Typophile

node 6846

I think You might get a laugh out of this. I have decided to rearrange the fonts at my new place of employment. At present there is a load of free "fonts", conflicts, broken families and to make matters worse, most of them are catagorised alphabetically! Urrgh. So I have devised a new method of catagorisation for the mess. Bear in mind that the others using the fonts aren't really typographically aware and "real" classifications would probably make it worse.

sans�humanist
sans�geometric
sans�rubbish
serif�slab
serif�traditional
serif�rubbish
display
display�hand/brush
display�dingbats
display�pen
display�rubbish
rubbish.

Whaddya think?

unknown

I certainly like all of your rubish categories� rubish is such a funny word.

Whay about blackletter, uncial, scripts, etc.?

Ans isn't serif traditional too vague? How about something like:
Serif Renaissance
Serif Garamond (gerald?)
Serif Transitional
Serif Modern (Didone)
Serif 20th Century [bad] revivals
Serif 20th Century [good] revivals (that don't fit in any of the above categories)
Serif 20th Century original (Perpetua, Times New Roman, Goergia, etc.)
Serif ca. 21st Century (new serifs that are not revivals of anything and that don't fit in any of the above categories)

unknown

I really like the "Rubbish" selections. I use a similar but shorter (perhaps only American slang) term for fonts I must keep around even if they suck. These are my "Crap" fonts :-)

unknown

� Ans isn't serif traditional too vague? �

It is. But, bear in mind, that I am not the only one using this system, it is for general usage. It is a little unprofessional, but I don't really have time to teach the full classification!

I actually forgot one catagory:

serif�modern.

� Whay about blackletter, uncial, scripts, etc.? �

These come under display�pen, because they are generally formed. Crude, yes. Workable, probably! We'll see. I'll keep you informed about how useful it is!

kris.

unknown

I classified my fonts some time ago like this:

-Calligraphic (Bickham Script)
-Display (Impact)
-Gothic (Cloister Black)
-Ornamental (Chiller)
-Paragraph
--Serif
---Humanist (Centaur)
---Garalde (Janson)
---Royale (Baskerville)
---Didone (Walbaum)
---Mechanical (Egyptian)
---Incised (Optima)
---Contemporary (Charter)
--Sans
---Geometrical (Futura)
---Humanist (Syntax)
---Grotesques (Akzidens Grotesk)
---"Gothics" (Franklin Gothic)
--Monospaced (Courier)
-Pixel (Unibody)
-Symbols (Windings)
-My beloved ones
-Anything Else

Of course that this classification is historically prejudiced but by classifying first by a "use" criteria I could filter everything that wasn�t useful and then by the historical classification (only in the paragraph section) I could distinguish fonts by their form qualities.

But as this broke up families and gave me trouble with some types being contemporary sans serif didones I still have some scrambled font folders.</font>

unknown

Speaking of classification, there's something interesting brewing:
http://www.atypi.org/news_tool/news_html?newsid=202&from=/

hhp

unknown

Atypi: � In each of these domains, the patent-pending Type-Expertise system can add value by making the selection, purchase and installation of the right font take place more effectively. �

I really hate the phrase "add value", it is such marketing laden jargon. But the idea sounds interesting!

Captured from web.archive.org on 9 Jan 2007. view this capture