I need to begin formatting yesterday

Then this book might be the one for you.
I have read it and can recommend it.

,-)

I've used Dolly before. I like it. :)

WAY too funny. Is that this millennium’s version of “When in doubt, use Caslon”?

Like I said in another thread, everybody likes it, nobody notices it, nobody complains about it.

Thanks for the responses so far- tonight I'm gonna take a look at the fonts mentioned here and see how they strike me. No doubt money will come into the factoring at some point. :-(

I do plan to use sans for the chapter headings, but at least that decision I'll be able to handle more easily. Sort of.

Thanks!

Yes, to each and every one of the types mentioned here. I've used most of them. I'd throw Usherwood and Cheltanham into the mix, too, tho’, of them, my personal favorites are Bembo and Adobe Garamond. Don’t laugh, I also happen to think that Palatino is an elegant-looking face for extended stretches of text. That said—and despite my ranting about the current, exasperating overuse of sans serifs for book body text on any number of blogs—including my own—I’m trying to steel my nerve for using Optima if the right project comes along.

One thing, if you want to approach this like a book designer—and this needn’t take a chunk of time out of your life ... Start by reading just a few paragraphs explaining type classification: the differences between Old Style, Transitional, etc. Then look at some types from different periods and places. Finally, take a look at the material your dad has written about and consider whether there’s a type that just seems to naturally go with his book in your eyes.

The new featured font may suit your needs (if not your budget)

Crossgrove, I applaud your willingness to avoid the trite, the overdone, and types that are used more out of habit than anything else. However, Cheltenham is none of those.

When I see an excellent, new type that suits a book, I’ll use it. I can’t say, however, that anything in your list—save for the Scala—comes even close to overwhelming me.

But for printing a longish sample of Scala a while back, I can’t say that I have printed any of them. But I’ve been doing book design and layout that I have a sense of how things translate from pixels to paper. I don’t mean to be argumentative, and I’m not trying to insult anyone’s heartfelt work, I simply meant that none of those types do anything for me: there’s no visceral response that just works it’s way to me, telling me I want to work with any of those faces, was all I meant. Whereas Cheltenham—perhaps marking me as a geezer, I admit—still has a nice “readerly” look to it ... in my eyes.

But do keep the suggestions coming, as I’d be thrilled to discover some new faces that shout “Book! Book!”

I was going to stay out of this, but now I can't help myself.

I have to say that Cheltenham is one of the most unlikely and idiosyncratic choices I can think of for setting book text.

But that's speaking in generalities. I suppose I would have to consider which specific Cheltenham we're talking about (please tell me *not* ITC Cheltenham) and what the nature of the book is -- format, topic, audience. Even so, I have a hard time swallowing it.

I, too, applaud Carl's list and his perspective -- even though I will confess that there are a handful of faces on his list that I would not likely employ for book work. But maybe that's just the books I work on.

I do use Miller regularly; it's a standard for me. I've used Mercury with modest success (but I think that's just me getting used to it -- the face has the right qualities and attributes to recommend it, especially with the grades to play with). And of course, Whitman now and then (what can I say? ;-).

I've worked with Chaparral and it can serve in certain contexts. (The page design wasn't mine, and I was skeptical at first, but came to terms with it.) I've seen Will use it to good effect.

I've admired Merlo and Rongel, but haven't had a chance to get close enough to them to be certain. Kingfisher, too, holds great promise and has been recommended by designers whose judgment I value. Arnhem has been highly recommended, and I've been keeping my eye on it.

However, I have mixed feelings about Scala. I admired the design when it was released, but I just don't care for it in books. It's certainly been done often enough (I noticed there was a raft of Scala in last year's AAUP award winners), but it's too stiff and clunky for me in book text. (This was, in fact, part of the impetus to develop Whitman.)

And much as I admire Farnham and Prensa as designs and for periodicals, I find they are too distracting in book text for my taste. I'm afraid the same might hold true for Feijoa (again, much as I admire it); but I'm willing to suspend final judgment until I've had occasion to put it through more paces.

