I find it exceedingly boring, except for the mistakes. The mistakes are not interesting; they are more of the "ouch" variety. Now "boring" can be taken as an emotional response; all I can add is that there is a difference between "boring" and "unobtrusive." Unobtrusive is good for long academics texts, boring is not.

As to the weight (lightness) -- it is hard to tell on the screen, at the size shown. Here is a trick: Gentium is also a free font, and because of the extended character set, quite useful for texts where only the word processor is used (laser printout). In my experience, Gentium prints well enough on a laser printer, but is too thin to print well on an offset press, where the plates are made from the computer files (direct to plate offset printing). If that is your intended use, download Gentium & compare it. If they have generally the same weight, it is too light for offset.

I think it is OK. Which is as much as you can hope for with free fonts, with certain exceptions. There is something about the kerning in "poetry" that looks a little off visually, don't you think? (the first half appears to have more space).

Try Georgia instead (comes with Mac and Windows). Gentium is also very good.

@charles_e: I find it exceedingly boring, except for the mistakes. The mistakes are not interesting; they are more of the “ouch” variety.

Could you elaborate more on the mistakes that you see? Also, have you looked at the PDF sample on LinLibertine's webpage?
http://linuxlibertine.sourceforge.net/
That will give you a better sense than the gif posted above. I'm not sure how tuned LinLibertine's hinting is.

The f, a, y, and z all seem to me to have problems, from the screen sample. At your request, I did go to the website, but the downloaded PDF shows only boxes, not characters here at home, on my wife's Mac. I'll have to wait until I get into the office to see what's what.

But based on the small sample above, the bowl of the "a" doesn't fit other letters, the top & terminal of the "f" doesn't know where it is going, the descender of the "y" doesn't balance quite right, and the serif on the upper arm of the "z" (which probably reminded the original poster of Caslon) seems out of place. I get the impression, again from the small sample, that the font doesn't quite know whether it is suppose to be slightly condensed or slightly expanded.

I fully grant that the sample is small, & if I saw the full character set it might seem to have better balance. My guess is no, but I guess wrong every day.

FWIW

If you want a good free font that looks like Times, Storm has Lido.

hhp

I downloaded the LaTeX support package and gave Libertine a try with a long paper. Great effort on the part of the developers, but I was disappointed to say the least. Pale, loose, and not very interesting.

I would stick to Charter or Storm Lido, but Minion is probably best because it comes with true small caps and all variations of numerals including footnote figures.

There is also GFSDidot, which I haven't tried yet.

I am not much of an Adobe person, but Minion is a good one in this case. Long academic texts need these fonts to uphold your eyelids.

Oh, if money does not matter, I would try Compatil Text. A smasher, but unfortunately those buggers at Linotype don't sell them as single fonts, which I think is a shame :-/

I forgot URW Garamond:

http://typophile.com/node/27798

Yes, thank you for the input so far. I had originally hoped that Linux Libertine would be viable because the creator has obviously put a lot of work into it with the small caps and full complement of diacritics. Out of fairness I include another image generated by adobe rather than ms of the font.

Coincidentally I have recently discovered minion lurking in my acrobat folder. To me its feeling of genericness is too intentional. I am currently debating between a baskerville and the new century schoolbook with sanskrit diacritics on
http://bombay.indology.info/software/fonts/induni/index.html
Which baskerville? I like Lange's and Storm's.

While I'm rambling, I notice that there's a cd with four Bitstream Aldine 401 fonts (and a bunch of other stuff) for $29 at myfonts.com, cheap indeed, and seems like it might be have better contrast than Bembo but not as nice as Bembo book.

I like Fountain's Baskerville.

hhp

Better to have a few quality fonts than a lot of, well, you know.

Not that I have anything against a great deal. Even some of the free stuff floating around is excellent, like Gentium, Cardo, Lido, etc.

Fonts like Bembo Book, Dolly, Prensa, Scala, Quadraat, Kingfisher, Corundum, and other fine types meant for extended reading are in a different class, and most of them won't break the bank. Bembo Book alone . . . well, imagine setting text in a digitized Bembo that is actually *good.* Joy!

I've spent the last 25 years setting long academic texts (usually in the humanities), and have a couple of observations that may apply.

