From the article: whereas in sans serif (literally without serif) the letter forms have clean lines without any protruding bits...

I was always under the impression that sans serif was literally "without feet".

Typophile Forums: Do journalists really matter?

That seems to be the consensus around here whenever a "devotee" of journalism discovers type culture and attempts to explain it to the ignorant masses.

I'm a 'type devotee' and I think content is the most important feature of text, and I don't think there's anything particularly subliminal about type. It's emotive, and wrapped within its cultural context. The face is a conduit of whatever aesthetic proclivities you're bringing to the table... I'm not going to finish reading that article.

If someone were to write about type design and typography to the masses, what would you want them to write about?

"I follow a lot of the graphic design community on Twitter and there were so many people querying Papyrus. They jumped on it because they think it's too flashy and gimmicky. But subtitle fonts don't matter as long as you can read them."

Did this stand out as especially ridiculous to anyone else?

Even for a no-budget indie piece, I'm completely open to spending money on a good font (especially for subtitles, since chances are you only need the Roman). He says that the font doesn't matter as long as its readable... and he says this in defense of the Papyrus choice?! I completely agree that for subtitles, legibility is concern #1—and that's exactly why Papyrus was a bad call! Well, one of the main reasons, anyway....

>under the impression that sans serif was literally "without feet".

The etymology in the Concise Oxford: "Perhaps from Dutch, schreef, dash, line."

That's like asking: Do books really matter. If not for the invention of the printing press and the artisans who followed how many books would be around today. The English statesman and philosopher Francis Bacon wrote that typographical printing has "changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world".

Unfortunately, even though innovation and mass production has improved all of our lives, it has also created the impression of uniformity. We live in a constantly changing and more complex world. As a result, we use the technology but few of us really understand it. Unless you are 'in the business', so to speak, it's difficult for many to appreciate the work that goes into creating a 'beautiful piece of furniture', a 'fine painting', an 'emotional piece of music', or for that matter, a 'typeface'.

That's why only type designers and graphic artists get excited about this wonderful craft of ours. Good typography is a labor of love. Just like a musician fine tunes his music, we love to deal with the intricacies of our craft.

I remember trying to explain to my wife what I did for a living. I remember her saying, "but, all '26 letters' of the alphabet are already made. They exist. What does a type designer do"?

And, that my friends, is what we all initially have to deal with. Oh, after I explained to her the whole picture, she finally got it. She now is my biggest fan.

And, that's what we have to do with the rest of the world. It's our job to educate them. With time, I'm sure that many will come to understand and appreciate what we do, and how we all have contributed to this wonderful medium we play in.

So, keep those great new fonts coming. I'm already working on the next one :)

Frode, not to preempt Nick, but I'd like them to write something about why the people in the accounting dept. keep asking me what font they should use in their excel spreadsheets.

But I don't particularly want to read that either.

If someone were to write about type design and typography to the masses, what would you want them to write about?

I would just like him to write well.
That means not biting off more than he can chew.
If you are going to write about the kind of issues that are discussed in specialist forums or trade journals, then you have to really narrow your focus.
This article would have been better if the writer had stuck to Papyrus in Avatar, which he discusses prominently, (although that's a bit tardy by now.)
Perhaps Bruno's new font is the most current news here in this NEWS magazine, but Helvetica too is old hat (the movie came out several years ago), and a font press release isn't really news. So that might explain the random ballooning of content. I'm surprised Comic Sans wasn't mentioned.

This is typical -- a little bit of news is stitched together with unconnected intersections between type and popular culture (e.g. Barnbrook namedrops Bowie), with a primer thrown in for good measure. And a manufactured controversy for balance and sensationalism. I mean, if your biggest naysayer source is a "Canadian blogger"...
It's just bad writing and editing.

And it wasn't even very well researched either.

What is funny is that these articles are usually written because of public outrage over the cost of some corporate typeface. Most people won't notice that BBC changed Verdana for Arial on their website. And most people wouldn't really think there is a big difference from one typeface to the next, not consciously at least. So they can't see why so much money is spent on such an insignificant aspect.

I guess articles of this nature will always seem poor to prosumers and professionals.

I have had font paralysis though. I wonder if the BBC will add it to their strangely curated list of health conditions.

I'm asking since I have a journalist friend who's been pestering me for good cases on type ever since I told him about the problems with different rendering engines.

It seems to me there has been a lot more general interest in all things type-related in the last ten years, or so. Perhaps kids born in the eighties with pirated versions of Photoshop pre-installled in their prams are just now coming of age.

But my guess is journalists would rather write about the next UPS or NBC debacle.

When I taught a course in book design, I told my students that typography is like music.
You don't have to know music theory to be moved by music. You may not know one note from another, or what syncopation means, but the music still makes you react: One tune makes you want to cry, another makes you want to dance.
Typography works the same way. You may not know Bodoni from baloney, but the choices a designer made cause you to see a page of text as easy or rigorous, old-fashioned or modern.
That's why typography matters. Readers may not respond to type the same way professional designers do, but they do respond.

Type is magical. It not only communicates a word’s information, but it conveys a subliminal message in the letter shapes themselves. That
civilizations created religious icons from letters and symbols is not without foundation. Good typography significantly increases the amount of attention a message receives. The right typeface is the basis of strong communication.
 Type alone cannot sustain a brand name or a corporate identity, but a brand with the wrong typeface will flounder helplessly trying to define itself. Type, layout, and color make up the equallateral triangle of brand identity. Like everything else in life, to be successful with type you have to first choose the right one, and then use it well.
 There is no foolproof recipe for selecting the right type for each and every purpose. Choosing the right type requires experience, intuition, and creativity. Which type best suits the headline, subhead, and copy of an ad, which for packaging design, which for technical products, and which for food–in-depth research is necessary before an informed
decision can be made. – a quotation from Stefan Rógener

The word "subliminal" is prejudicial.
Too many connotations of subliminal advertising, tricking people into buying stuff.

But really, the "subliminality" of type is no different than, say, the music in a movie soundtrack, which is a far more manipulative way to work on people's emotions.

How about hair styling? That's designed to send subconscious messages too.
But no one calls it subliminal.

All areas of design involve subconscious communication.

And if the advertising in a publication targets readers with clever manipulation of graphic imagery, how is that different than the editorial (bastion of democracy and civilization), the typography of which targets its demographic in exactly the same manner?

The word ‘subconscious’ is prejudicial.

Simpler to say that there are aspects of design that involve experiential associations that do not need to be formulated as thoughts and generally are not. This is what we mean when we say that a design evokes a sense of something. If we bothered, we could probably formulate that sense as a thought, which effectively means giving it linguistic expression. That we generally don't bother doesn't require a concept of the subliminal or the subconscious, it just means that it isn't necessary to the experience.

I noticed that the pull quote that says "When you're reading an article you're not thinking about the font". Not only does this misrepresent what was said ("When you're reading an article you're not thinking about the font consciously. It's the unconscious that has the emotional influence, as with shapes, as with colours. It is the designers job to consider the impact of all the above.") but it also puts it in the mouth of the wrong person.

More generally, I'd like to point out how much more type-positive the comments are, compared to the text. Maybe the dumbed down version was a little too dumb?

"The old Gatwick logo, in Frutiger..." hmmm, if you say so.