> I think they are, just not from Microsoft's site.

I thought they eventually clamped down on those "rogue" sites.
Well, good news!

hhp

>but they wanted a sans.

How about Arial for titles - where it is not bad - and Georgia for text?

Tahoma is actually a hidden gem, but it's just that: hidden. It was only shipped with Windows for a short while - no longer - and I think never on Mac.

Tahoma still ships with Windows. It is the default UI font on Windows XP for most European and Middle Eastern locales.

By the way (and going all the way back to the original post) does anyone have a link to the complete contents of Adobe Font Folio? I can't find it on Adobe's site, or in their PDF datasheets.

Alternatively, can you tell me the worthwhile faces it contains that are missing from, say, the Linotype Essentials 1+2 compilation?

I'm pretty sure, at this point, I'll be going with Essentials (or Bitstream Odyessy, or E+F) plus a shortlist of independents I've not finalised yet. I just want to cover my bases.

Y'all are complaining about using plain arial as a corporate font...

My Aunt works for Sun Trust banks, and when she was here in Florida they could use whatever face they fancied for sending correspondance etc., however, her boss up in Savannah makes EVERYONE use Arial Narrow.

Arial Narrow for internal memos, any correspondance, powerpoint presentations, email, etc.

And he didn't choose it for any reason other than he likes it.

Though, now, apparently, I hear he has a new font that he likes and is going to make everyone use.

I thought about emailing him and telling him what a jackass he is

You requested a PDF, listing the OT-fonts. On Linotype's website (www.linotype.com) a complete list showing the OT-fonts is available.
Be aware that there is also a OT-Flirt list. That collection however includes a lot of hybrid OT-SC, OT-OsF and OT-Alt versions for Quark (non-Unicode) users.

>Suppose you want to collaborate on a report (or similar long >document) with a subcontractor who doesn't have your fonts.
>
>What do you do, lose all your formatting when you get the >document back?

When is the world going to wake up and remember that it's better to write/edit texts in a completely different environment from that in which you design the pages? Widespread 'wysiwyg' word processing, specifically the dumping of WordPerfect 5.1 for Word for Windows 2.0, was a backward leap in the history of writing.

-- Laurence

When is the world going to wake up and remember that it's better to write/edit texts in a completely different environment from that in which you design the pages?

I raise my imaginary glass to toast to that sentiment! When I hear the words "design a flyer" and "Microsoft Word" in the same sentence, I cringe and my heart grows cold.

William suggested:

>It seems to me you are in a position to bargain
>with founderies, so if I were you I would talk to
>Adobe, Tankard, Montalbano, Fontbureau, and
>whomever else you fancy. Explain your needs and get
>them to propose a deal that will help you most. Make
>them work for your business, and you will probably
>get some great advice and a result you are confident
>about and happy with.

If you are seriously interested in several Font Bureau fonts (and I highly recommend them as a very good, long-term investment), then call them at (US) 617-423-8770 and talk to Harry Parker. Tell him what you're interested in and for how many workstations and get him to quote you a volume price. Volume is definitely a factor in the FB pricing structure, which is not immediately apparent from just their website. And depending upon how many families you're interested in licensing, you might be pleasantly surprised. They're quite comfortable and adept at working with studios who are library-building such as you are.

Good luck with your decisions.

-- K.

> Tahoma still ships with Windows.

I must be going senile early. But I remember some difference between the availability of Tahoma and Verdana. Let me the check the tables at the MS site...

Hmmm, like why does this page not list Tahoma?
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/default.aspx

--

Laurence, I'm with you: Down with WYSIWYG!

hhp

>Suppose you want to collaborate on a report (or similar long document) with a subcontractor who doesn't have your fonts.

>What do you do, lose all your formatting when you get the document back?

One doesn't collaborate with subcontractors, one hires them.
Make it a stipulation of their contract that they obtain a licence for the fonts/software you intend to use, and they can build the cost of that into their bill to you.

Otherwise, it is an arrogance on the part of the contractor to impose its corporate fonts on the subcontractor.

If the contractor choses not to, and uses Arial or equivalent, it is less expensive, but less of a distinctive corporate branding. You get what you pay for (unless you have sufficient clout to bully your subcontractors into licensing your corporate fonts).

Hmmm, like why does this page not list Tahoma?
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/default.aspx

Because Tahoma is not a core web font, it is a core system font. Go to the top drop down box on that page, select Windows XP, and then hit Go. Windows XP ships with Tahoma and Tahoma Bold v3.00

Hrant, here it says that Tahoma ships with windows XP.

Okay, here is the shopping trolley:

AdobeCS library (bundled)
Linotype Essentials 1+2 (

Hey, pretty impressive!

If you need more British flavor, try one of these: http://www.myfonts.com/country/uk/
Like Dalton Maag, or The Foundry.

And what about FontBureau? Amplitude is a sure-fire winner. And Whitman is a rock solid text face.

hhp

Nick

Adobe valued production costs for a digitized type face at $60,000. But you mentioned older faces such as.

gill sans

>What's the difference between the Odyessy 1 and 2

Odyssey 2 comes with a selection of typefaces from "Indie" foundries, to add some contemporaneity to the bulk of the older typefaces. I think Odyssey 1 came with a selection of indie fonts also.

