google, Microsoft and Adobe
I too subscribe to the Marx maxim, "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."
Groucho of course.
https://fonts.google.com/?query=Nick+Shinn
The vast majority of the contractors for Google Fonts are small independent type designers, not even foundries, and it seems to me that Adobe Fonts is also stacked high with independents.
So this proposal seems to exclude almost everyone already within arms reach of making a living drawing type. Without the fonts they make that customers want to buy, I doubt there's enough revenue volume for a new distributor to break even.
It's fine with me if I'm not invited to the cabal meetings, and it's fine with me if you think Google Fonts doesn't support independent type designers, and you won't collaborate on libre software projects that would help you.
But y'all been sleeping on https://type.world 🤣3 -
Y'all been sleeping on https://type.worldI have my eye on it, as one part of the technology we may need. I think the problem with it is largely one of lack of consultation and hence, limited engagement from people who were just assumed would think it was wonderful (if they knew about it at all). Like, did anyone ask designers, foundries, or users if a one-click install app was what was primarily wanted or needed? I like that it is built with decentralisation in mind, and is open source, and maybe its time will come, or it will be part of a solution.
1 -
Don't worry John, since you've worked for every big tech company you are surely excluded from Diedie's cartel.0
-
Dave Crossland trolling this initiative and calling it a “cartel” is a sign that we are on a good path. Perhaps he is afraid that in the future we will be able to improve the working conditions of the contractors that Google Fonts employs as workforce.
2 -
As an independent type designer, but also independent contractor for Google Fonts, but also creator of Type.World, I’m both included in this group, as well as excluded, as well as part of the solution. So thank you for all of the above.
Anyway, so no, I didn’t ask people what their needs were when I created Type.World as a font installation software. I conceived it as a tool to aid font installation for a custom project where rapid font updates had to be delivered to the graphic designers. Then I grew the idea into the federated solution that it is today. It started as a naive idea and the rest is history.
There's more to it, though. If you go to https://www.patreon.com/typeWorld and click on "Show more" under the illustration under "About Type.World", you will find that I had also envisioned a search engine (called FairFonts), that would lead customers from a central interface to each foundry’s own online shop, then have their new fonts install instantly in the Type.World app. (Never mind the outdated setup of example companies there)
To reduce the friction around creating new logins for each foundry, I had already made "Type.World Sign In" (https://type.world/developer/docs/signin/) so that only a single user account can be used for the entire ecosystem. Do watch the video there. These are not mockups, this is live.
Let me tell you how it was received, tho. My perception is that none of the independent type designers and foundries want to collaborate. Each foundry wants to be viewed as entirely independent of everyone else. Many foundries told me that they would love to use Type.World if they could brand it entirely themselves (a certain level of branding is already baked into the protocol tho but that's not enough) and the app could only be used for their own fonts. Meaning that users would end up with one app per foundry.
It was perceived as unacceptable that a small foundry could be seen standing next to another one in such an ecosystem.
Which honestly I find a bit dumb from a fighting-against-centralization angle; never mind the effort that goes into creating and maintaining such an app and technology.
Also, no one saw the added value in the smooth user experience I created for customers. I learnt that the independent type industry is entirely self-serving and not customer-serving — a great disappointment and a mindset I don't share.
Today, I still believe that Type.World and everything else there is a great idea, but the technology behind is already outdated or was conceived wrong. Meanwhile I've developed an idea that offloads the entire backend architecture of the tool to the blockchain, and I'm getting closer to experimenting with a prototype. That would solve several issues: It would dramatically reduce the implementation effort for foundries, complete the decentralization, and resolve the revenue stream for both the service as well as an additional revenue channel for foundries. (I was told that Type.World is not interesting because it creates work but no addition revenue for a foundry, so my wording "additional revenue for a foundry" is under the situation that Type.World is a burden. In a true federation, that would of course turn into "primary revenue channel").
Under this new idea, there would be a unified store front (but still be decentral, ask for details), and the revenue would be distributed instantly between the stakeholders with automatic accounting. Pure internet magic.
If anyone wants to hear more, they need to express their genuine interest.
On typo.social I've already subjected myself to so much derogatory behaviour for even mentioning general interest in blockchain (not even discussing any of the above) that I'm very weary of even discussing any more of it in public.
