OEI #84/85, “Våtmarker & Experiment” and #86/87, “Publiceringspraktiker, Publiceringspoetiker”
4 Comments on “OEI #84/85, “Våtmarker & Experiment” and #86/87, “Publiceringspraktiker, Publiceringspoetiker””
Thank you for your contribution, Peter, and apologies for the long wait.
I’d like to add some clarification regarding our policy of tagging typefaces on Fonts In Use. The entries listed under “Typefaces” represent general designs, be it single styles or families.
Typically, we maintain a single typeface entry for many different incarnations. For example, our page for Franklin Gothic covers the foundry original by ATF; the wood type copy by Hamilton; the adaptations for machine typesetting by Linotype, Ludlow and others; numerous phototype and dry transfer versions, as well as various digitizations. The main guiding princible is identifiability. Often it is tricky and laborious or downright impossible to pinpoint the specific version (keep in mind that the contributor often is not identical with the designer, and we have to ID the typeface based on a more or less detailed image). Also, we want to avoid too much fragmentation, so that visitors can easily browse all in-use examples of a given typeface design – across time, and across formats.
Sometimes we do give distinct versions a separate entry (which is crosslinked from the canonical entry). We tend to favour this option when the name is different, and/or when it’s relatively easy to tell the specific version apart from others. In the case of Franklin, that includes ITC Franklin Gothic, HEX Franklin, and others.
Following these principles, several of the fonts featured in this Use would be normally grouped under the same typeface entry. For example, Times NR literally stands for Times New Roman, and is the name used for one specific digitization of Monotype’s Times New Roman, made by Adobe. The differences between Times NR (top, v001.003, © Adobe Systems Incorporated) and Times New Roman as bundled with Mac OS (bottom, v5.01, © 2006 The Monotype Corporation) are discernable: the latter has different outlines, is smaller on the body, is spaced more tightly, and lacks a kerning pair for “Vå“. Yet, it wouldn’t be feasible to maintain separate typeface entries on Fonts In Use.
Times NR MT vs. Times New Roman
Or take Times LT: that’s merely a specific retail version of Linotype’s Times. It’s distinguished from the system version mainly by the character set: Times LT has small caps, but a less wide language support. The basic design is virtually identical. A different font, but not a different typeface, if you will.
To illustrate this, here’s a comparison between Times LT Roman (top, v1.040, © 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002 Adobe Systems Incorporated. © 1981, 1999, 2002 Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG) and Times Roman as bundled with Mac OS (top, v5.0, © 1990–99 Apple Computer Inc. © 1981 Linotype AG © 1990–91 Type Solutions Inc. © 1990–91 The Font Bureau Inc.). The main difference that I can spot in this sample is that the system font again lacks the kerning pair for “Vå“.
Times LT Roman vs. Times Roman
We understand that the conceptual nature of this project is special. That’s why we made an exception and kept all of your entries.
Makes sense, thanks for clarifying that!
Absolutely wonderful project.
I myself had already thought about the wide variety of uses to which the Times could be put. Unfortunately, as was said in the quote to Matthew Butterick, it may be that the Times, today, especially when it is not properly used, produces a sense of “apathy”. But if this is due to extreme trivialization, perhaps it is an indication that the typeface “works” extremely well and with great versatility, which is an enviable merit for any font.
If other typefaces were used on so many occasions, then, although they may be very well designed and beautiful, perhaps the exaggerated occurrence of their use would make them undifferentiated. However, from an absolute point of view, i.e. taking Times in itself, I consider it to be a perfect typeface.
Based on the beautiful typography of 17th century Dutch books, it would be difficult for Times not to result in a beautiful work. In fact, the impression it produces overall, by its compactness, sharpness, wide x-height, is that of a truly modern interpretation of Dutch typographic practice of that time, and so much so that its designer, Stanley Morison, was praised by Tschichold.
Konst & Teknik / Peter Ström produced some excellent work. The solutions adopted in the design, considering the samples presented here, managed to emphasize the beauty of typography, especially in the variations of the design of the font itself. Congratulations.
This is such a nice and well executed project!