Take one of the display faces you are thinking of using and set it as your email and web browser default (most browsers let you over-ride the fonts specified in web pages). If you are able to survive for a 72 hours before gouging out at least one of your eyes chances are the display face is suitable for text.

I appreciate your method of deciding, even if there is a substantial risk of self injury. But what is life without some recklessness now and then. The problem is, I have to decide before buying the font. Mind you, I could try it with some comparable free display font, to give me some idea.

'Display' versions are optimized for printing at larger sizes (often 72 pt but this varies), whereas 'text' versions are optimized for text sizes. You want heavier stems, sturdier serifs, less acute angles and wider letterforms at smaller sizes. If you haven't purchased these fonts yet, is it fair for me to surmise that you're basing your observations on samples you've been looking at on the vendor's website? If so, you're probably looking at the faces at larger sizes to begin with, or are looking at text-sized samples as rendered by your browser. Since WYSIWYG isn't really WYSIWYG, I'd recommend downloading a .pdf sample (if one is available) and printing it out.

André

Also display faces tend to have tighter letterspacing whereas text needs to be a bit more open. But who knows what you actually get in any given font?

Maybe if you show us the typeface, we can tell you why it’s called “display”.

It now appears that there are several typefaces I am considering that have so called display versions, and frankly, I cannot detect any difference. I wondered if there was a general difference between text and display fonts, and there is no sense in saddling generous responders with the task of reviewing multiple fonts for me. I think I will just go with my intuition, which tells me that if used with care, some display fonts can work for text. I remain grateful for the help from all typophile members who have been kind enough to respond my many questions.

Print out a paragraph of Bodoni 72 at 11/13 point, say a 25 pica line. The same with Times New Roman or Adobe Garamond. Are they equally easy to read? And I don't mean look at the letters, I mean read.

Thanks for the suggestion William, but my poor old MS Works does not have Bodoni to compare to Times New Roman, or the capacity to change the weight of the font beyond making things bold, but I have to admit that I might not be the best judge for this kind of test anyway. I have very good vision, to the point that I can comfortably read the compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (20 volume OED in one book, comes with magnifier!) at normal distance. At 11-13 point, I would enjoy reading the display typestyles I am scouting out, but your suggestion has made me realize that I will also have to consider the reading comfort for any target audience.

John N., doing this exercise or something like it is essential to understanding how type works, IMHO. I think you are confusing visual acuity and readability. They are different.

After thinking about it further, you are right. I was not considering readability, which is indeed something different than merely being able to distinguish what something says, particularly in brief. I will spend some time comparing various serif fonts that I do have, with extended reading, to see how readability varies. It's unfortunate that book publishers rarely if ever name the font used in books. It would be great to be able to just pull them off the shelf and see what's what.

On another front, I did observe the main differences between a text and display font, and it was as David indicated. I opened up two fonts.com windows side by side with sample text from the same font and size, one being display and the other being text. The characters themselves appeared identical, but the spacing between words is indeed smaller, and so is the spacing between lines.

Your samples may appear the same on screen only. A typical Display font is tweaked to have slightly thinner verticals, because it's intended to be used at larger sizes (this definition of "larger" is left to the type designer). So it's possible your screen just doesn't show the subtle changes.

Do the same exercise with a large point size and print it out on a high rez laser printer.

(There are some "Display" fonts that are not simply tweaked variants for larger sizes. The Display style of Aller Sans, for example, has quite a unique design of its own.)

> I think I will just go with my intuition, which tells me that
> if used with care, some display fonts can work for text.

Only the ones that are mislabeled as "display". :-)

Most any typographically savvy person will tell you that a font
that works well large cannot work well small, and vice versa.
Where you will find a divergence of views however is whether
there's some sort of qualitative threshold between "text" and
"display", or it's just one continuous scale. I myself am of the
former mentality.

hhp

I made the comment before observing the significant difference in spacing, although I will take refuge in the idea that any display fonts that might work for text -according to my intuition- reside in that part of the continuum that makes up the qualitative threshold to which you refer ;-)

> Most any typographically savvy person will tell you that a font
that works well large cannot work well small, and vice versa.

No, I'd challenge the «vice versa». I've used text fonts for display to (I think) convincing effect. They may not look as «pretty» as faces made expressly for display sizes; but pretty isn't always what's needed. I think at display sizes you're really quite free to do whatever works or looks right in a given context.
But yes, display fonts for text, indeed do not work. They need more size to show off their beauty. Not only are they not optimized for reading, they're not optimized for even being reproduced at the smaller sizes typical for text – which may lead to undesired effects upon printing (such as looking too thin/fragile, for example).

Good point (although the looseness of text
typically does need to be "fixed" for display).

hhp

Yes, good point.

I agree with Nina about text fonts often working for display, but generally not visa versa. I would add that I think whether a text font works well in display is not a measure of how good it is as a text font. I don't think my Williams Caslon Text works well as a display font, though Boston Magazine occasionally used it at large size. The bold versions work ok, but not great, as display, in my opinion. Of course I think it works great at text size.

