What's interesting is that Erik proposes that the keywords accumulate from massive internet "user" activity, rather than foundry whim.

Now we'll see if "ironic" has legs!

At least the mechanism they are using to add keywords to the various faces is following some sort of limited, controlled vocabulary. Allowing volunteers to simply make up words that seem to fit is a bit too whimsical a method to describe typefaces. I been through several iterations of brute-force metadata creation where two dozen people involved at an after work 'keywording-party' certainly filled in all of the blanks - but most of the keywords were either too esoteric or convoluted to be useful.

Keywording is all about power. Who controls the marketing process and gets to decide what the product should be like.

Getty uses keyword demand to develop product; the process is professionized in the hands of marketers, not the content creator or the end user. (And there is no independent "keywords standards" body representing all stakeholders.) I don't see type design getting that corrupted by keywording, but the writing is on the wall.

The question is -- whose language, whose keywords are you gonna trust, whose are you gonna use? Whose decision on what is "esoteric and convoluted"?

I provided a list of keywords for a font recently: Awesome, Badass, Ballin', Chill, Chronic, Dope, etc... which one of my distributors replaced, in my better interests of course. Without a "no f""k with the keywords" clause in my contract, they can do that. Pity, I'm not sure the typeface in question was the right one to define the new niche, but still...

Nick, sounds like the book market. I remember a book (by Sean Cavannaugh) called "Digital Type Design" which had nothing to do with digital type design. It was a play with buzz-words (by the [public] admission of Sean himself).

hhp

> Was I at that party, Grant?

Surely in spirit, anyway.

> I provided a list of keywords for a font recently ...
> ... which one of my distributors replaced, in my
> better interests of course.

The distributor in question publicly accepts the responsibility for the unsympathetic editing of the designer-supplied keywords as noted in the above context. Our apologies, Nick.



Actually, it's our copy writer's fault.

As delightful as Nick's keywords were, it should be noted that not once have any of our customers used the terms Ballin' in the context of searching for a particular typeface - or any product for that matter.

Well OK, I need some feedback then!

What ARE today's hot font keywords?

What ARE today's hot font keywords?

Free. Download. Kazaa.

Hey Stephen,

Does your comment mean you've already been asked by Joseph and/or FontShop to participate in the keyword process?

I haven't heard anything, and I'm feeling left out...

See here, Marc...

Thanks, Eduardo, but I already sent in my "application." I was just wondering if some lucky folks who applied had already been chosen. Perhaps Stephen, with his legendary type ID skills, didn't have to go through the regular process.

> i{What ARE today's hot font keywords?}

Nick, I don't believe it has to do with keywords being 'hot' or 'dope' or 'what's happening now'. What's missing from much of the keyword data supplied to us by designers is sometimes even the most basic typographic classifications and historical terms (eg: transitional, calligraphic, incised, condensed, etc.) If we could consistently receive these terms in conjunction with a few mood or aesthetic-based terms (eg: roughened, western, distressed, lively, casual, smooth, rounded, harsh, etc.) - it would make our job much easier. I certainly appreciate appropriately whimsical keywords, but not at the expense of more common descriptive terms.

You're absolutely right, Grant. However, I'm still interested to know what keywords, among the basic typographic classifications, are most used by your customers (but I realize this is probably proprietary information).