The first is, if you are setting material that will be printed offset, you need to see how the font prints that way, not on a laser printer. Generally, the font will appear rather lighter when printed offset.

The second is to avoid any fonts with a EULA that prohibits modifying them for your own use, as do all the NEW Monotype & Linotype OT fonts. The reason is you will inevitably come across a diacritic or character not in the font. Now from 1980 to 1995 (when we started using PostScript fonts), we also couldn't get inside the font to make up special sorts (glyphs). For diacriticals, you can work around this, but it helps greatly to use what is now called a "layout engine" that lets you program things, like TeX. Imagine setting 400 "emacrons" with a font that didn't have this character, where you couldn't program it.

Then there are special characters, which you sometimes just can't properly render from existing characters. The "eng" comes to mind. So you either borrow one from another font, or pay the foundry to make one up. The foundry's special sorts will be both expensive & slow to come.

I, for one, rejoiced at PostScript Type 1 fonts. Yes, they printed too thin, esp. with direct-to-plate offset lithography, but you could fix them. That was the beauty of them, with a weeks worth of work, you could make something that printed well, and you could add characters as you needed them. Nothing much has changed with OT, except those licenses (EULAs) which with one stroke take away the advantage of truly "Open" type.

There are enough foundries out there who permit modifying a font for your own use, that permit embedding, etc. that you should pick one of those. After 25 years, I don't have a "favorite" font, I like 10-12 for text, but part of that appreciation is how they work for the text, and part of "working for the text" is the ability to make up special sorts.

FWIW

now nice post

I wouldn't have a problem with modifying a font to make it suitable for the task at hand, because I don't believe such restrictions in the EULA are legally binding.

I view EULAs as a contract in between the foundry and myself. I treat is the same as any other contract I might sign. That said: Typequake do you mind if people disregard contracts they've entered into with you?

Humans are not paperwork.

hhp

Well, Miss Tiffany, I at least sort of do. But I'll confess it helps a lot when the foundry offers something other than legalese -- Like Adobe's FAQ's on licenses.

There was a Harvard (Yale?) law professor who was, shall we say, down on Credit Cards. In one of her senior law classes, a student came in & showed her an offering where you got money back. As an exercise, she had the class try to determine under just what conditions they'd get money back. At the end, after hours of work, they could not reach common agreement.

Now, not all Harvard (Yale?) law students are dumb. And these were seniors, about to head out into the world. So what chance do you think you or I would have?

In a way, I prefer the EULA's which say, right in the font on the copyright page in FontLab "You can't do a damn thing with this font." At least I'm sure about what they're saying.

One of the interesting things about Adobe's license is it seems to forbid modifying the font, but when you read the FAQ, it's clear that modifying under certain conditions is permitted. The interesting thing is, according to Thomas Phinney, that the same lawyers wrote both the EULA and the FAQ. Go figure; what kind of a contract is that?

. . . or is this a case of the choir preaching to the minister?

> what kind of a contract is that?

The kind most beneficial to the rich people, obviously.
And it's quite depressing to see Tiffany consistently act
as their partisan, without even realizing it really.

hhp

I guess she must be stupid, eh Hrant? -- just like everybody else on Typophile except you.

Charles_e, thanks for your comments. I find that there is an underlying issue here which I have not expressed.

In a production environment where there are several layers of service, everything has to be kosher, no modification means no modification (one could be sued, or worse, moralized at). Eulas allowing for modification make for much more efficient workflow, bringing us closer to typographical nirvāṇa. Also with digital texts increasingly being associated with the printed text, it is important to have proper unicode encoding rather than manually combining diacritical marks with letters in TeX/InDesign.

Interestingly, it is the free fonts which are working hardest to provide full diacritical complements: Gentium, Linux Libertine, Junicode, Cardo, DejaVu Sans, and others. These fonts are appearing because there is genuine frustration among scholars, which includes graduate students, who need to use diacritical characters not found in the standard fonts. For example, I know of a Buddhist Studies mailing list for scholars only, with several hundred members, and I guarantee that each one of them has some sort of non-commercial solution for writing the "n-dot-under" (in the word nirvana, above) and the other Sanskrit and Pali diacritics. This is because there are no commercial fonts available that include a full complement of diacritics. (Gentium would be a good reference point for what to include.) Scholars are not software pirates; they are generally willing to purchase things that meet their research needs. Scholars are also vain, and so there is a certain pride when the laser-printed manuscript or conference paper is printed in a nice font with all of the proper diacritics. Publishers with are increasingly asking for manuscripts in unicode. There is a definite market for reasonably priced fonts with extended diacritics.

