Talk:Typography/Archive 1

Archive 1

How to write this article

Good writing is simple and easy to understand.

You don't need to say any more. Don't turn it into meta-twaddle.

Avoid

• wordiness & writerliness
• clumsy & complex orthography, la de da expressions eg: 'typographical' is better off as 'typographic', 'cojoined' is a la de da form of 'joined'
• Meta-twaddle, ie: raves about the profound nature of digital type in terms of 'paradigm shift' and the 'Gutenburgian' nature of it all.
• cliched words, phrases and trendy neologisms

James 17:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Digital typography

Text on the web

Low resolution challenge, grid-fitted fonts and bitmaps,

James 19:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Call for typography samples

If you're a graphic designer, artist, typesetter et al, please feel free to submit typography samples and typographic art.

Article needs:

• text typography
• title work
• display typography
• logos, headings, posters etc
• abstract pieces

Please save your image as a PNG file. JPG is not suitable for quality graphic artwork.

Please only use fonts you have a legit license to use. Images must not violate copyright, ie: it must be your design/artwork or you must have permission from the originator to reproduce it on Wikipedia. If you do not posess a license to use a particular font, please do not submit any artwork made with it. Artwork made from fonts supplied with software you purchased is fine.

This page tells you how to upload an image.

James talk 17:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: this restriction doesn't make any sense and is just silly. Fonts can't be copyrighted; only the code that draws the font can be, but a PNG file is just an image, containing no font code, therefore it cannot possibly violate anybody's copyright, whether or not the person who produced it had a license to use the font. (And if it could, the producer's license to use the font wouldn't allow Wikipedia to publish it!) The person using the font he doesn't have a license for may be violating some law, but uploading it to Wikipedia and publication of the image by Wikipedia violates none.

Structure

This article is getting quite long, and the structure seems to still be off. The history section is dominating the entire article, without enough general discussion of the field early on. Separation into a new article "History of typography" of the existing history tree would be a very good idea, with a short summary left on the Typography page, and a link Main article: History of typography. The history also fails to account for any typography outside of the western (roman script) world. For example, typographic design is probably the most important visual art of the Islamic world, with spectacular examples ranging from the cover of the Qur'an to the Hezbollah flag.

What I would strongly suggest is a discussion of the techniques of typography/typesetting. From talk of font selection, let's expand a little bit about the pros and cons of sans/serif/script/display faces. Let's talk about leading and tracking with regard to readability. Let's mention important concepts such as typographic colour (and spell colour with a U till the Americans turn up), widows and rivers. What about alignment? The pluses and minuses of flush vs justified? Tidying up a ragged edge? All these should go in early on, because these are (to my knowledge) some of the fundamentals of typography.

Then carrying on with whole sections like typographic logos (some Paul Rand examples would be accessible and look cool), and type metaphors A section on poster layouts (anything that is predominantly type..), a study if you will of how type interacts with the space around it.

These are the sorts of things I'd like to see in the article; the day-to-day activities of a typographer.

In terms of a section on digital typography, I think that's an article on it's own, and we shouldn't explain Apple MacIntoshes, ASCII, and Unicode on this page. A separate article would allow better discussions on the technologies, rather than the artform, which this page should be focused on. Imagesetters, laserwriters, PostScript, TTF & OTF... it's all important to digital typography, but not something for this article. Such a page is something I would consider making a large contribution to.

Three more things: One, typography is a visual art, so lets also visually tidy up the page, yes? It's bloody ugly. Secondly, Usher_building.png. This is cited as an example of "Text typeset using digital page layout software". MS Word shouldn't be used for examples in the article "typography". Look at those kerns, especially with regard to the i's and l's when they sit between two uprights... awful. I know that it isn't an example of kerning, but still, regenerating the image in indesign with optical kerning would be a nice idea. Finally, the greek origin of the word typography should be contracted to take up less space. It destroys the readablity of the first sentence of the article. Not a good start.

--Bb3cxv 15:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bb3cxv. Many thanks for your suggestions and observations. Input like yours is much valued. I hope you don't mind me tackling things point-by-point. It's only for accuracy.

This article is getting quite long, and the structure seems to still be off.

The structure is off mainly because it isn't finished yet. I wrote the bulk of the text, made some of the samples, then quit working on it because of the absurd things that happen at WP. Happily I'm back working on this one again. Nonetheless completing it will be a lengthy drawn-out process. Outside my full-time job most of my spare time is spent making fonts, leaving little time to work on WP. Some would say if that's the case I should not work on the article at all. Good point, but if had I not made the contributions I have made typography would still be the stub it was when I found it. To see what I mean, examine the article's edit history back to before my first edit.

Long ago I posted a template request for contributions from type industry professionals, but there hasn't been much response, probably because most of them have the same constraints on their time. The paradox: typographers and type designers are well-qualified on this subject, but barely have time to write about it.

Separation into a new article "History of typography" of the existing history tree would be a very good idea, with a short summary left on the Typography page, and a link Main article: History of typography.

Ooh, umm, I dunno. Maybe it's a very good idea, maybe not. Separating the history from discussion of typography as practiced could make the main article more palatable for some readers. Give me a week to think about it and I'll get back to you on that.

I've thought about it and posted a merge proposition on the merge proposition on the Typeface talk page supporting a cut & paste of the History section into Typeface, if you would like to comment.

