

Best Practices of Combining Typefaces (2010) - adamnemecek
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/11/04/best-practices-of-combining-typefaces#

======
ryandrake
I've always found typeface selection to be totally baffling. Usually, when
just writing a document or putting together a quick web page, I'll use
whatever is the default. I can't be bothered to pick between the 40-50 or so
fonts that are installed by default, let alone the thousands available free
over the web or for purchase.

When it comes to putting together the shipping product or released document, I
feel like I have only two choices: 1. Consult a magical "UX expert". Only this
mystical being, who speaks secret incantations, and has access to access some
design tome somewhere, can tell you what the exact right typeface should be.
Or, 2. Pick from generic pre-designed templates (designed by the magicians, no
doubt) and just paint-by-numbers into your product.

I wish there was a way to take this magic step out of designing.

The basic premise of this article seems to be that "Typefaces have
personality". There are actually a couple of examples presented:

* Trade Gothic is no-nonsense

* Bell Gothic is dynamic and outspoken

* Slab serif typefaces are known for their distinct personality

* Franklin Gothic is stoic, sturdy, strong

* Souvenir is playful, casual, a little aloof, and very pretty

* Dax is an informal, modern, and bright typeface

* Bernhard Modern is classy, quiet, sophisticated, and even a touch intimate

So, who classifies these personalities? Where are they documented, so that I,
as a non-designer, can look them up and use them correctly? This guide expects
the reader to already know this typeface-to-peronality mapping.

I'd love a resource that lets you just look this stuff up. "If you're making
an online newsletter about plants, use typefaces A, B, and C together, but
never D and E, and don't make C bold. If you're making a poster for a concert
for a new age marimba player, use typefaces F and G." That would be great.

Even better than a rule book, a more systematic process that gets you from
subject matter to the right font, that is understandable and repeatable for
non-designers would be perfect.

Anyone have any suggested reading?

~~~
lnanek2
A lot of these things are obvious just by looking. For example, "Slab serif
typefaces are known for their distinct personality." Well, look at the two
slab serif fonts in the example he gives you. You can see the letters have big
exaggerated lines on the ends - the Ts have things coming off the top left and
right and bottom center. These are the serifs and they are very large an
decorative. His example has two fonts that have these serifs that are large
and decorative and then the serifs for each are different. So it is kind of
weird just looking at it. Oh, this T has a lot of decoration! But wait, that T
over there has different decoration. It just feels weird on the eyes.

------
L_Rahman
A pretty good intro for typeface selection, but I disagree with one of the
suggested arrangements:

> All in all, there are 4 fonts from 3 typefaces being used here, and they all
> pull together into a cohesive design.

4 fonts in a setting that's only 300px tall don't really pull together
cohesively. It's something I'd personally recommend avoiding unless absolutely
necessary.

~~~
sp332
The article does recommend (later) only using 2 typefaces. Having more levels
to a visual hierarchy would be helpful for navigating a larger work, though.

------
jastanton
Does anyone have a list of good web fonts you can use together? I like all of
these principles and their examples but sometimes I just need a reference to
pick out a stack and apply it to my site. Something like "The Big Book of Font
Combinations" but for web that shows a breakdown of font stacks supported by
which devices or something. Thoughts?

~~~
lifeformed
The Google Fonts page has some recommended pairings for each font:
[https://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Open+Sans#pairings](https://www.google.com/fonts/specimen/Open+Sans#pairings)

~~~
didgeoridoo
I believe these pairings are based on the frequency they appear together on
the web — not on any kind of aesthetic or functional judgment. I would take
them with an enormous grain of salt.

------
jweir
You know what words don't appear in that article: emotion, character, soul,
attitude, or even communication.

Legible does appear.

"Don't confuse legibility with communication" \- David Carson.

He might have another take on how you can combine typefaces.

[http://zee.com.br/extranet/abduzeedo/posts/david_carson/img7...](http://zee.com.br/extranet/abduzeedo/posts/david_carson/img7.jpg)

[http://kingydesignhistory2012.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/ca...](http://kingydesignhistory2012.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/carson-
pepsi.jpg)

David Carson's _The End of Print_ was one of my muses in the later 90's (that
and The Designer Republic's work, especially Wipeout XL).

[http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Print-Grafik-
Design/dp/B00FIBF...](http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Print-Grafik-
Design/dp/B00FIBFWKO)

~~~
sp332
_Trade Gothic wants to get to the facts, but Bell Gothic wants to have some
fun._

 _Their distinct personalities don’t play well off of each other and create a
kind of typographic mud if careful attention is not paid._

And did you miss the whole "Don’t Mix Moods" section?

