Should "Designers" be changed to:

__ People

__ Lovable Disney Characters

__ Inept Lab Assistants named "Igor"

--------------------------------------------
Paul... just tell us when to stop!

Thank Goodness!
But maybe this is more Abbey Normal?
ChrisL

I am used to your goofy side...
That is why I didn’t recognize you.

Don't worry... I'm still the same ol' lovable goofy self.

"Ay Carumba! I waz hoping it waz “above” the normal!"

I didn't mean that it wasn't nice normal. It is typographically above the normal. I meant it was not showing your comedic self and instead showed your professional self. That is why I didn't recognize you.

ChrisL

Your new avatar is, well, normal?

Ay Carumba! I waz hoping it waz "above" the normal!
Back to the drawing board. :-(

Norbert!

I didn't recognize you! Your new avatar is, well, normal? I am used to your goofy side instead of your "normal" side :-)

ChrisL

Bezier Wrangler

Glad you finally added the definition in Typowiki.

People were wondering what the heck that was at the end of movie credits. ;-)

"and speaking of keeping the wikiup…"

ChrisL

you guys are too much! i love your proposed categories, nick. i'm not sure i'll jump on 'em tho. and speaking of keeping the wikiup...

Bezier Wrangler

"...Paul is sort of the wiki-Godfather"

ChrisL

If people agree, then I’ll start doing it. I’d like to see the category be a full-fledged research bibliography.

George, please do start it yourself. The WIKI is entirely self-run. There is no "editorial panel" or such a thing (although Paul is sort of the wiki-Godfather). It thrives only on individual contributions. The more you "cross-link" in your posts, the more likely other authors will likely be to catch the interest…

May I suggest the following categories:

• Creationists (in deference to Nick Shinn)
  Those who conjure up type designs out of nothing, citing no precedents and recognizing no influences;
• Intelligent Designers
  Those who posit that typeface design is far too complex a process to have happened accidentally, so somebody must have been responsible for the design (although precisely who may remain a matter of theological, philosophical or epistemological debate); and
• Evolutionists
  Those who acknowledge the design contributions of type designers who came before them, and adapt those designs so that they live on in a new (digital) format (Paul Hunt's Bezier Wranglers?)

Then, we could get the courts involved, and let them determine which approach is the superior one...

Well, if no one agrees about the bibliographic thing then I'll shut up about it. But I will make sure there's at least a full name for every author.

If people agree, then I'll start doing it. I'd like to see the category be a full-fledged research bibliography.

George
I felt bad because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no Bodoni

I think the “Books” category should be more bibliographic.

george, the great thing about the wiki is that if you feel you can improve upon it, you can!

In this particular instance, I wanted to get others' opinions before i made any changes.

I think the question should be how the subcategories are handled. Obviously there would be a tremendous amount of duplication if there are separate sub-lists. If there were a method of tagging each entry with appropriate subcategories that would be preferable. I'm assuming there is / would be a way of searching so the user could make their own list, and allow for overlap in the search. I've been putting things in and haven't really used it for that yet.

And there's the issue of who is using it. I find my students use Wiki a lot, but my colleagues don't. So I'm not in favor of anything that makes it harder for students to find things, but in favor of anything that makes it more informative.

I also think the list should include everyone involved in type including authors, scholars, librarians, and archivists: Nicolette Gray, Robin Kinross, H.D.L. Vervliet, etc.

I think the "Books" category should be more bibliographic.

George
I felt bad because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no Bodoni

" maybe there should be a “People” category and then it should be broken down by subcategories such as designer, programmer, etc."

Exactly what I was hoping for Paul.

ChrisL

i guess it would be helpful to have lists of all types of people, eh? maybe there should be a "People" category and then it should be broken down by subcategories such as designer, programmer, etc.

> and the programmer/techie types would be at the top :-)

Yes! ;-)

"I see you’ve listed these in order of status ;-)"

Nah, type designer would be at the bottom and the programmer/techie types would be at the top :-)

ChrisL

I guess the point to me is, what are we using the listing for? I was thinking, if I want to find out who designs type, I would go to one list. If I want to find out who in in the type foundry business, I go to another list. With their "one size fits all" thing, I would have to read every bio in the list. If it works like a database, you can sort by or search by a field and have just those come up. You can also have multiple listings in the case of Zapf and others.
I would have trouble figuring out how I would be listed. I have designed a few type families but have yet to bring them to market. I have been a graphic designer, art director, production manager for a printer, design teacher as well as shoe salesman and steelworker :-)

ChrisL

Although I understand the practical point of having "Type Designers" as a separate category, I tend to prefer the "People" category because it kinds of put everyone on the same level.

I agree with Norbert.

Richard

If anything, you should consider the Typowiki as a growing resource for all things typographic and type related, and as a resource it should be accessible and understandable to visitors.

Personally, I see no need for many sub-classifications, since for the most part, people involved with type are often multi-disciplined. How many time would you enter Hermann Zapf? Type designer, type educator, typographer, calligrapher, graphic designer (he has done it), husband, etc.?

What I do see lacking in our "Designers" section are people who have made significant contributions to the futherment of type in aesthetics, education, scholarly-research, marketing, etc., yet have never designed an actual typeface.

The majority of individuals listed in the "Designers" category are actual type designers, a few punchcutters, and a scattering of "typophiles" such as Roger Black, who I don't recall ever actually designed a typeface despite his incredible contribution to the world of type.

Likewise, a person like Aaron Burns (I "Typowikied" him but can't find it) should be listed, but not under "Designers."

So if anything, I see two basic and clear catergories:

- Type Designers
Individuals who have a typeface(s) attributed to their design, along with any other of their type related activities.

and

- Typophiles (for lack of a better all inclusive definition)
Which is for individuals who have NOT actually designed a typeface, but have made significant contributions to the world of type.

Just my humble opinion.

Getting too specific about this is going to be a horrror show, no offense. This task is like trying to come up with a genre for a band between a few hundred different people. Nobody will agree on the same one. I think it's better to just leave it at one general section.

If it isn't going to make you crazy then divide all you like!

It doesn't make much sense at the moment.
There are several "type designers" listed who have never designed a typeface, but do adaptations of other people's designs.
This is rather like calling a person who does an arrangement of someone else's tune a composer.
But I've already flogged that hobby-horse to death, so I voted "don't care."

Yeah, those poor "foundry 'persons'"
(sigh…)
;-)

Chris,

I see you've listed these in order of status ;-)

Si

I would like to see the list sorted by kinds of stuff:

Graphic Designer
Type Designer
Typographer
Programmer/techie
Editor/Publisher
Art Director
Printer
Foundry "person"

ChrisL

I am conflicted about it -okay thats overtsating the case - I want there to be both categories because specificty is helpful in a reference. But it seems like it would be a lot of work to have the the larger list & the smaller list too. I am assuming all 'Designers' go in 'People'. And saying 'designer' seems like a potentailly arbitrary cut off. How would you apply the term?

So I need a 4th radio button - "What does it mean when I choose 'yes' or 'no'."

I don't care takes care of itself.