Arbo 16:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC) @

The history also fails to account for any typography outside of the western (roman script) world. For example, typographic design is probably the most important visual art of the Islamic world, with spectacular examples ranging from the cover of the Qur'an to the Hezbollah flag.

If you can help recruit a writer with expert knowledge of Islamic typography, please do. I only know the history of western typography (by roman script you mean Latin alphabet).

What I would strongly suggest is a discussion of the techniques of typography/typesetting. From talk of font selection, let's expand a little bit about the pros and cons of sans/serif/script/display faces. Let's talk about leading and tracking with regard to readability. Let's mention important concepts such as typographic colour (and spell colour with a U till the Americans turn up), widows and rivers. What about alignment? The pluses and minuses of flush vs justified? Tidying up a ragged edge? All these should go in early on, because these are (to my knowledge) some of the fundamentals of typography.

You've been reading my mind ;^) Over the past week I've been roughing out just the kind of text you describe. Can't make any promises for a delivery date. BTW: no point quibbling about Oxford versus Webster spellings. "colour" would simply get edited over and over "color" > "colour" > "color" > "colour" > "color"...on and on. At Wikipedia, the mob rules.

Then carrying on with whole sections like typographic logos (some Paul Rand examples would be accessible and look cool), and type metaphors A section on poster layouts (anything that is predominantly type..), a study if you will of how type interacts with the space around it.

A section on display type, and another on editorial/book cover design are in there, with some text, altho they need much more delineation and detail, and samples. You could help by getting hold of some Paul Rand samples (non-copyvio) uploading them and putting them into the relevant sections. If I devote time to chasing up samples like that myself the delay in writing the rest of the text will be even longer. The only way of speeding up the completion is to have more people working on the article—much like NASA did with the Apollo moon landing program.

Duh! (I could have looked, couldn't I?) Now that I've looked at the Paul Rand article I see we already have some samples of his logos and other designs. They can go into Tpography any time. Thanks for the lead.

These are the sorts of things I'd like to see in the article; the day-to-day activities of a typographer.

If you really want to see that, visit Typophile.com, register as a user and post a thread imploring typographers to pitch in on this project. So far I'm one of only two type professionals who have taken the time out and put in some effort.

In terms of a section on digital typography, I think that's an article on it's own, and we shouldn't explain Apple MacIntoshes, ASCII, and Unicode on this page. A separate article would allow better discussions on the technologies, rather than the artform, which this page should be focused on. Imagesetters, laserwriters, PostScript, TTF & OTF... it's all important to digital typography, but not something for this article. Such a page is something I would consider making a large contribution to.

Desktop publishing >> exists. If you would like to write more material for it—yes please! It needs help.

Typography is a visual art, so lets also visually tidy up the page, yes? It's bloody ugly.'

It's tough to make this ideal stick. WP's page layout engine does certain things automatically that result in less-than-ideal layouts. I originally aligned all the pics on the right, as this is the general pattern of WP. To be completely consistent typographically the pics would be left-aligned in tune with the text setting. That's the ideal a typographer might strive for.

I originally set the image sizes and positions in the Typography article for a satisfying and harmonious page layout, then almost straight away an editor removed the size specs from the image tags, causing the layout to collapse. He reasoned that if an image is coded with the "thumb" parameter it shouldn't have a pixel size spec because that overrides users' default thumbnail settings. Possibly he was concerned solely with technical matters, not realizing that some editors size images for aesthetic effect or layout purposes where required, and without the "thumb" parameter images are rendered frameless and text cannot be inserted into the frame.

This kind of thing goes on constantly, and after a while you learn what folly it is trying to combat it. I've sized most of the pics so that the page looks okay again (1st September 2006). We'll wait and see what happens. Think I'll put a notice at the top of this talk page asking users not to alter the pic sizes, with reasons why. The type samples need to be large to show the typography in sufficient detail.

...Usher_building.png. This is cited as an example of "Text typeset using digital page layout software". MS Word shouldn't be used for examples in the article "typography". Look at those kerns, especially with regard to the i's and l's when they sit between two uprights... awful. I know that it isn't an example of kerning, but still, regenerating the image in indesign with optical kerning would be a nice idea.

The best way to address a quality issue with a Wikipedia image is to leave a message on the talk page of the Wikipedian who made it.

version 3 of Usher sample, improved rendering

I just found out I made a mistake with that Usher sample—it was rendered in Word, not Acrobat. I've replaced it with a new version, rendered in Acrobat which handles sub-pixel positioning on-screen much better than Word.

Detailed discussion on the Usher sample is archived here:Talk:Typography/discussions_on_readability

Finally, the greek origin of the word typography should be contracted to take up less space. It destroys the readablity of the first sentence of the article. Not a good start.

Rather than removing the etymology I've moved it down to the Typography#Etymology & Scope section.

Once again, thanks for your many constructive suggestions. It's rare that I get anything like it on this article.

Arbo 12:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC) @

Edit to Display typography

It seems incorrect to say that "color and size are more prevalent". I think you mean size variations or large sizes are more prevalent. It doesn't make sense to say that "size" alone is more prevalent. What kind of size? Large size,average size, great size? Size is always present, you need to give it value. It works to say that color is more prevalent, but not in the same way for size.

I tried to make the smallest change possible that clears up the intended meaning of that sentence. I agree that my revision needed some work, but counterproductive? I'm not so sure.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lingchop (talk • contribs) .Please always sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your name and the date so that others will know who left which comments.

Hi Lingchop. 1st thing, thanks for correcting my bad grammar, converting "is" to "are". Normally I'm a much better wordsmith and I like to be corrected.

