As a diligent graphic designer, I strive to give thought to typeface choice as I understand its use and function. I fondly recall dot matrix printers and fonts designed for their use such as Cairo or New York and Athens. The software allowed us to create drop shadows and outlines which were more special effects than typography and choices were just as likely based on eccentricity than appropriateness.
Old habits are hard to die. This gave me pause to wonder how each of us secretly chooses type for our projects. It’s secret because our mental filters are unique to individual methods of thinking. Do I limit my choices or find it hard to broaden my typescape based on old ways of thinking? Some designers say they limit their typeface choices to a half dozen or so. One designer I met confidently said “I think Bodoni looks good in any setting.� Is this strictly personal preference or do we have a system for making decisions?
As visual people, we are drawn to shape and forms which aesthetically please us. Do you make an informed decision based on graphic relationships to the material such as thick, thin, horizontal, vertical or do you opt for a historical relationship based on research? Is it secondary to image preference? Is your answer a secret one that would ostracize you from your peer group or place you at odds with established professional practice? Would you divulge this on a social network?
Does a symmetrical column of type look perfect to your designer eyes or is it a ragged right that turns you on? Do funky designer fonts like Massive Headache (Distributor: 1001Fonts.com) send chills up your spine or do you long for a place to use them? Do unlimited type choices limit or free you as a designer?
The definition we give type could be a determining factor in how we use it.
American Heritage Dictionary links “Typeface� to printing and defines it as:
Posted by newyorkupstate in News | December 6, 2008