I'm a technical person and I don't understand the needs of foundries very well it seems, as has already been expressed abundantly clear to me by people in this very thread (but on other occasions; if you don't remember doing it, I don't mean you). Yes, I didn't ask around enough what people want, but I also didn't receive any input despite asking for it. Feel free to continue to bash me for it and not collaborate on a solution.
The entire conversation around improving the existence of independent type designers and foundries has been all talk, zero action so far. I'm in the action department.
I'm okay with making mistakes, and I'm about to pull the plug on Type.World. $4 on Patreon every month is what I got. Anyone can resurrect it. The source code is here: https://github.com/typeworld
I am not okay with receiving derogatory behaviour for it. And I have no interest anymore in pushing any new technology or ideas on people who want faster horses.
12 -
Sorry, my previous post was a bit all over the place. But I want to add another serious angle to the general discussion:
My experience with Type.World was that everyone wanted to get served the perfect solution on a gold platter (which is the capitalist convenience mindset), and at the same time receive a greater revenue cut than they currently do under capitalism.
No one understood that the capitalist convenience (from the publisher angle) is what we want to leave behind us, and that, in order for getting a bigger slice of your revenue, you have to put in your own work and collaborate.
And that's the true uphill battle that I'm unwilling to fight any longer. Not even the basic understanding for the need for collaboration is there.5 -
Dave is not the first one in this forum who used the word “cartel”. The discussions here walk a fine line. I find the idea of excluding designers who take “big company” commissions startling. So many questions: At what point is a company qualified as too big to be barred by this club? What about the designers now working at Monotype due to their boss selling their previously independent foundry? What about the designers who sell their partial IP to Monotype, or those who sell to Google and making their fonts available under OFL? Do you bar designers at Changzhou SinoType, Arphic (now owned by Morisawa), Sandoll, Iwata, because their companies have collaborated with Adobe and Google to release the world’s first open source pan-CJK fonts? In such dynamic landscape, who gets to draw the line?
5 -
Ramiro Espinoza said:Dave Crossland trolling this initiative and calling it a “cartel” is a sign that we are on a good path. Perhaps he is afraid that in the future we will be able to improve the working conditions of the contractors that Google Fonts employs as workforce.
I'm happy to hear suggestions for working condition improvements!
0 -
@yanone, don't give up. People always express their need for change then freak out when they see it coming. What you're doing is innovative and would certainly help independents control their own destiny. I think you can probably use a simpler road map and easier-to-understand charting to show people, and definitely better marketing (I really thought type.world was abandoned and you'd moved on to other things).
I wouldn't dwell on the spurious cartel talk, or make it a sticking point. People who are saying the big companies shouldn't be part of an independents' initiative have just been stung by the infiltration via sponsorship and lobbying they've seen happen with other trade organizations over the decades. Any group formed with clear guidelines and enough focus can easily instate guards against such things.
2 -
It's easy to say don't give up, but when will we see type.world integrated into canadatype.com?
0 -
When it's easier to understand how to get it working within Canada Type's site parameters
I think that's probably the lack of adoption issue @yanone is having. People are reluctant to change the way their own custom sites work in order to integrate outside tech. In Canada Type's case, we just need to figure out what needs to be done and how much trouble it is to do it.0 -
When your web developer found it difficult to understand, did they schedule a call with Yanone and yet find him a jibbering cipher?
The documentation he already provided seemed extensive to me, plus all the source code is there - and he had an open door for such calls. I understand the phone did not ring.
Perhaps this is a vignette example of what he said about the widespread basic understanding of collaboration being lacking.1 -
@Ruixi ZhangI find the idea of excluding designers who take “big company” commissions startling.It’s a stupid idea. Also, it isn’t exactly what Nick wrote, which was in any case his personal opnion and didn’t receive any positive uptake from anyone else. It’s a distraction.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 43 Introductions
- 3.7K Typeface Design
- 798 Font Technology
- 1K Technique and Theory
- 617 Type Business
- 444 Type Design Critiques
- 541 Type Design Software
- 30 Punchcutting
- 136 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 83 Technique and Theory
- 53 Lettering Critiques
- 483 Typography
- 301 History of Typography
- 114 Education
- 68 Resources
- 498 Announcements
- 79 Events
- 105 Job Postings
- 148 Type Releases
- 165 Miscellaneous News
- 269 About TypeDrawers
- 53 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 116 Suggestions and Bug Reports