The very next sentence in that section explained what the first one omitted (for clarity):

"Color and size of type elements are much more prevalent than in text typography. Display typography exploits type at larger sizes, where the details of letter design are magnified."

It seemed comprehensible enough in the first place. The focus of the sentence isn't on variations in size and color; it's about the use of type at large sizes, in color (as opposed to the black ink of text typography). Variations of size seems implicit in "size". I think you misunderstood the paragraph.

Sorry I said "counterproductive" in my edit summary. I mainly meant the vandal 124.176.172.38 who showed up before you.

Arbo talk 15:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge history section of Typography into >> Typeface

(moved from below)

I'd say that this article should be split now, as most of it is about type or type-founding, and only a very little is about typography. It's not that I don't like the content, but it doesn't go with the article title. —Thomas Phinney 08:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thomas. I've posted a merge proposition on the Typeface#Talk page supporting this, if you would like to weigh in.

Arbo 16:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC) @

A better option suggested by Bb3cxv is to break out the history section into a stand-alone article: History of Typography. I'm going ahead with that now. The merge with Font proposal has been up for 4 weeks and attracted no comments.

Arbo talk 14:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done! See new article:>> History of Typography

Arbo talk 15:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbo, have you cleaned up what's left behind here of the history?-- I just found it by accident.DGG 04:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you mean the short History section, or POV-aligning that to the History of type page, I can't see any historical material in this article, apart from the reference to Beatrice Ward's Crystal Goblet essay, which is a contemporary topic.

Arbo talk 05:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I guess you meant why is the History section still in this article. I wrote that as a short summary just for Typography, for readers who want a basic idea of where typography came from without having to read the full history article.

Arbo talk 09:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Non-standard letters" in see also section

Clubmarx, what do you mean "non-standard letters"? [1]. It's an article about typography and the origin of each letter is relevant, surely. I assume you took them out on good faith, but I disagree with the edit.
Arbo talk 09:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

Uncivil talk, cranks, trolls & disruptive behaviour on this talk page will be removed on-sight..

• material added must be citable and verifiable
• this article uses advanced text typography and large pictures to illustrate its visual subject. Contributors are asked to preserve these features to keep Wikipedia's typography and related articles at the cutting edge of wikitypography. Devices like ampersands and emdashes are used—where appropriate and effective. Please do not over-use them. See: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:Use common sense.
• Please do not add any more material to the History section. It's a short section with a link to the main type history article. It is complete and does not need expansion. Thanks!
  

Arbo talk 09:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Inscriptional and architectural lettering

There is a good deal of advertising in this section, I ask Arbo and others whether there is a more specific term for this topic, or a better place--what is here seems out of proportion.DGG 03:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Whichever bits you think are spam, remove or refactor them.

There is no more specific term for the topic "Inscriptional and architectural lettering", other than "Epigraphy". One editor recently tried to include that term in the section header but I took it out on the grounds it's not the most commonly used term. WP style guide recommends we use the most common names and terms.

"Out of proportion" You mean off-topic? To the layman it may seem that way. To typographers and type designers inscriptional lettering is very much a current part of the study of typography, and intimately connected with the design of letters in typefaces. We regard all forms of lettering, including signage, as one or another form of typography. If you're sceptical of that view ask at http:\\www.typophile.com\

If it still seems out of place, you're free to break the section out into an article on its own. I don't mind.

Arbo talk 07:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If I can think of a good place I will but epigraphy is the term 'I would recognize as specific. DGG 06:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

GlooGun

Fair use rationale for Image:USAToday.jpg

Image:USAToday.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What's a "lay person"?

Wouldn't it be a better idea to use a word like neophyte? Just a suggestion from a neophyte linguist. -Matt 16:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A "lay person" or "layman" is a person without expert knowledge of a given specialized subject. "neophyte" means a person who is new to a given subject. Now that you know what "lay person" means you can accept it is a more appropriate term than "neophyte".

Arbo talk 11:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Typography terms template

I have created Template:Typography terms and added it to the relevant pages; please correct it if I have made any errors or omissions. Max Naylor 18:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Max I will look at that when I get the opportunity.

Arbo talk 16:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

readability and legibility

Would these be appropriate references for the "readability and legibility" section? --76.209.28.72 00:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Reading Online Text: A Comparison of Four White Space Layouts" by Barbara Chaparro, J. Ryan Baker, A. Dawn Shaikh, Spring Hull, & Laurie Brady
• "Readability Of Websites With Various Foreground/Background Color Combinations, Font Types And Word Styles" by Alyson L. Hill
• wiki:TenWordLine
• "How Users Read on the Web" by Jakob Nielsen 1997

---

This material is more suited to a page on online display than here., which deals almost entirely with print and similar fixed media. I'm not sure about the right page, though. (do we even have one?)