Times New Roman is to me an example of a great text type where you can just scale up to large sizes, and it still works. I think this is because of its sharp serifs and high contrast. The very oblique old style slant keeps the high contrast from hurting it too much as a text type, and the high contrast keeps working at large sizes. I've seen some say here that Times 10 is better for text, but I haven't done the comparison.

>Most any typographically savvy person will tell you that a font
>that works well large cannot work well small, and vice versa.

Nonsense.

Richard, what are some of your favorite text and display fonts?

hhp

A lot depends on scale.
For instance, a “display” font will work well at small size in a small document viewed closely—the most stringent measurement of apparent size being arc of vision.

By a different token, “display” fonts will work better and smaller on coated stocks, rather than on uncoated stock or pixel screens.

Conversely, “text” fonts will work well at display size when fit is tightened, by decreasing tracking and adjusting kerning accordingly.
Also, such ostensibly “text” fonts are to be preferred for headlines in hard-to-read media, such as billboards and signage.
Again, their broad readability may be leveraged in deliberately low-contrast situations, such as color-on-colour, and surprinting the “noise” of patterns or images.

Context is king, and the typographer the highest authority.

This is not to say that the distinction between Text and Display is arbitrary, merely provisional; and to these categorical poles must be added the interim designation of Deck.

>the typographer [is] the highest authority

A typographer hopefully has expertise. But a typographer can get it wrong, and radically wrong. The typographer can't dictate good reader experience, which is the ultimate goal and test. Expertise, yes, authority, no.

Letterforms intended for text may very well look “ugly” and unbalanced at close inspection, but at text size – with ink spread and all the variables of the human eye – they take on a whole new appearence. In fact (and take this with a grain of salt — I’m still learning), I suspect one of the true virtues of a great designer of text faces is the ability to look beyond the isolated beauty of an “a” or a “g” and rather perfect the word shape and rythm.

Display type is a whole other beast.

Serif typefaces seem to benefit more from display and text versions than sans typefaces do, probablythis has to do with the detailing and the amount of contrast. I have seen very few sans families that have text and display versions (if any). But it also depends on the kind of medium used; Posters with a photographic motif can make life hard for a fine display font, here a text cut might work better, as it will also be seen from a distance. Also printing conditions matter, as well as paper.

Sans faces are often done in many weights, and sometimes many widths as well. The different weights can be used for different sizes, with tracking. So they don't need to be labelled a much.

Serif faces usually have much more modulation in stroke, as well has more horizontal elements, and bracketing. All these don't visually scale with linear changes in the outline, so more adjustment is needed. Could it be that these very features that don't scale as easily are the ones which help readability in text? Interesting question, I think.

Also, sans-text is an oxymoron anyway.

hhp

These days, whether we approve or not, sans get used in text. Not so much in traditional book usage, but in brochures and technical materials. The web has brought about a great deal more sans text as well. Serifs are more difficult to render properly at screen resolution. I see no reason why not to make a sans, that addresses that market, read as well for text as it can. Contrast is by nature less of a problem than with roman faces but the width adjustment can still be an issue. When a foundry releases a face that fits the bill and markets it well, it gets used--even if they do not label it as "Text" or "Display." I think most type buyers take a spin around the block and kick the tires before they settle on a what they might use it for.

As my dad is fond of saying:
You can call your daughter George but that won't make her a boy.

hhp

(Although I've heard that calling your son Sue will make him a man.)

Many jobs, both boys and girls can do ;-)

@Bill: Expertise, yes, authority, no.

Of course the typographer has the authority, or power, to determine how effective a font is—you concur by saying that he/she can “get it wrong”.

By being able to vary the parameters of how a font is set, the typographer assumes the primary authorship of reader experience.

However, there are default and standard settings that provisionally remove some of that authority.

> to determine how effective a font is

Not "determine".

hhp

Why not?
Sure, tools have their own functionality, but the user determines have effective that is in practice.
For instance, both Richardson and Philips head screwdrivers have functionality, but how effective they will be on any given screw head depends on the user’s determination of what is appropriate. And those too come in size-specific variants.

It should go without saying that somebody choosing a font
does not determine how well it works, no matter his expertise.

hhp

If you hand a scalpel to me and the same tool to a brain surgeon, does not our ability determine how well we use it?

My hope is that you never ask me to perform an operation ;-)

Skill determines how well it's used, but not how suited it is to the task.

hhp

Hrant: "It should go without saying that somebody choosing a font
does not determine how well it works, no matter his expertise."

I might agree with this if it was worded thus:
"It should go without saying that somebody choosing a font
does not determine how well it can work, no matter his expertise."

Meaning: The upper limit of functionality* is fixed, by the quality inherent in the font. Even in the hands of the best typographer, a font that's bad for text won't work better than it inherently is. (Even this might be debatable in some instances, but it pretty much makes sense, to me.)
Conversely, of course it's obvious that anything can be made to work worse than it inherently/potentially could. I could ruin any functionality of any typeface you hand me by setting it with negative leading, tiny, in dark grey on black, &c.

(* meaning the functionality of the whole setting, being the end result that the reader sees.
(Sorry, I'll stop editing now.))