Many software companies have academic licenses. Why not for fonts? The stipulation for educational and not commercial use would justify the necessarily low price while preventing its use by publishers and presses. A commercially licensed version could include small caps, figures, superior numbers (for footnotes, of course), etc. and be sold for a normal price.

A single good quality serif font, with the diacritics of gentium, in the standard 4 faces would be enough. It doesn't have to be the latest Sabon, but it should be a serious text font. A matched sans would be a nice option too. A tt/ot font is preferable because ms word 97, 2000, and xp have problems accessing extended character ranges in ps/ot fonts.

Nick, Tiffany isn't stupid, and neither are you. In the poser dimension however you two are on opposite sides. Anyway, just stick to labeling me a "clueless idiot" and you'll keep winning hearts.

hhp

...without even realizing it...

You don't get it, do you Hrant?
Stating that someone isn't aware of why they're doing something is hurtful.
What gives you the right to comment on people's motivations and (in your opinion) lack of self-awareness?

It's generally considered rude, and the guidelines at Typophile are:
"please conduct yourself with restraint and treat others who use these discussion boards with respect... please refrain from any personal attacks."

You have been repeatedly asked to refrain from ad hominem arguments and yet you are unable to restrain yourself.

If you disagree with what Tiffany is saying, deal with what she says, but don't put her down for being (in your opinion) unaware of what she's doing.

Nick, what "right" do you have to waste my time and whine at me?
To you I'm offensive, to me you're offensive. Now what?

And do not try to rally support for you nefarious cause by comparing your case with Tiffany's. She has many redeeming qualities, critically here including the ability to see her own faults, and the (related) ability to absorb criticism. She is not a hyper-sensitive primadonna who has hissy-fits and replaces her posts with periods as soon as I say something that violates her personal social rules. She knows that whatever those rules happen to be they cannot extend very far in a place such as this. She knows what compromise and tolerance really mean. And she has never called anybody a "clueless idiot".

The thing is, your historic issue with me is not about expressive style, it is in fact about content, and this "show restraint with personal attacks" business is pure Western formalistic scapegoating, which of course fits in predictably with your background. If you want to promulgate bad typography with impunity, do it somewhere I'm not. What I suggest instead is for you to promulgate whatever the hell junk you want wherever you want, but don't try to stifle the fallout. Your persistent whining indicates an inability to come to terms with all this, and it tells me that I am not in fact more lacking in restraint than you.

hhp

To you I’m offensive, to me you’re offensive.

The difference is that I don't psychoanalyze people I disagree with, or diss their background. You don't have a clue what goes on inside other people's heads, yet in your previous post you have presumptuously treated us all to an in-depth look at Tiffany's thoughts and emotions, and mine.
That's plain rudeness in the culture Typophile is part of.
"Show restraint from personal attacks" is a Typophile guideline which you have decided doesn't apply to you, as you say "whatever those rules happen to be they cannot extend very far in a place such as this."
Sure, I once called you a clueless idiot, but I have frequently been at my wit's end to know how to deal with your offensive comments. Most people just avoid tangling with you, because if they deny their faults, as pointed out by you, they know they will get even more of the same. Talk type, dude, stay out of people's heads.

Tiffany, not every consumer contract you sign is binding.
For example, you may have an "agreement" with your bank or insurance companies that contains illegal or unenforceable clauses.
There are many other examples that show that a EULA does not necessarily reflect the buyer's entitlements.

Isn't it true that people like Tiffany who license fonts and also point out to font vendors the nonsense, contradictory and anti-user clauses in their EULAs do more good than those who license fonts and choose to ignore parts that they don't like in the privacy of their own homes, or quasi-anonymously on typophile?

Perhaps. But isn't it true that those who raise valid points on typophile do more good than those who try to discourage them from expressing unpopular views?

No, Nick, like I said, it's not really about my "psychoanalysis", it's about me thinking that big chunks of the way you make fonts suck, and not being inclined to shut up about it. That's what you can't handle. If I were to psychonalyse you and conclude that you're fit to make the best fonts in history, you'd LOVE me!