But otherwise the first two & the 4th are ok, though if the essays have been formally published, that should be added. The third is a multi-party discussion on a wiki, and I'm not so sure. DGG 02:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

---

The current description of legibility and readability on the wiki is rather incorrect; readability is not solely the province of the language itself. This is from http://www.graphic-design.com/Type/fonteam/index.html : Legibility is that characteristic of the type face that allows the eye to distinguish one character from the other. In some fonts, the actual shapes of some letters cause the face to have a depreciated legibility. For instance, setting Avant Garde very tight in smaller sizes certain combinations of letters become illegible -- like a lower case 'i' next to another straight, upright caracter like an 'l' or 't'. Legibility is built in to the font by the designer. It is something we can do nothing about -- it's beyond the graphic designers' control. Readability is the relative ease with which a face can be read when characters are arranged in words, sentences, and paragraphs. Unlike legibility, readability in typesetting is at the mercy of the typographer or graphic designer setting the type. You can take a highly legible face and set it so it's totally unreadable. It actually happens a lot. 71.88.203.4 (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cruft comments in "History" subsection

The "History" section of this article contains significant comment material (987 characters worth) that may be more appropriate in the talk page. The extra line of whitespace that results is quite ironic given the subject of the article. Can we get rid of the comments? Looking at the talk page, I realise there's probably a bit of history here, so can we have an agreement? Ref: [[2]] Mark5677 11:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Mark. That's fixed now.

Arbo talk 16:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Excised historical material

Typography traces its origins to the first punches and dies used to make seals and currency in ancient times. Typography with Moveable type invented by Pì Shēng (Traditional Chinese: 畢昇; Simplified Chinese: 毕升, pinyin: Bì Shēng; died 1052) was the inventor of moveable type printing in between 1041 to 1048 in China. modular moveable metal type began in 13th-century Korea, and was developed again in mid-15th century Europe with the development of specialized techniques for casting and combining cheap copies of letterpunches in the vast quantities required to print multiple copies of texts. Why mention Pi Sheng but not Gutenberg, whose achievement was of much greater significance? Moveable type is covered in detail in Moveable type

the reason for this was that Brittanica et al usually interpreted the term "typography" in the most general way to include to include the development of printing techniques in general. I always thought it a little odd, but I think we need to consider this more broadly in terms of the distinctions--to me, the common sense term for the general topic is printing. DGG (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

concerns about 9/11 memorial?

Seems overly specific for a general article on typography. ⇔ ChristTrekker 00:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to Serif / Sans Serif Pages

Just a quick comment for those of you that are more savvy than I. In the Readability and Legibility section, there's a great deal of talk regarding serifs vs sans serifs, before finally a quick explanation of what they are. This isn't the wikipedia way. Link to them instead so people can look them up if needed. It's fairly common knowledge, I think...

I'd do it, but I don't really have the know how, and I'm in a rush at the moment, so I leave it to you..or not.

Thanks for the comment. Links now provided. When I've a little more time, too, I'll look for more links to make. (Thesimpleton 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

First post simply meant that the explanation for serif/sans was superflous. I'm going to remove the explanation, and if anyone objects, they are free to discuss it here Tedeh (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cogent typography

Has anyone here heard of Cogent justification? It's when you range left and then track out the lines to make a pleasing text shape. Canthisbejoel (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you know of a published, reliable source describing cogent justification as a technique used by typographers, with details of how many people use it and in what kind of publications, provide the details and a description, post here on the talk page, then we can look at putting it into the article text. Thanks for contributing! — Arbo talk 11:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Whitespace claim

"English textbooks are most readable when laid out with 20% whitespace on the page"

This claim was made on readability; can anyone verify it? -- Beland (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a dubious claim at best. But then again, the claim is meaningless until one first defines what "20% whitespace" means. I have seen very old studies (Tinker, perhaps?) which found that, with some very specific metal typefaces, 2 points of leading was ideal for reading in print. That's not quite the same thing as "20% white space." (Side note: Microsoft Typography blog post last year on the subject of line spacing last year actually made some pretty basic errors because the writer assumed that Word was doing line spacing based solely on point size.) Thomas Phinney (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Readability and legibility are often confused. Practitioners and commentators over generations have added to the confusion by using the terms interchageably. Various examples follow. One of the clearest distinctions between the two concepts was presented by Walter Tracy in his Letters of Credit. Legibility is the concern of the typeface designer to ensure that each individual character or glyph is unambiguously distinguishable from all the other characters in the font. e.g. as if assembled in an opticians chart and independent of meaning. An example of a well known illegible letter design is Brush Script since many of the characters can be easily misread if seen out of textual context. Readability the concern of the typographer or information designer, is the result of the complete process of presentation of textual material in order that the meaning can be communicated as quickly and unamiguously as possible to a reader who is also assisted in navigating around the information with ease. This involves choice of media and presentation conventions as well as layout, colour, medium & surface texture, inter-letter inter-word & particularly inter-line spacing line length and position on the page, chunking and careful choice of text architecture of headings, folios, & reference links whether hypertext or footnotes. --TimMartin (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why this punctuation?

The article seems to treat the topic typography correctly and balanced as far as my knowledge can tell, the heritage, the meaning etc., but why all this punctuation at the right margin (in the template {{punctuation marks}})? My immediate questions regarding typography are: why do we have headings, why do we have bold style preambles/abstracts in newspapers, and when did that begin? (Something about Charlemagne and carolingian writing studios), do the tibetans/chinese/indians also have headings, bold preambles, puncts, and such? The western punctuation should be treated somewhat less prominently, we very often use .,:;!?()"' and the rest of the punctuation is too specialised to take all the space at the right margin. Details about all those weird signs could be in a separate article, and the infobox for typography should instead be about pages (the Torah is traditionally laid out to be one unpaged "infinite" parchment roll), chapters, paragraphs, headings, preambles, footnotes, et cetera ad infinitum. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The punctuation marks listed in the infobox are a bit beside the main point, and I too found that infobox distracting when it was first added to the article. But I left it in to see what other readers and Wikipedians would make of it. Nobody has said it's a great addition, but here we have at least one other Wikipedian who thinks it's distrcting and beside the main focus, so I agree with Rursus and I am going to remove the infobox, mainly because I don't think it adds much to the article text, and secondly because it is distracting. WP has a separate article on Punctuation anyway, so leaving the infobox in this one seems like a redundant use of that infobox.

