
Typeface vs. Font: Terminology Smackdown - bbx
http://nerdplusart.com/type-terminology-smackdown/
======
fsck--off
Here's a pretty good explanation from _The Complete Manual of Typography_ , by
James Felici:

"No two words in typography are as commonly misused as font and typeface. A
typeface is a collection of characters—letters, numbers, symbols, punctuation
marks, etc.—that are designed to work together like the parts of a coordinated
outfit. A typeface is an alphabet with a certain design. A font, in contrast,
is a physical thing, the description of a typeface—in computer code,
photographic film, or metal—used to image the type. The font is the cookie
cutter, and the typeface is the cookie (see Figure 3 1).† When you look at a
page of type, you can say, “What typeface is that? ” or “What font was used to
set that? ” But you can’t say, “What font is that? ” because you’re not
looking at a font; you’re looking at the product of a font. The confusion
between the terms arises largely from the ambiguous use of the term font in
computer programs, most of which have a Font menu. Although that menu lists
what fonts are available for use by the program, it could just as easily be
called the Typeface menu, as it also lists the typefaces available for your
pages. In fact, since some fonts contain data for more than one typeface, it
would be more accurate to call it the Typeface menu."

† Figure 3.1 shows an example font (the computer code) and its corresponding
typeface.

~~~
shittyanalogy
Except that your computer is actually reading from a bunch of font files, not
typeface files. It is called a font menu, because they are fonts. The vast
majority of software doesn't deal with typefaces, they deal with individual
font files. Which are often company specific implementations of typefaces.

------
tmoertel
The article seems to get it wrong. It claims, for example, that Garamond 3,
Adobe Garamond, and ITC Garamond are "all the same typeface, but each is a
different font." They are actually different typefaces, each based on
Garamond's (or Jannon's) earlier designs. The key is that they are different
_designs_. That's why they have different names and also why nobody who
specified Garamond 3 for a project would be happy to have some misguided
printer swap it out for Adobe Garamond under the impression that they were
"the same typeface."

~~~
crazygringo
Exactly. Amazing how even the _article_ gets it wrong. Sheesh. Never in my
life have I heard "Garamond" called a single typeface.

They are all _different_ Garamond typefaces.

While the bold, italic, display, caption, etc. versions of each are the
different fonts.

~~~
nchlswu
wouldn't bold, italic, etc., be variants of a typeface, with a corresponding
font?

------
JumpCrisscross
> _Wikipedia even says they’re synonymous. I disagree._

This raises my level of scrutiny.

> _Even if you might ask someone about a favorite CD, Rolling Stone wouldn’t.
> They would call those albums._

When CDs were the dominant music medium, this difference was anachronistically
pedantic. With the analogy of technology sanding down a previously meaningful
difference in mind, re-reading this line was telling:

> _In traditional print, the distinction is easy: a font was a typeface set at
> a certain size, weight and style and cast in metal...In its digital form,
> fonts are more flexible and the moment when a typeface becomes a font is way
> more nuanced._

∴ In traditional print typeface != font. But today, the difference is so
nuanced, the point of delineation so subjective, that the gradient, while
interesting to talk about, can be safely ignored.

~~~
kps
The term ‘album’ comes from the pre-LP practice of selling or storing related
records in a bound set of sleeves, analogous to a photo album (which was also
once a physical object, OK?).

------
ademarre
While I appreciate the desire for fastidiousness, I don't entirely agree with
Mr. Ingebretsen.

I prefer Jon Tan's perspective:
[http://v1.jontangerine.com/log/2008/08/typeface--
font](http://v1.jontangerine.com/log/2008/08/typeface--font)

A typeface is a family of fonts (very often by the same designer). Within a
typeface there will be fonts of varying weights or other variations. E.g.,
light, bold, semi-bold, condensed, italic, etc. Each such variation is a
different font. The only evolution in terminology that results from the
transition from metal-cast to digital fonts is that (point) size is no longer
fixed.

The Garamond fonts he lists are not members of a "Garamond" typeface. Rather,
those fonts are each members of their own respective typefaces which happen to
be different interpretations of a theme.

~~~
ademarre
To revise his analogy with music: Garamond would be the genre, but the analogy
falls apart from there. Adobe Garamond Pro is a typeface, so maybe that could
be likened to an album? Adobe Garamond Pro Regular is a font, as is Adobe
Garamond Pro Bold Italic.

------
BHSPitMonkey
How are those examples the same typeface, as the author claims? The details in
the shapes of the glyphs are strikingly different. Wouldn't it be more correct
to say they are distinct typefaces of a particular family (Garamond)?

~~~
ingebretsen
That's a totally fair point. They're really visually distinct, especially to
someone with any eye for type. Garamond is confusing because it's so old and
so influential. Maybe it would have been better to choose something like
Futura which, I think, most people would agree is a single typeface but can be
purchased digitally from multiple foundries as a distinct font.

------
cstrat
I understand that argument that the author is making, however why does that
make what Microsoft tweeted incorrect? Why is it incorrect of them to ask
people what their favourite font is? Perhaps they intended for the people to
respond to the question with a font choice, not typeface...

------
jamesbritt
This reminds me of the conflation of _tag_ and _element_ in discussions about
HTML/XML markup.

There's a meaningful difference. but you still end up dealing with Web
frameworks that have a method for _script_tag_ that inserts an element that
has two tags. And when developers start talking about doing something with
tags you have to mentally parse or just ask if they really mean tags or
elements.

[http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200508/html_tags_vs_el...](http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200508/html_tags_vs_elements_vs_attributes/)

------
adamconroy
This would be a good example for that 4chan list. [Mundane x] vs [Mundane Y],
Let me tell you how little you know (and I didn't know either until yesterday)

------
zokier
The matter gets even muddier when you start thinking of different weights,
sizes and styles (eg italics). Are 12pt and 14pt Helveticas different fonts?

~~~
shittyanalogy
Depends, did you use unique font files to set your 12pt and 14pt type? Or did
your computer scale them algorithmically from one file?

~~~
zokier
Most font files have hand-hinted letterforms/glyphs for multiple sizes, that
is pretty much the cornerstone of modern type rendering. So while the glyphs
are contained in a singular file, they are not necessarily rendered from the
exactly same curves.

------
shittyanalogy
shitty analogy for developers:

    
    
        Typeface : a standard.
        Font : an implementation.

------
was_hellbanned
This is a nice, fat, red flag for human interaction.

If you find someone mentioning distinctions of this sort, you can be
reasonably sure you're dealing with a pedant who enjoys 'educating' or
correcting more than producing or doing.

