> Trade Gothic wants to get to the facts, but Bell Gothic wants to have some fun.
What? It looks like fun is in the eye of the beholder. The lack of proper specification really bugs me. It's sort of similar to how wine connoisseurs use words like "round" which don't really mean anything, or at least not until you've had enough "round" wines to recognise the distinct flavour property that is being described. I vote for ditching this stupid scheme in favour of being more specific and / or defining terms clearly.
Hi - I'm the author of this article over at Smashing. Actually, this kind of scheme of describing typefaces is quite common, especially among the best designers on the planet. If you follow the references at the bottom of the article, you'd find a link to this article at H&FJ:
"Here, three fonts with distinctive silhouettes have been chosen for their contrasting dispositions: the unabashed toughness of Tungsten is a foil for both Archer's sweetness, and the cheekiness of Gotham Rounded."
Really, there is no other way to talk about wines, or typefaces. It is subjective.
If you delve into the otherwise boring individual minutia of glyph characteristics and try to write an analysis comparing descenders of the lowercase "j" from 2 or 3 typefaces, you'd lose every reader before you got out of the starting gate.
That said, if you read the feedback, a lot of people said they learned something. My goal was to teach something and have the reader come away with a bit of knowledge, however incremental.
I sort of feel the same you in that reading that post increased my understanding by close to nothing. I can see 'fun' once you say it, but I never would have thought that on my own nor would I see that there's a font "personality clash".
It's like art or fashion- it is entirely subjective, yet experts can make 'definitive' statements about style and generally agree.
I think each font carries history and connotation that is obvious to the 'experts' but not to everyone else.
Good question. I look at fonts and see overall personalities first and tints and shapes later. The tints and shapes are incidentals in the overall personality, and carry little weight when isolated from one another.
In the same way, when looking at someones face, you are struck with an overall impression first. Then you single out features. I have never met anyone who said, at first glance, so and so has wonderful eyebrows.
I actually meant seeing personalities for colours and shapes, independently of fonts.
I'm just wondering if there are some people who don't see personalities in these things (e.g., a font being "fun" or "stern") and whether they should, where budget permits, leave design to those who do?
Then again, I don't bat an eyelid at wine descriptors like "barn", "forest floor", "skinsy", etc while some people really dislike it.
What? It looks like fun is in the eye of the beholder. The lack of proper specification really bugs me. It's sort of similar to how wine connoisseurs use words like "round" which don't really mean anything, or at least not until you've had enough "round" wines to recognise the distinct flavour property that is being described. I vote for ditching this stupid scheme in favour of being more specific and / or defining terms clearly.