All that said, Carl's is a pretty solid list. Even those I have dismissed, I might reconsider under the right circumstances, with the right manuscript.

-- K.

I wish Carl’s list had links.

Here you go … I wanted to track them down myself, too – and in doing so I ran across a fascinating foundry (FTF) that I haven’t had heard of before, shame on me.

• Freight
• Farnham
• Miller
• Mercury
• Prensa
• Proforma
• Whitman
• Arnhem
• Fresco
• Versa
• Scala
• Kingfisher
• Chaparral
• Merlo
• Corundum
• Feijoa
• Eudald
• Rongel

Oh Florian can you do these too?

KIDDING! I'm sorry I'm so lazy about linking. It's easier now so I will try not to leave items unlinked.

MVB Verdigris

Paperback

Joanna

Haarlemmer

Celeste 1 and 2 (with a Sans counterpart)

Clifford

Maiola

Quadraat (also with a Sans counterpart)

Beorcana

Hollander

Paradox

Cycles

Steve, at the risk of seeming to nag, while you may feel confident estimating the performance of book types by viewing them onscreen, I think it's unrealistic to think that is enough information. I would have had a more harsh reaction to the idea of Cheltenham for books, except I took a look at the ITC Cheltenham specimen, and while I understand Kent's and others' revulsion, I can see how the Book weight could be used at small sizes. I think this is due to its large x-height, and would be possible only with generous tracking. It wasn't really possible for me to make an estimation of its capabilities without that real example. I encourage you to make more of an effort to research these new faces; If you get PDF specimens and print them out at 1200 dpi, you might be surprised to discover that some of them are indeed valuable, appealing workhorses.

wow!
I have bookmarked this thread!
Some excellent typefaces here!

Thanks!

When I see an excellent, new type that suits a book, I’ll use it. I can’t say, however, that anything in your list—save for the Scala—comes even close to overwhelming me

But for printing a longish sample of Scala a while back, I can’t say that I have printed any of them.

But I’ve been doing book design and layout that I have a sense of how things translate from pixels to paper.

Are you joking, Steve? Please don't tell me that you're judging these typefaces based on what you see on screen.

—K

What does the coloration of the little "w" mean, and I don't suppose you could put the in order of preference or highlight favorites for me?

The little red w means a Wiki link

red means there is no existing typowiki article as yet, green means there is an entry for this topic in the wiki.

"While some may argue for personal preference, I agree with Colin Wheildon that setting a book in Sans Serif is not a good idea. Good for a STOP sign but not for a book."

The problem I have with this and other iterations of the sentiment is that it pre-emptively collapses every example of "sans" into a single abstract idea, somehow made binarily opposed to the similarly generic and abstract idea of "serif". It's the most oversimplified, thoughtless, outdated trope that unfortunately still has currency with otherwise intelligent designers. Consider:

Is digital Bauer Bodoni, at 9 points, set solid, printed in a weak gray ink on hard glossy paper, necessarily, categorically easier to read, safer, more advisable than Syntax, at 11/14, in a rich black ink on soft off-white paper? This is one possible interpretation of the "axiom" being repeated above. It isn't enough to simply say that this exception proves the rule, since every real-world example you can think of is an exception.

There are so many different typefaces under the heading of "Sans" and so many "Serif" that the very idea that "serif is better than sans for books" now sounds like something you say when you have no other information, or have no ability to discern the differences between typefaces. It's not a visual idea at all. It made a lot more sense in the early 20th century when the available range of types was so much more limited, but this is a very different world typographically, and readers have evolved as well. What constitutes a "Sans" typeface has expanded and grown considerably more complex since this kind of distinction was first made. The evolution of the Sans letter has been a very recent and very sudden one.

It may cause a number of readers here to become defensive and reach for their Updike and Morison for reinforcement, but I challenge you all to perform with your own eyes, the actual, literal act of reading text set in some of the newer sans designs (see Florian's list above) and compare them with our "classics" like Bodoni, Garamond 3, Cheltenham, Bookman, Palatino, Trump Mediaeval, or any other faces considered acceptable or safe for book text.