If another editor skilled at putting together infoboxes would like to construct a new one as per Rursus' suggestion, "pages, chapters, paragraphs, headings, preambles, footnotes, et cetera", please go ahead and make it. Thanks Rursus.

Arbo talk 12:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted good faith edit

User talk:Old Moonraker reverted a good faith edit here: [[3]]

I agree with this reversion which was also made in good faith. The paragraph added by 24.177.141.60 was mainly about page layout and composition, and not sufficiently focused on typography. It also repeated many points about typography made in other sections of the article, so 24.177.141.60's points about typography were largely redundant. The paragraph was also badly written and did not follow WP style and writing guidelines, requiring much cleanup. And it was placed in a prominent position after the second paragraph, indicating the author mainly wants to be influential.

In theory it could be added in a section of its own titled Layout, but I'm opposed to that too for the same reasons I've given for supporting the reversion. WP has a separate article titled Page layout anyway, so if necessary a link to that article can be added to this one. Arbo talk 13:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Readability and Legibility

I'm not sure that this is a "commonly agreed" notion.

Regular upright type (roman type) is found to be more legible than italic type.

For example, Colin Wheildon conducted eight years of studies and concluded from the empirical evidence from the study that the use of italics did not affect legibility or readability. Did the "commonly agreed" sources use scientific studies? I'm not saying they did not, I'd just be interested in the sources themselves. I know that a lot of publication designers have preferences based on taste and opinion, but have no evidence to back up their position. Airborne84 (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Other question: I wonder how the terminological distinction between "legibility" and "readibility" can be expressed in any other language than English, since the former is from the Latin verb for "read" (legere). Since English is de facto an international language, creators of English terminological distinctions have an extra responsibility and should avoid such distinctions as are only possible in English. Perhaps other languages would use the same noun "readibility" with two different adjectives. --Zxly (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Typographer vs. type designer

This article confuses typography with type design. Although this confusion has become common just recently, it has no historical basis. Whether type is bits of metal or digital bits, it is designed by a type designer, who creates a suite of letter forms (or other glyphs, depending on the language or writing system) that are designed to work together to form words. A typographer is someone who uses those letters to design pages or other blocks of typeset words. These two functions are rarely performed by the same person, although there *are* type designers who are also good typographers. John D Berry (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"This article confuses typography with type design" --- please quote some examples from the article text to allow editors of this article to see exactly what you're talking about. We need to see instances of typography confused with type design. I could go thru the article text and find what I think are instances of what you mean, but I don't have time to do that, and since you're the editor making the assertion, it's up to you to illustrate the point of contention.

The page you refer to at creativepro.com is all very well, and I have no objection to the view(s) expressed there. Nonetheless to cite it as a reference or verifiable source in this WP article, your article requires peer review, and it must be another Wikipedian who inserts it into Wikipedia's Typography article as a reference. If you yourself insert it as a reference to back up your view of typographer versus type designer, that would violate WP's "no original research" rule. I emphasize the requirement for peer review of your article before it can be genuinely useful to Wikipedia.

Another thing you could do is post a discussion thread at typophile.com and ask type designers and typographers there for an industry consensus on the terms "typographer" versus "type designer". I've seen the same dispute discussed on talk pages of numerous typography articles here at WP, including contributions from our esteemed colleague Thomas Phinney, and there seems to be no consensus. Arbo talk 12:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is a general reference encyclopedia, and its articles aren't meant to provide the kind of detailed expert content of specialist publications. So making the fine distinction between "typographer" and "type designer" as you want it to really falls outside Wikipedia's charter, and since very few readers care about the distinction (ie: only typographers and type designers care about it), what you want amounts to an expert on the subject imposing a hang up on terminology onto a project that does not support such expert distinctions. It's better off going into a specialist wiki. We have such a wiki already, Typophile.com's TypoWiki, for this kind of thing. Arbo talk 16:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree most vehemently that it is a "fine distinction." It is *precisely* the level of distinction that ought to be made in a general reference encyclopedia. I am confused by your argument that original research has been done, followed by advocating... more original research. That being said, the best way of reflecting the lack of consensus is not by just leaving the single view in place in the article that says type design is a part of typography. Thomas Phinney (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Typography [1641], Typography [1697] and Letterpress [1758]

The article on Typography now has in the heading the comment "In philately 'typography', especially in the case of 19th century stamps, refers to letterpress printing.[1]" the ref[1]: "James E. Kloetzel, ed (2010). Scott 2011 Classic Specialized Catalogue of Stamps & Cover 1840–1940 (17 ed.). Sidney, Ohio: Scott Publishing. p. 34A. ISBN 0-89487-455-1."

There is, to me, a war being waged to eradicate the original meaning of Typography; this unfortunately appears to have arrived on Wickipedia. I am sure here is not the place for such action, where truth, not a "new truth" should prevail. I agree there is a restricted meaning as currently covered by the article; essentially this is the setting of type (etc.) historically in forms, and now digitally, but thus not generally for the production of letterpress although it is possible.

But there is an original and general meaning for typography which is historically different, and of considerable significant importance.