And yes, ahem, you are missing ShinnType fonts from your list (I qualify as a Brit too, albeit transplanted ;-)

>What do you think?

Gerald, part of the risk of going into business is that times change, and one will have invested money in something that becomes obsolete, either through a changing of fashion, the economy, or technology. There is no such thing as a right to a continuing ROI.

Eric Gill is long gone. Let's support contemporary type culture, as an expression of the present day and age, by licensing contemporary fonts.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for the classics, but they should not dominate the scene the way they do.

Interesting that you mention Gill Sans, as this was one of the typefaces that Adobe gave away on an Illustrator CD in the mid 90s. Millions (I assume) of free copies. Well, that's one way to prime a market. But it kind of pulled the rug out from underneath Cronos.

Gill Sans is a 1930s typeface. The bowl of the a has the bulbous look of the baby carriages of that era. To me, it looks totally incongruous today. However, it made a valuable contribution to the living tradition of type design: if art directors want to choose a typeface that, because of its structure and proportions, works in a similar manner, they should use the present day "equivalents", such as Cronos, Scala/Seria Sans, Bliss (good choice, m-ga), Agenda, Eureka Sans, etc. That would make our business more vital and sophisticated than if everyone just uses poor old Gill.

Nick,

Adobe were GIVIG AWAY Illustrator!? When was that? I thought Illustrator always cost money, and obviously, the customer also paid (among others) for the fonts included. They were not free copies, but of course, they were greatly reduced vs. the fonts sold separately.

I can't agree that Gill Sans is "poor old". I'd rather say it's "great old". I myself prefer a good typeface over a new typeface. Among the designs you listed, I can't find a single one that would be superior to Gill Sans. To me, the first sanserif for years that can stand up against Gill Sans is Frantisek Storm's Sebastian:
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/storm/sebastian/

It's similarly sophisticated without being artificially elaborate.

If I were to choose between Gill and Cronos, I'd choose Gill -- even if both were designed at the same time. The same for Agenda vs. Gill etc. I won't even compare Scala Sans, Bliss or Eureka Sans. They're nice but have by no means the touch of eternity and universality that Gill Sans has. I'd say, Gill Sans is still better.

Adam

I'm happy that our Alfon and Giacomo are on your list. They are both OpenType. As to your indecision regarding ClearviewOne because of the price, why don't you email me directly and perhaps we can work out a discount seeing as you are thinking of buying two of our families.

Adam, he means they were including Gill Sans WITH Illustrator. Giving it as a bonus with purchase. Not that they were giving copies of Illustrator away.

And I have to agree that none of those fonts hold a candle to Gill Sans. They all look like copies, and that Sebastian...it looks like Gill Sans melted. I don't like it at all...especially that "a", it's quite atrocious.

Chris,

if Adobe were including Gill Sans with Illustrator, it automatically means it was not being given away. The Illustrator package (that included the software and a collection of fonts) cost several hundred dollars. Obviously, part of the price was the fonts, so they were not free.

It's funny that if there are 200 fonts on a CD and they're sold for, say, $300, it means they're being sold, but if there is one software application on the same CD, it automatically should mean the fonts are "given away for free". I can't believe type designers think like that. Does nobody do OEM deals?

Adam

Nick,

Gerald, part of the risk of going into business is that times change, and one will have invested money in something that becomes obsolete, either through a changing of fashion, the economy, or technology.

Gerald,

I naturally concur you here. Classics are not classics becaure they're old, but because they're eternal. Contemporary type designers should not strive for the elimination of their classic predecessors, but to outrun them by quality means.

Adam

Adam,

Good morning to you from Finland.

Nick, although I'm all for the New, and don't believe any font can be Eternal, there's something to be said for a design that remains useful for a long time. The reason fonts can sometimes survive a long time is probably very simple: deep down we've been the same humans for a long time.

It's great to motivate people to support living designers, but we can't ignore the existing practice/opinions of our users either. Otherwise we're making mere Art.

hhp

Hrant,

Otherwise we're making mere Art.

"Chris,

if Adobe were including Gill Sans with Illustrator, it automatically means it was not being given away. The Illustrator package (that included the software and a collection of fonts) cost several hundred dollars. Obviously, part of the price was the fonts, so they were not free.

It's funny that if there are 200 fonts on a CD and they're sold for, say, $300, it means they're being sold, but if there is one software application on the same CD, it automatically should mean the fonts are "given away for free". I can't believe type designers think like that. Does nobody do OEM deals?

Adam "


Adam, generally when fonts are included they're as freebies. The programme would cost the same with or without them. They're like bonus with purchase. Buy one get one free, you know?

And since Illustrator is pretty much the defacto standard for vector art, some people here don't like the fact that Adobe can use it's powers and flood the market with free fonts like that.

"Adam, generally when fonts are included they're as freebies. The programme would cost the same with or without them. They're like bonus with purchase. Buy one get one free, you know? "

Chris,

you're kidding aren't you? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch -- it's the first thing you learn at a "elements of economy" class at high school. At least, at a Polish high school over here.