When I said expertise yes, authority, no, I meant that the typographer does not dictate user experience. That is constrained and influenced not only by what the typographic designer does but also by physiological, psychological, and cultural factors in the individual reader. So the typographer can help or screw up, and is not automatically right, no matter who they are. Also their power to determine how the text looks is often constrained by editors, art directors, etc.

>Richard, what are some of your favorite text and display fonts?

You wouldn't know their names.

I have books. And Google. Shoot.

hhp

Here's how I really know that what you wrote is nonsense:

Every month I'm given a group of fonts for the upcoming issue of Kernest Konstellations.
I am given them "blind". I do not know how or at what sizes designer Garrick Van Buren is going to use the fonts.
I just get fonts, that's it.

Nearly every month, I am completely surprised that at least one font that I would swear up and down is CERTAINLY going to be used for body text gets used as a display font and it looks great.
(And Garrick's university degree is in graphic design. He knows all about categories of fonts and historical usage and all that.)

Besides, without any idea of the context - the kind of design, the kind of media, the design's purpose, the target audience - how can anybody make the statement that a font MUST be either one thing or the other?

I give you names of fonts to decide this? Hey, cut it out.

How about this: you have better taste than I do. Everybody on typophile has better taste than me. OK? So what looks more right to your sensibilities is therefore correct.
That settles it, I would imagine.

To my observation, the issue of a display font not working for text has nothing to do with the font per se. The problem with display fonts for use in text appears to be in spacing. The display fonts I looked at simply did not provide enough space between words and lines to be legible.

As one who is still very new to typestyles, what is most peculiar to me is the lack of control offered to the user in typical word processors with regard to line and word spacing. This is as important as the characters themselves. Another peculiarity is how few typestyles are distinguished as being designed for text or display.

So Richard, John N., you guys think that Curlz is just as good as Times New Roman for say 10/12 pt text printed at a measure of 27?

> I give you names of fonts to decide this?

No, you give me names of fonts so I can prove you're wrong.
And this has nothing to do with taste. If I'm a snob, it's firmly
within the subvisible realm of functionality.

John, two things to consider:
- The spacing between letters is inexorably interwoven with
the spacing within letters; you can't just make things tighter
or looser. It might help, but it's not the real deal.
- Spacing variance is indeed huge in terms of optimal usage size,
but there are other things, such as contrast, apertures, etc.

hhp

That makes sense hrant, but I might still surmise that spacing is the most significant factor that governs whether a display font can be used for text, at least within a given typestyle. The issue was most glaring when I looked at New Haas Grotesk. It is available in 15, 25, 35, and 45 weight in display only, and is very similar to Neue Helvetica 25, 35, 45, except the spacing is obviously too tight for text. Neue Helvetica in the lighter weights does work for text. Did I merely stumble upon an anomaly among typestyles that happen to have display and text fonts? And is it safe to assume that if a given font does not have the word display or titling in its name that it is indeed a text font?

William, I have only examined display fonts for possible text use, and not the other way around. Regardless, curlz does not quite work as an example, as it is clearly unsuitable for text.

John N., you said "issue of a display font not working for text has nothing to do with the font per se."

Now you say "curlz does not quite work as an example, as it is clearly unsuitable for text."

So you have now changed your mind, and are saying that indeed a display font, Curlz, is unsuitable for text because of the way this font is designed. Right?

Good eye on the apparent incongruence between those two statements. Sometimes we make statements based on assumptions, particularly when we are new to a given field. It seems obvious to me that certain fonts are display by virtue of their ornate design, like Curlz, and yet others present ambiguity precisely because they appear conventional, and I was under the impression that the distinction was self evident. In addition, I have to trust the reader knows or can figure out what I mean when I use the descriptor conventional.

I am not changing my mind, I am merely trusting the reader to make the more obvious distinctions that I cannot be expected to explain with perfect precision.

After rereading your last sentence, in one way, I changed my mind.

John —

I suggest you use the term "typeface" or simply "face" to talk about individual designs. What a "typestyle" might mean is ambiguous.

E.g., "Curlz is my favorite typeface (or face)!" "The Curlz family (or type family) is highly extensive, comprising one font."

Interestingly, the term to refer to styles of calligraphy is "hand." I've always thought it's suggestive that type comes in "faces" but calligraphy comes in "hands."

Traditionally, the "three Fs" worked like this:

A type family (e.g., Times) comprised all the versions of that design, and would have been stored in several cabinets in a letterpress shop.
A type face (e.g., Times italic) was one version of that design, and would have been stored in a single cabinet.
A type font (e.g., 10pt Times italic) was one size of one face, and lived in a single case (drawer) in the type cabinet.

Nowadays, the terms can kind of mean anything, with "font" doing duty for all of them. But "typeface" is usually the way to refer to a specific design.

Sorry to slightly hijack the thread — I thought you had another thread on terms going, but it seems to have gone away. And now back to your scheduled programming.

O.K. Thanks.

I like the erudite intellectuals who misuse the term in ways that are quite hopeless:
Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow. “…90% of the students who saw the CRT in normal font…”
Cute, but what was his editor thinking?