> The difference is that ...

There are more differences, some of which are in my favor
and against you. You don't get it. You only see your side.

> I have frequently been at my wit’s end

Show some restraint.
At the very least don't hijack threads out of the blue simply to pursure your own personal agenda - it's disrespectful of Typophile, which is more than a tool for you to use any which way you like - it's a society. It is greater than you. But sadly you're too individualistic to ever grasp anything like that.

And here's another crazy idea: when you lose your wits, apologize afterwards. The fact that you pretty much never do reflects quite poorly on you. To me it means you're unfit to communicate effectively. Which is not to say I think you shouldn't try. Just stop whining already, PLEASE! It's so offensive. And you already have this on your side: http://typophile.com/node/16005

> Most people just avoid tangling with you

Convenient fabrication - the proof being that you're the only person to ever have taken up my "fruitful avoidance" offer above. Other people either don't have enough of a problem with me, or they have a problem but they don't want to lose the potential benefits of my contributions and/or they feel that it would be a dishonorable, weak-kneed cop-out. But really, most people simply don't say things I disagree with at almost every turn! You have to understand, your "design philosophy" is so whacked in my book that anything that comes out of it is likely to be offensive to me. And I owe you no favors, so I feel no need to allow you to confuse people for your own ends.

hhp

Simon, if they do do more good, then it's simply
because font houses are so vain that they listen
more to people who buy stuff from them; while in
fact good business sense says you should listen to
people who are NOT buying from you.

hhp

while in fact good business sense says you should listen to
people who are NOT buying from you.

Actually, investing in developing more sales from one's existing customers gives a better rate of return than marketing to "cold" customers.

Now to add the Hrantish Psychoanalytic Put-down:

"Understand this: if your obsession with being "top dog" requires you to pass judgement on everything, you're going to spend a lot of time completely out of your depth."

Did I get that right, maestro, or should I have thrown in a "typical of your kind" as well?

"I view EULAs as a contract in between the foundry and myself. I treat is the same as any other contract I might sign. That said: Typequake do you mind if people disregard contracts they’ve entered into with you?"

The main gripe I have is the inconsistency in how IP vendors want us to treat their wares.

If we 'steal' their IP my making a copy, then they like to equate that to physical property and want to treat us as shoplifters and counterfeiters.

However, if WE equate it to physical property and, as such, modify it any way we see fit, then they scream and claim that it's nothing like physical property and that we merely own a license to borrow it.

Darrel, many foundries permit modifications -- as long as the modified font software is not resold or used on unlicensed computers. Is that reasonable?

"Is that reasonable?"

I'd say so.

In fact that used to be the norm, but then, inspired by MS and Emigre*, most font houses ended up forbidding it outright. I don't know what the situation is now, but it seems a little bit better, and Tiffany can take partial credit for the correction.

* MS's reason is to reduce support calls. Emigre's reason is just schizophrenia.

hhp

One of the reasons I don't mind people adapting my fonts is that I've done it myself on others' fonts.

The scenario is this: a client I've worked with before wants some modifications to a font, not mine. So, do they contact the foundry to do the changes? Possibly, but there are three issues: delivery, price and quality. The original designer may not be available right now, the price may be too much, and the quality is in some respects unknown, as they haven't worked with that designer before -- quality being a result of process. Of course, none of that may be problematic, but the tendency is to contact someone you have a working relationship with.

I don't get it - so modifying a third-party font
is only objectionable if there's no money in it?

This is what I'm recalling: http://typophile.com/node/14378

Have you changed you mind since then, or is Licko indeed
untouchable in your mind? I hope (against hope) that it's
the former, especially since -as I've said- you are in fact a
better type designer than her!

> I don’t mind people adapting my fonts

"If you say so." Why did you once resist giving out an EPS of
Eunoia, to see how others would [try to] turn it into a text face?

More likely in my mind is that you're simply smart enough
not to resist the unavoidable. Quite unlike your goddess.

hhp

The adaptations I've done have been family extensions like adding weights, condensed versions, headline or agate versions.

What I object to is the idea that the typeface designer got a character shape wrong, and that it can be fixed by other people.

