How to pick a good typeface

img1

img2

img3

img4

The legibility of a typeface has anexact parallel in the audibility of a human voice.

type, the voice of the printed page, can be legible and dull, or legible and fascinating, according to its design and treatment.

What the book–lover calls readability is not a synonym for what the optician calls legibility

That is, it is very unlikely that a type-founder or composing–machine manufacturer would produce and offer to good printers a face of which any 2 characters had confusing similarity

The size must be chosen in view of whether the work is one of reference that is, to be read in short sections by people who are concentrating, or a novel to be read uninterruptedly by people who are enjoying themselves, or an educational book for young and reluctant eyes.

Though any size may be called "unreadable" when it is too small or even too large for a given purpose

Set a page in Fournier against another in Caslon and another in Plantin, and it is as if you heard three different people delivering the same discourse –– each with impeccable pronunciation and clarity

Perhaps the layman would not be able to tell one old-style setting from two others of the same group; yet he could not read the tree pages in turn without at least a subconscious discrimination.

Baskerville and Fournier were both designed during the eighteenth century, and some people thing that they represent in miniature, the clarity and good manners of that age.

It would be better first to remember that Baskerville, being relatively generous in set–width, will "drive out" the book; whilst Fourier, a neatly condensed face will be more frugal of space.

Thus Pride and Prejudice by Jane Auseten, produced by Peter Davies Ltd. had a large amount of text to begin with, and not too many pages were to seperate one illustration from the next: Fournier, in a beautifully legible small size, solved the problem.

Baskerville Printed on bulky paper, has saved many a fine book from seeing to offer less than the money's worth

The word "set" which appears in our type specimen books, means that an actual type of the widest letter in the front (M) will be as many points wide as the number giver.

Some typefaces are more sucessfull in the sizes above 11 pt. than in those below it

Bodoni demands in justice exquisite printing for 6-8pt. Saslon and Garmond seem to improve as the sizes increase.

Fournier and monotype are very successful in the smallest settings as well as normal sizes.

Centaur is fine in any size

Baskerville's experiments; the difficulty arises in the fact that a smooth-finished surface of paper takes the inked copy with such ease that little or no impression into the fabric of the paper is necessary, and therfore, the only ink which comes off they type is that on the actual printing surface.

"kiss" impression of thousands of shallow dots of metal on smooth paper is different from the pressure of a deep–cut type and wood–block into damped paper.

The modern printer is versatile, our ancestors never would have thought it to be. he prints from a rotary as well as a flat surface and often from rubber or copper cylinders

But some survival of crafr tradition prevents many printers from realizing that a face, like an ink or a paper can be suitable or unsuitable for a given process.

If a monotype user has four body composition faces, and each well–designed and adapted to a particular printing process, and if the four designs are sufficiently different to convey four different "tones of voice" it would be inordinate to expect that man to increase his type repertory without very good reason.

Nowadays italic is thought of as a part of the whole font loosely called "roman." but the appearance in a page, or even a long sentence, in italic would show why this form of letter, at least until the middle of the sixteenth century, was considered as an entirely separate alphabet.

Neither it nor the body roman must be to discrepant in weight serif treatment, and general appearance. Perpetua is one of the few types which may be said to have "a greek" in the sense that most romans have "an italic"

The almost superstitious regard for caslon old face has been such that only a typographer of our own time has dared to point out that its capitals, especially the capital M, are so heavy in contrast to the lowercase that very often they create a spotty effect

If the craft is to maintain its touch with the real world, must always be considered first and foremost. But beyond all the questions of relative width, color, suitability for certain processes, and optical legibility, lies the whole fascinating field in which the skilled typographer is at home

The first is that before any question of physical or literary suitability, must come the question of whether the face itself is tolerable or intolerable as a version of the roman alphabet.

If the letters, however pretty in themselves, do not combine automatically into words; if the fourth consecutive page begins to dazzle and irk the eye, and in general if the pages cannot be read with subconscious but very genuine pleasure, that type is intolerable and that is all there is about it.

There are bad types and good types

The second generalization is, that the thing is worth doing. It does genuinely matter that a designer should take trouble and take delight in his choice of typefaces.

The best part of typographic wisdom lies in this study of connotation, the suitability of form to content. People who love ideas must have a LOVE of words, and that means, given a chance they will take a vivid interest in the clothes which words wear.

They will use such technically indefensible words as "romantic," "chill," "jaunty" to describe different typefaces. If they are wise, they will always admit that they are dealing with processes of the subconscious mind, mere deft servants of the goddess Literature.

img1. is a good example of how good type can still look bad. It's a good Idea but not very well thought out. There is too much spacing between the paragraphs and not enough between leading. the white on blue is horrible, It is also a good example of how a "classy" typeface can attempt to have a modern look.

img2. is an example of a good display of text even though it's showing you a variety of faces they are still spaced nice, but it is showing a favorite on a typeface which this article said you should not have, for if it is a good typeface it can be used or not used but shouldn't only be used or cast aside.

img3.Is just an example of how type can look good in many different ways and shows a variety of things you can do to experiment with type. Even though it is set at an angle it is still legible and set nicely. I think it's just a good way to show that even though it's different or the typeface looks different that it doesn't mean it should be cast away. And also shows that it is appropriate for the page that it is on.

img4. is a better example of what a good text body can look like. It has meaning and a purpose for being made. It's set in a tolerable face with a good amount of leading. I think the gutter is a bit large but that may just be me.