"Buy one get one free" is a marketing gag. If you believe in such nonsense -- well, I'm sorry.

It is obvious that you pay for both products, not for one. If you paid for just one, who pays for the other? Santa Claus? George W. Bush? The company that sells you the thing? (If it's the company, how the heck are they supposed to make profit!?)

The products are bundled. One would actually cost half, but nobody will sell you just one. They will always sell you two. It's a sales strategy, nothing else.

Do you think that companies that bundle fonts don't pay royalties? And if they do, who do you think pays for these? Adobe, out of their mercy? Gimme a break.

Adam

Ps. I suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0875483100/

With something as intangible as software, fonts especially, you really can do a "buy one get one free". Which is just what adobe does.

The fonts are included free as an incentive to buy. And as a way to get the Adobe name ingraned into you as the source for type.

But who says that it's the Illustrator application that you pay for and the fonts are free? Maybe it's vice versa? After all, the Illustrator app is just as "intangible" as fonts.

What is your judgement based on? Do you have any evidence to support your statement or is this just a speculation?

I could also say: the Illsutrator app is included free as an incentive to buy. And it's the fonts you really pay for, but psshht -- don't tell anybody.

If the fonts are "free", why should any user buy fonts from Adobe later? I mean, they're free, aren't they!?

Adam

When fonts are bundled with software, they are simply part of the package. No part of the package is 'free': you pay for the whole package. The fonts are likely discounted in that the whole software package may cost less than it would to license the fonts by themselves, but they are no more free than InDesign and Photoshop are free when they are bundled with Illustrator in the Creative Suite. You are licensing a software package that includes multiple parts.

Hey, I was just trying to clarify what Nick said based on what he seemed to be implying.

Many of the users choose classic typefaces because they lack the hability to evaluate type.

> Many of the users choose classic typefaces because they lack the hability to evaluate type.

I don't get it, what's wrong with classic typefaces? Is it inconceivable that someone would choose a classic typeface just because they like it or because they prefer it to another, which happens to be contemporary (which I am assuming is the opposite of how you are using the term 'classic')?

To paraphrase Tina Turner: What's age got to do with it?

I think H

> many people choose a classic type like Bembo or Gill Sans because it is 'proven'.

Ok, that makes sense, but what's wrong with it? Isn't it in many ways a best-case scenario for the casual type user to choose proven combinations rather than risk disaster on the thin ice of untested type mix-and-match?

Unless you know exactly what you're doing, that tempting pairing of, say, Wilhelm Klingspor Gotisch and Neutraface might just blow the bosses mind.

> Choosing a newer, unproven typeface requires a greater degree of typographic discernment.

Of course.

I'm tempted to say that is exactly why this is best left to type aficionados with ample time, passion and a professional eye, but then that is an awfully elitist point of view and anyway, we all know you can't save anyone from themselves.

Maybe if folks go for the safe and tested option it just shows that they are aware that type is full of pitfalls. That seems fair enough.

I don't think there is anything wrong with someone who has the job of choosing a typeface, for whatever purpose, falling back on a reliable and proven classic in the absence of the necessary experience and discernment required to be more daring. It is prudent. But if that person has to choose another typeface for another project next week, and again after that, and if choosing a typeface becomes part of that person's job description, e.g. if he is a graphic designer or art director, I think there is something wrong with choosing those reliable and proven typefaces year after year, for every purpose. It suggests a failure to develop discernment and to build on experience.

double post

But John,


What then of those fine printers in the past that used a "house face" and nothing else. Does that mean their work was poor? Or does it show that good tools, if kept sharp, cuts deep?

That means that font variety wasn

H

But "mood" is the only justification for making new type.

hhp

That would be difficult to agree with.

>> if he is a graphic designer or art director, I think there is something wrong with choosing those reliable and proven typefaces year after year, for every purpose. It suggests a failure to develop discernment and to build on experience.

Agreed. The good designers I know keep a (r)evolving library comprised of serif, sans serif and decorative typefaces that they work with.

>>That means that font variety wasn

Thanks for the lively and informative banter initiated by m-ga

But "mood" is the only justification for making new type.

This is probably true for display type, but in my experience most new text type development is driven by economic and technical requirements and what might be termed 'appropriateness to purpose'. We need new types because we keep producing new texts, and new kinds of text. This has always been the case, and it is worthwhile to map major developments in the history of type design to developments in literature. 'Mood' may be one of the factors that makes a typeface appropriate to a text, but it is certainly not the only one.

Of course, there is also the question of whether one needs to justify the making of new type -- or a new chair design, or a new piece of architecture -- other than by variety and by the human need to create new forms.

Yes, "pie" does mean to drop/toss/fling metal type. I myself have the dubious honor of having "pied a galley", where "galley" is the tray where you painstakingly arrange your composition, all ready to print... :-/

> I am concerned about the increasingly restrictive EULAS

Indeed. I guess fascism is in the air.

hhp

>I ...love seeing flaws and beauty in both.

Wonderful!

A late addition, but I'd love to see use of "Placebo Sans" (Pr