It's not such an issue for the more generic kinds of typefaces which have been through the mill umpteen times, but I think we should respect the integrity of recent, original designs.

"Do not fear mistakes, there are none." -- Miles Davis.

> The adaptations I’ve done have been ...

What if, for example, you're making (let's add: being paid to make)
a Cyrillic extension to a third-party Latin font, and you happen to
see something in one of the "shared" glyphs that you think is wrong?
And let's say the client wants to totally replace the original Latin with
the new multiscript font. What would you do, give the client a product
you consider inferior?

> What I object to is the idea that the typeface designer got a
> character shape wrong, and that it can be fixed by other people.

Nothing is ever perfect, especially not over time.

> we should respect the integrity of recent, original designs.

Respect a font? It's just a tool.
And what's "recent" anyway?

Do not fear improvement, even by others of what you've made.
"Revolution, go slow." — Robert Plant

hhp

What would you do...
I don't know.

A font may be just a tool, but a typeface is more than that.
It's not so much respect for the font, as respect for the designer.

While I'm not too keen on tinkering with typeface designs, a radical remix or reinterpretation is cool.

"Either go away or go all the way" --Grace Slick

Ok, credit where credit is due: Points for quoting Miles.

wizz -- just to get a bit back on topic, (for Typical), The situation with free fonts and academics can still be confusing. I'm at home & away from everything but a computer hooked to the net & almost no other software. But as I remember, Gentium's EULA forbids modification. Less sure about Junicode.

And the problem, at least in the states, is deeper than finding one good font. Academicians, if they teach in the States, want tenure. To get tenure, you usually need a couple journal publications and a book. Now a journal, if it is printed, will have a set of fonts which are always used. And a book will be designed by either an in-house or freelance designer at a university press. Will they have time (a cynic would say have the interest) to see if the font they choose for the text has the needed diacriticals or special characters? Perhaps, but don't place a heavy bet. The number of fonts suitable for a book interior containing the characters needed for transliterated Arabic or IAST is real small. I can't think of any offhand. Some of the work we get is due to this very situation.

My point is, how a manuscript appears is is valuable only for the manuscript, not for typesetting. But you are quite right -- for the author's files to be useful, Unicode should be used.

I wonder if Adobe would be interested in making up, say Minion, with the needed glyphs. Now Minion may be viewed by the designers-whose-primary-aim-is-to-impress-other-designers as "boring," but it is more than serviceable for book interiors. I have over 1,000 fonts at work, but when I design, I specify Minion reasonably often, because it fits the author's work and my understanding of the intended audience.

Things may be different along the Pacific Rim, but in much of the world, there is usually a difference between a manuscript and a finished product -- not that this is necessarily a good thing.

FWIW

Since Nov 2005, Gentium has been released under the SIL Open Font License, which allows modification and the right to distribute the derivatives. Junicode is released under the GPL, and has been for some time. The author of Junicode is very solicitous of extensions and contributions to Junicode.

I would definitely agree with Miss Tiffany here, although my heart sometimes bleeds, and temptations crawls through my arteries - when I get a license for a software, it is generally prohibited to modify the software without the constent of the person who made it. When I get a design, it is usually not allowed to modify it without the consent of the designer. Period. Unless the programmer or designer explicitly says otherwise. I know it. You all know it. I don't really care about laws here. It is common sense, it's good behaviour. We all hate other people messing with our work. Okay, I think we do. I, at least, hate it.

I sometimes pay good money for software that I my hands are just itching to re-write it. I sometimes buy fonts where I simply yearn to get in there and correct the characters, because a few of them are just BAD, spoiling the whole damn typeface.

But that's just the way it is. When people do not like something I did, I also like to tell them that they are wrong, that they have no sense for art, and that they can go to... well. I hate to find out that these people then simply "steal" the software and modify it without my consent. I hate to see them change my designs although I told them not to. It is rude. I don't want it. So I respect other people who do not want it either. Although it.... really... tempts me sometimes :-) But I resist. Go away, Darth :-)

When I get a design, it is usually not allowed to modify it without the consent of the designer.

As an occasional designer -- and somebody who knows many graphic designers -- I'd say that doesn't fit. The customer/art director/senior editor etc. will make some changes. I don't know how to say it in German, but the English word "Art" has several uses. It is sort of like art for it's own sake is art, and can be accepted or rejected (bought or not). On the other hand, something that has an aesthetic element, but where the intended purpose is something other than art, doesn't have the "don't change it" aspect of fine art.