My contention is that this sentiment, this axiom, this truism of typography is an unexamined myth, waiting to be disproved by the simple act of direct engagement with the real typographic scene of today. It is an echo of earlier times, before the sans letter had undergone the enormous, rich and rapid evolution it has undergone during the last century. Right now, it's 2008, and Florian's list is a very useful bellwether of the changes the genre of "Sans" has undergone since Updike and Morison were even alive.

I've done my part by designing a typeface for book text that has no serifs. Others have existed, and more are on the way. If you want a printed specimen of Beorcana, which is a real example of its actual performance, contact me. As always, judging typefaces online for book text is useless.

Repeating a tired axiom from decades past only limits you, leaving you prejudiced, blind and unable to take advantage of recent advances. Join the 21st century.

You know, a study on why sans have been cast as inferior in legibility would be very informative in the construction and usage of fonts in general.
I can see several differences that could be looked at: the serifs themselves, line width variation (humanist sans seem to be a recent development), weight (sans are often heavier), spacing, and letter shape.

A good idea would be to take a wide variety of serif fonts, and slice off the serifs and line endings, which would be saved separately as serif sets. Then, a variety of sans serif fonts and the castrated fonts from earlier would be taken, to each of which each serif set would be applied, as well as Optima, Albertus, and Candara-style flarings and finishing off the castrated serifs as sans (given that different sans use different cuts [this being one of the main differences between Helvetica and Arial], various endings from sans could also be added to the mix-and-match). This would, of course, require great skill, as tailoring would be necessary for each combination, and potentially tens of thousands of man-hours.
After this, the various combinations could be tested for legibility. Due to the large number of combinations, this test would be much simpler than it would be for single fonts (though finding enough people would be tough). The scores could than be tied to each feature, so there would be an average of all scores of combinations with geometric builds and an average for old style serifs.

Carl -- A very impassioned and eloquent argument. Well said.

-- K.

"Comparing a worst possible case for a serif font with a best possible case for a sans is ludicrous."

Not really. When the point you are making is that the presence or absence of serifs is not the whole story, it is a good way to show how other things are operating.

ChrisL

What a great thread to introduce people to the new typefaces that are out there. Very damaging to the wallet though, unfortunately. Feijoa is looking pretty good to me at the moment!

Gertie, there are two fonts that are ALWAYS successful in books, even with the wrong leading/formatting: Sabon and Janson, both with oldstyle figures.

I like Sabon but I find Janson's italics very hard to read, like Caslon's. I wouldn't recommend that font for a book that might have a lot of italic text.

I don't miss the bold in Requiem (altho I'd love fractions!) or in most other serif fonts. In general I don't use a lot of bold serif fonts. Sans serif bold, yes.

I am going to bookmark this page too next time I want to go on a font spending spree. There are some excellent suggestions here, some I knew already, others not. I must confess to not liking stressed sans in general which cuts out (for me) much of Florian's list.

Steve,

Before we get to civility, try re-reading my post. Note what I was responding to. Does your "stop sign" comment indicate an open mind? You've missed my main points, so there's no reason to continue arguing them with you.

But you're right, numerous studies about type legibility have been inconclusive at best!

Don't you think that if sans-serifs worked for book design, they would be in regular use? But they're not, Blanche! They're not!

Monotype Erhardt, preferably at 11pt. Great typeface, under-used and under-appreciated.

Great thread.

I'm looking for a new font to use in a new book project. It's a heavily illustrated architecture book, hopefully with a lot of white space, but also with some large blocks of text. I wish that all of the fonts on Carl's list had PDF sample sheets, cause that seems to be the best way to get an initial impression of how the font feels. I printed out the ones that did, and my initial choices would be Kingfisher, Arnheim and Freight. I guess I'm looking for something very readable, but with a slight edge. Usually like to open up the leading, but I think that may be adding to the impression of the type being too light?

I have been using Terminal Design's Alfon quite a lot recently, and like it alot, but I'm starting to think it prints too light, and want to mix things up a bit.