In the Shorter Oxford Dictionary [ref]: Onions C. T., The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1933 (1973 revised ed.).> is, page 2395, "Typography. 1641. ... 1. The art or practice of printing. 2. The act or process of printing; esp. the setting and arrangement of types and [sic.] printing from them; ... 1697. ..." The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica starts with an equivalent meaning. Further key texts imply this for example in Southward J., Modern Printing (A Handbook of the Principals and Practice of Typography and the Auxiliary Arts), Raithby, Lawrence & Co. Ltd., Vol.I, 5th ed. London 1924, the index sites "Typography versus Lithography" page 353. Paragraph 3 of this page refers to "lithography" and "letterpress work".

Additionally in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary is, page 1202 "Letter-press. [sic. note hyphen] 1758. ... 1. (now usu. letterpress.) Matter printed from letters or types, as distinct from plates [sic. ie. lithography, recess printing, etc. but presumably not stereotypes and electrotypes]. Also attrib., as in l. printing."

The heading of this article should make clear the meaning of Typography includes, in general use, the production of letterpress work. Also to be made clear may be that this generally did include plate production by stereotype or electrotype and the like, be they only of historic importance, and is distinct from lithography and recess (intaglio) printing; all being possible by a large range of print methods: flatbed and rotary, sheet and web fed. One solution could be to separate the two somehow. For example Typography (Types) and Typography (Printing), the latter could lead promptly to the article "Letterpress Printing", although I note this page needs a lot of revision and proper references.

There is now a trend (verbal communication) for some philatelists to require the word typography to be replaced by letterpress; that is to use the word letterpress as follows: "by letterpress". Letterpress is not synonymous with typography, although letterpress printing is so. I make this view as a philatelist with decades of experience, one who unlike most has had the benefit of entry into the operational side of numerous printshops. I would like to be able to continue to use the words typography and letterpress printing as they have been used for centuries. Language evolves but should not be made extinct.

(as an aside: In general "printing" appears in a bit of a muddle and inconsistent in the website. No doubt this is a product of the policy (a good one) that anyone can start a page. Apparently only the brave can finish it.) LlamanTont0 (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Archives

If it isn't on this talk page it's in one of the archives.

• Archive #1 – from 16 August 2004 to 27 September 2006
• Archive: discussions on readability

Arbo talk 11:08 am, 26 September 2006, Tuesday (7 years, 5 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−7)

Display Typography

Letters as art

Kinetic typography

James 11:01 am, 22 December 2005, Thursday (8 years, 2 months, 11 days ago) (UTC−8)

Editorial design & book covers

Display typography: a book cover

On this science fiction book cover, the type outlines of the Roslyn font juxtapose with negative space and pictorial elements. Words are treated as compound objects made up of tightly spaced letters; the composition is as concerned with modulation of negative space—carving the background into satisfying shapes—as much as positive elements—the typeface outlines.

-

— Preceding unsigned comment added by James Arboghast (talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent with Current Usage

A Google search of "typography" indicates that today's graphic designers use the term to refer to the design of typefaces. It would be helpful to note this point in the introduction or in a "Typography vs. Typeface Design vs. Typesetting" section, and it would also be helpful to note that in the introduction that the term "typesetting" is used today to refer to the metric applications in typography. Rsamot (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of David Jury quote from lead

I removed the quote from David Jury from the lead paragraph. My issues with the quote being in the lead include:

1. Who David Jury is is unknown to the reader. I still don't know why he is relevant to the article and I have been looking into it.
2. David Jury is mentioned nowhere else in the article
3. David Jury's book is referenced nowhere else in the article
4. If David Jury was worth quoting in the lead then the reader should know from the use of material from him within the article that he is someone who's opinion on this subject should be taken with special weight.
5. As it was when I first removed the quote from the lead, there was absolutely no information about him, just a name, and the name of a book he wrote. With the only time any material from the book is cited is for that quote.
6. Now, the full extent of the information about him in the article is that he is "Head of Graphic Design at Colchester Institute in England". The brief information I am able to find on the Colchester Institute from Wikipedia and their website does not lend him the immediate weight to say that he is important to this topic. It does not appear that along with Hairdressing and Beauty Therapy that the Colchester Institute is a hotbed of research into topography.
7. Looking into his book a bit more I find that it is published by Robovision Books – yes, it is a red link, there is no article on them – the Publisher's catalog. Which links to Issuu which appears to be a self publishing house. On Robovision Book's facebook page their first paragraph about themselves states "Our subjects include photography, art, design, fashion, fabrics & needlecrafts." Again, that does not lend anything to implying that David Jury's opinion should carry special weight for readers of this article.

If David Jury was extensively used as a reference elsewhere in the article, then it might be reasonable to have a quote from him in the lead. It is an example of WP:UNDUE to have the only reference to this person be a quote in the lead. Based on the indications that the publishing house which published his book may be engaged in self publishing, I would argue that his book is not even an appropriate reference.

There just isn't any reason, or need, for that quote to be there. It being there does not improve improve the article. In fact having his quote there, without providing the reader with any reason for David Jury's opinion to mater, detracts from the article instead of enhancing it.

As such, I have again removed the quote from the lead. — Makyen (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Further, looking on Google Books, I found that the quote is not even on page 63 as cited. It is, however, on page 152.

— Makyen (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for noting the issue with the reference. I used the wrong Jury book as the source. It was page 63, but I had the wrong title.