It is that "other purpose" at issue here. So, if you don't like a typeface, don't buy it -- unless a customer insists on its use, in which case you can decline the commission, or accept it & hold your nose. But if a typeface is generally what is wanted by all, but in some small detail fails to perform its intended purpose (it is incomplete, had one really bad character, etc.), I would view that as different.

Gentium, proposed above as a solution for certain kinds of academic texts, has no ligatures, no old-style numbers, no small caps, and no kerning. That it lack a bold doesn't bother me, but would bother some. Now these aren't "small details," they move the font from once category to another. Additionally, the overall aesthetic of Gentium is less than ideal for some texts, good for others, as with any single typeface. So, Gentium solves one kind of problem for academic authors, generating a manuscript which anyone can follow. That was its purpose. It does not solve another problem, namely publishing. Having the freedom to "modify" other fonts solves this problem.

This is just one example,there are many, since it would be absurd to insist the font designer anticipates all the uses of his/her product. It doesn't even make sense to say the painter "didn't foresee the uses of their painting" -- unless you get political, where nothing make sense.

... When I get a design, it is usually not allowed to modify it without the consent of the designer. Period. Unless the programmer or designer explicitly says otherwise. I know it. You all know it.

I don't see "periods", only question marks.
I don't "know" it. I know that I don't. That's why I don't automatically accept the terms of EULAs.

And I don't know, but I get a feeling that you don't care about laws unless they serve your interest.

I didn't mean to give the impression that the manuscript is the book. I am primarily a scholar but I have done the layout for a very limited number of publications and recognize that a nice page involves more considerations than I will probably ever be aware of. My main concerns come in two areas: 1. the manuscript to print transition could be a little smoother if there were more fonts with more diacritics; 2. I am still looking for a font that will fulfill my research needs with Sanskrit diacritical letters and satisfy me aesthetically. (It looks like I will purchase one and then add the diacritics.)

On the topic of eulas, I read through a bunch of old threads on eulas (and there are many). Too bad we can't send our own eula with payment--"By accepting this payment you agree to the following terms: 1..."

Also, there was a thread a couple years ago about changing the font licensing system to pay per use. Is that still being talked about?

"Too bad we can’t send our own eula with payment—“By accepting this payment you agree to the following terms: 1…”"

I don't think anything is stopping you from that!

I once got into a heated long drawn out email debate with CSA after purchasing a CD of their stock art. After opening 8 layers of superb packaging, we pop the CD in only to realize the stock art is nothing but scanned in BMP files, which we found useless, so asked for our money back if we returned it. I then got to see the absurd wrath of Chuck explaining that as a powerful graphic design firm, us opening the packaging forever bound us to their EULA which prohibits returns.

In otherwords, by purchasing said product, we waived all rights to customer service in their mind...and how DARE we question it.

Now, I'm sure Chuck isn't as insane as he was in those emails, but for some reason, folks go into insane mode when it comes to issues of their own IP and EULAs. And consumers soon just ignore them all together just as we ignore things like 'NO TURN ON RED' when it's 2am and you are the only vehicle in a 2 mile radius on the road.

Let me ask another question about "the quality of a free font". Linux libertine has a companion, Linux Biolinum, it is described as a organic font, a serif without serifs basically, and with stroke contrast.
I think it looks nice, and i am thinking about using it in my masters paper for the headings. What is your opinion?

I agree with Charles when he says "Unobtrusive is good for long academics texts, boring is not." Maybe the font shouldn't be such a common and therefore boring one since the people reading it will be bored anyway with the content.

Maybe I'm thinking way outside of the box, but wouldn't it be cool if instead of using any of the Caslon-type fonts you're thinking of or what others are suggesting, you use something that looks very different from the average type of thing you're doing, like something out of the ordinary? That is of course unless you have a boss or client that wants to keep it conservative.

I have a few serif font suggestions that I think would look cool if used in a book:

St Ryde ($29+)

http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/stereotypes/st-ryde/

Classic Round (free)

http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/classic-round

Museo (free)

http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/Museo

Tinos (free)

http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/tinos