It just me or there is someone else who gets annoyed when 'monospace' and 'typewriter' are used interchangeably to name a type style? I was surprised to see that Monotype has used the term typewriter for one of the styles of
the custom typeface family for Sony. A design inspired by Helvetica and Frutiger, typefaces that do not have any link with typewriters.
It is true that monospace typefaces were born with the typewriter, however as Jason Cranford mentions in
his article for CB 'while typewriter fonts are often monospaced, that is not a requirement' and 'a
monospace font could really come from any of the other categories, but is distinguished by spacing rather than by style.'
Not sure if the tendency towards the term 'typewriter' is a matter of fashion because nostalgia is something that sells well today.
Comments
Are there other examples?
I think is part of our job to educate de client and to use terminology properly. Considering that American Typewriter, one of the most popular typewriter typefaces is proportional, I don't think the non-designers believe all typewriter typefaces are monospaced.
Moreover, I would say that when someone chose a typewriter typeface they use it as a way of expression and they are not thinking about its functionality.
Thank you Stephen for the examples above. It is not the first time I find the 'typewriter' term used wrongly in big typeface families, but I can not remember other example right now.
The classification of typefaces is not easy, what I am asking for is the use of proper terminology. I think type designers should use terminology properly so to avoid confusion and help to educate the user.
When I say the classification of typefaces in not easy, I mean that one could classify typefaces considering different factors, the link to historical models, the way of construction, the function, the ideas they express… Many typefaces can belong to different styles.
Monospaced refers to the way of construction, and typewriter is more link to historical models and what the typeface express.
Monospaced is a feature of "some" typewriter typefaces. And In all the examples mentioned above "typewriter" is used as a term equal to "monospace". In my opinion that is the mistake.
Easier said than done. Also easier to take advantage of what people already know.
Well, that's not a great example. American Typewriter was never meant for use on actual typewriters. It is a typeface, designed for phototypesetting, not typewriters, that invokes some aspects of the look and feel of classic typewriter faces. The name does in fact confuse some people (even designers) about its intended use. American Typewriter is often used where an actual monospaced typewriter font is called for, for example in movies and books.
But you were offering American Typewriter as proof that not all typewriter faces are monospaced. American Typewriter is not a typewriter face, but the name misleads people to think that it is.
Typewriter faces were almost always monospaced. There were exceptions, such as the IBM Executive and the Varityper, and they were expensive. But even these were only slightly more proportional, having only a few possible widths.
The limitations of the machine created the need of monospaced typefaces, but we should not confuse the terms. I totally agree that a contemporary design can be adapted to "that" limitation of the typewriter differently, Input Mono is a good example. It is then when the term monospace is more suitable than "typewriter". These typeface are designed for a different purpose and a different technology, and do not share anything with the machine besides history, the origin of monospaced typefaces.
In the second half of the 20th century it was very common to see "proportional" typefaces in the electric and electronic models. But you are right, they were not "proportional" as in printing type, the range of widths was very limited.
This is an image taken from a manual for the design of typewriter typefaces.
A bit off-topic (sorry) but I’d be curious to see more of this! Can you cite an exact source, and/or say if this is accessible somewhere?
American Typewriter has shown that this is not even essential to the category.
With its serifed /I, /i, /j and /l glyphs informed by monospace font design, the otherwise sans serif Officina might be considered a “typewriter” typeface, but it too is proportional and alludes to its precedent, rather than subscribing literally to the genre.
After all, would one call Mrs Eaves or ITC Garamond letterpress typefaces?
If you're going to get that picky, should we even be calling what we make "typefaces" or "fonts"? "Digital alpha-numeric symbol collection" maybe?
Typewriters were a new printing method that needed new solutions in type design. The low-quality printing and the limitations of the machine asked for new shapes. The monolinear strokes, the wide counter-shapes, and the constructive serifs were important features of the typefaces created for the typewriter. A new style, and new type conventions were created around the machine. I think those digital typefaces based on typewriter models have the right to be grouped by their origin.