I am unclear why much of what you listed is grounds for removing the passage. Perhaps you could explain what WP policy supports 2–4 in your list, for example.

I'm not overly concerned that this topic is not covered in the article. WP:LEDE states that the lede should "define the topic, establish context, [and] explain why the topic is notable" as well as summarize the article. The quote establishes context and indicates the importance/notability of the topic. It is true that significant material should not be covered in the lede if not covered in the article. If this is "significant", the manner in which this should be handled is for someone to add material in the article to supplement it, not remove material that contributes to the article.

The book is a reliable source as per WP:RS. You can find out more about David Jury at http://www.davidjury.com/. It would be possible to add that as an external link to David Jury's name in the lede as opposed to one of his credentials if you'd like since there is as yet no Wikipedia article on him that provides a summary of his works and credentials. On the other hand, if you are overly concerned with the reliability of Jury, as well as his work cited, and the publisher (all three are considered when judging a reliable source at Wikipedia), you can ask for another opinion at the reliable source noticeboard.

There are also alternatives to consider before simply deleting sourced material on Wikipedia. You can move it to a different section. You could also move it to the talk page with a note to include it later if the appropriate conditions are met (although I disagree that there is an issue regarding the latter here).

Thanks for your interest. Airborne84 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Experimental typeface uses

I think when David Carson is mentioned his significance of breaking the rules of Modernist graphic design should be stressed. The end of the modernist movement began with artists like Carson abandoning what they were told they had to do and treating design more like art for art's sake.71.94.159.239 (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

List of professions in introduction

The second paragraph in the introduction states: "Typography is performed by typesetters, compositors, typographers, graphic designers, art directors, manga artists, comic book artists, graffiti artists, clerical workers, and everyone else who arranges type for a product." Typesetters and compositors are the same profession, and both are also now referred to as typographers. Also, manga artists, comic book artists, and graffiti artists (in general) work with lettering, not type, and thus do not practice typography. Cityscaping (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Some times it is useful to use two different words that mean much the same thing --- typesetter versus compositor --- as a way of introducing topic-specific synonyms to a general readership. "Typesetter" is a self-explanatory compound noun, and in the publishing and printing business the industry term use is "compositor". If I were to edit the lead para now, deleting "typesetters" and leaving only "compositors", the industry-specific nomenclature would obfuscate the text and make it harder for a general readership to comprehend. So I'm leaving both terms in as a way of educating readers.

Your assertion that comic book creators mainly work with lettering and not type is not true. This was recently challenged by a very highly-regarded professional colleague of mine in the type busines, Thomas Phinney. I challenged it and reverted his edit and Thomas conceded he got it wrong. F.Y.I: at present comic books are are lettered using digital typefaces and fonts, mainly those made by industry specialist Nate Piekos (Blambot Fonts) and his rivals. Hand-lettering in comic book production is a fast-diminishing craft and art. Arbo (talk) (17:03, 17 October 2015)‎ (UTC)

As a former typographer (and was baptized as a Disciple of Gutenberg in Germany), I agree with the criticism of the list of occupations. Plain using of types does not make a typographer. Writing letters lly creatively as in graffitis also is not what typography is about. Not every typesetter is a typographer, one needs to remember. Typography employs esthetic principles in designing their products to aid processing of multifaceted information more effectively and make them memorable. So manga artists, comic book artists, graffiti artists are NO TYPOGRAPHERs. --- Hartmut Teuber, 22 June 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.19.174 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

42-Line Gutenberg Bible

A photo of the 42-Line Gutenberg Bible should be included in the article. This is a classic example of the first and yet very beautiful typography being employed by the Father of Typography Johannes Gutenberg. The first printed product by Gutenberg is the 42-Line [Gutenberg] Bible. Later, he reprinted a second edition, called the 36-Line [Gutenberg] Bible. --- Hartmut Teuber, 22 June 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.19.174 (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

LaTeX 'typewriter' spacing

The article says "Text typeset using LaTeX digital typesetting software showing unconventional double spacing after a period, a frequent carryover among novices to typesetting who mistakenly use the spacing convention of typewriters". Yes, this is a common user fault, but no, LaTeX does not put a "double space" after a period. It puts a slightly longer space than between words, which is perfectly acceptable. If you write one space or two spaces or three spaces in LaTeX source following a period, the result is the same. So LaTeX in fact *corrects* such errors from the user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.29.62 (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. It looks like someone's trying to put down LaTeX, while it actually got it right. First note that it is easier to read a sentence if the period has a larger space after it. This is still true today. Back in the day, typewriters used fixed width fonts, and as such all of the spaces were the same size. So to make the space larger, typists used two spaces after the period. However, for modern publishing, typesetting software like LaTeX automatically sets the space in (so typists no longer need to put the double space in). This is also true for most modern word processors as well. The extra space is there and it is not unconventional, but standard. If you want to get into why LaTeX's spacing algorithm is different, here's a place we can look: http://www.zinktypografie.nl/latex.php?lang=en or maybe we can look at the source code to identify what it's doing.2620:101:F000:702:5E93:A2FF:FE7A:3E63 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The choice of LaTeX is not the best choice for lengthy texts like in articles or books. It is less readable than Garamond and similar typefaces. The leading is OK there. This can be used as an example of not ideal choice of a font for this kind publication. You can contrast it with another typeface to show how a discriminating choice of typeface affects readability and appreciation of calm esthetic. Most readers will agree that the other font agrees with the document type better and is more readable. You can use the 19th century Most Wanted poster as an example of an atrocious typography.

