From what I know the tall one is the original
one, but I think the short is better (I should
say less bad) since it’s a display face anyway.

hhp

I guess so. But what are the chances that somebody who insists on setting text in Futura would go for the tall one?… On the other hand, it could conceivably be a good compromise solution: in a two-man team with a “visual” designer and a “textual” designer, Futura-tall could prevent a war. But still.

hhp

Hah. This thread is pretty funny. It’s like fighting the resurgence of bellbottoms for men—which are much uglier than any cut of Futura.

I recently saw a current annual report designed by Cahan & Associates that used Futura *gasp* for body copy. I was very surprised and disappointed. But with an objective consideration, it’s actually quite well done. (I am going to have to find out if it’s the tall or short variety. Heh.)

So, by talking about it so much, are we predicting a new popularization of Futura? I hope not. As anyone who’s ever worked with a design system based around Futura may agree, it’s a very boring font after a considerable length of time.

//joe

Chris’ (Burke) book has an entire chapter dedicated to the design of Futura. There are original drawings as well. You might find your information there.

Also, I enjoy the spicy remark Hrant. I agree with you, but so many people still use Futura for body. Wouldn’t the tall ascenders assist the reader more than short? I mean if someone insists upon using Futura as body?