I would think, the article can entertain critiques of a few prints and illustrate how typographical changes improves the esthetics of them. --- Hartmut Teuber, 22 June 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.19.174 (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: LaTeX is not a font and can be used to set text in Garamond. 47.146.34.217 (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Rewriting Principles of the typographic craft

Hey everyone, I will be working on rewriting the Principles of typographical craft section on this article. First I wonder about the location of the section and whether it should be under Text typefaces, perhaps it should be its own separate section? Here is an outline of proposed changes to the article:

Principles of Typographical Craft

The section will start out with a short history on the principles of typography and how they have developed out of handwriting, moveable type and manual typography.

I. Legibility

This section will briefly discuss how letters were first drawn to how they are now. Plus a look at the differences between letters as typefaces shifted from black-letter to serif to sans-serif typefaces. Some discussion about how the independent attributes of each letter are based on vertical, horizontal, round and diagonal strokes. Finally current research on how our familiarity with typefaces now affects legibility. For example why we find it so difficult to distinguish black-letter characters.

II. Readability

This section will discuss how typography can aid or detract from readability. First a brief history of the development of the page and typographic conventions to aid reading e.g. Alcuin of York introducing upper-case letters to signify the start of a sentence, gradually increasing white space on the page, etc. Then this section will cover early studies in typographic research on reading speed and comprehension to current research's shift away from that as a definitive marker for good typography.

III. Aesthetics

This section will discuss the aesthetics of typography and various viewpoints on this topic. This section will start with the Trajan Column and its influence on typography to this day. Following that will be some information on how aesthetics have changed from the German Black-letter to the French Neoclassical, etc, and how that has affected how typefaces have looked but also how typography is set. Then some information on the Bauhaus, Jan Tschichold and Die Neue Typografie. Plus some discussion on how aesthetics are now following post-modernism.

Lee.eric.neu (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the abstract of your planned contribution(s) to the article. Is your first name Eric, or Lee? Since you plan to do a rewrite of an existing section, please post a draft of your rewrite in its entirety here on the talk page before editing the article text itself. As senior editor on this one I would liken the opportunity to work with you. Thanks. Arbo (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful feedback to my student (Eric). I know he has a number of quality sources to support his proposed additions (he just completed a substantive lit review on the topic) and will also remind him to post his rewrite draft here before moving it to the mainspace. Thanks again! Amyc29 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey James, hope you've been well! I have a draft available on my sandbox page, thought it would be better to organize our discussion there instead of here? But let me know if you think otherwise! Thank you so much! Lee.eric.neu (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Notepad is a basic text-editing program and it's most commonly used to view or edit text files. A text file is a file type typically identified by the .txt file name extension.

103.47.66.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

General meaning of "Typography"

The meaning of the word "typography by itself without an adjective usually include positive quality (at least 'good') or acceptable use of typography. Attaching a positive attribute is mostly redundant, unless you wish to praise a typographical work highly. When a typography is bad, it requires a negative attributive adjective, like "bad or atrocious typography". --- Hartmut Teuber, 22 June 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.19.174 (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The "legible, readable, and appealing" is about good typography, not typography tout simple.

Please can somebody remove this unelegant and quite vague line in the introductory part (it seems I can't edit it) "Digitization opened up typography to new generations of previously unrelated designers and lay users, and David Jury, head of graphic design at Colchester Institute in England, states that "typography is now something everybody does."[4]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.18.251.113 (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Typography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100306051141/http://www.alexpoole.info/academic/literaturereview.html to http://www.alexpoole.info/academic/literaturereview.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Why no talk of rules (lines that separate or organize blocks of text)

I was very surprised that there's no section on rules (the vertical or horizontal lines used to separate or organize blocks of copy) either in this article or in the typography terminology sections.

Hsmith254 (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Lots of plagarism in this article

I came here to fix a citation needed tag, but after taking a look at the source, it seems that at least several entire sections of this page are completely plagarized from source.

@Alex Shih: @Hzh: @XavierGreen: @GreenC: @Britishfinance:

Anyone want to deal with this issue? (Notifying random people here; not sure if that's proper practice) DemPon (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The "See also" in the source makes it look the other way around, text copied from Wikipedia. -- GreenC 23:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The text on this article existed long before that book was published. This is yet another vanity publisher of books collating wholesale copies of a number of Wikipedia articles into a generally poor product. Mindmatrix 23:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.DemPon (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments invited on new template: Linguistics notatation

I don't want upset any applecarts accidentally, so this is to alert editors to my proposal.

I have created a new sidebar [right] along the lines of {{contains special characters}} for articles that are mainly about graphemes but inevitably include information about IPA symbols and sometimes phonemes. We must assume that most visitors will not be familiar with the ⟨x⟩, /x/ and [x] notations, so the new template will tell them where to go to find out.

I have opened a discussion section at Template talk:Linguistics notation#Invitation to comment to invite any advice, comment, observations or reservations, please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision to proposal: change name to Orthography notation

After a long discussion at template talk:Linguistics notation, the consensus is that the phoneme aspect is best handled by an addition to {{IPA key}}, leaving the orthography and typography aspects remaining. The proposal therefore is to rename the template as {{orthography notation}} and the opening sentence would read "This page uses orthography notation".

If there are any comments or reservations, please use template talk:Linguistics notation#Proposed new name: Orthography notation to express them. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)