I look forward to more of these bood reviews.

If I write a bood Canada, I hope you review it.

That's an interesting typo -- 'd' isn't anywhere near 'k'. I blame society.

What if I send you a copy of a book someone else has written--will you review that too?

Lulu.com would be a gook venue for a bood of my collected blog comments taken out of context. I see it being a bestseller along the lines of "Deep Thoughts" or "SeinLanguage" or one of those Woody Allen books, except with more name recognition.

That's the most common sort of typo I make-- the letter that is typed by the same finger on the other hand.

I doubt there's anyone who hates Arial more than I do

Oooh! Me, Miss!!! Me! Me! Me!

I might not have ordered it if I'd known it was printed in Arial. I hate it more that Comic Sans. But if you're publishing PoD, why not allow your customers to specify the font they prefer.

I would buy a copy of this book if it was written in Algerian.

In fact, I'll buy it anyway.

What's wrong with Arial? It's clean and simple, easily-legible. That's all I ask of a font.

9: san serif fonts are terrible in print (excepting posters, etc). that is all.

wait, it's not all. Arial is kind of ugly for a s-s anyway, to boot.

oh, and it's only a 2nd rate Helvetica, too. This was intentional.

Arial is the unsophisticated knockoff of that wonder of wonders, Helvetica.

Sans serifs aren't usually good for blocks of text, but they work fine in other print situations. I just reset my c.v. in Helvetica Neue Light, and it is wondrous.

oops! should preview.

Well, at least no one's bringing up Harry Potter.

All of the serif fonts available in my software look fussy to me. I just don't like serifs, I guess.

I considered Fraktur, but that didn't seem practical.

The new documentary on Helvetica is awesome, by the way.

All of the serif fonts available in my software look fussy to me. I just don't like serifs, I guess.

Yeah, see, you put the wideranging erudition, reliable political analysis, and consistently entertaining commenting on one side, and this statement on the other, and it balances out to just barely tolerable. Don't talk about fonts any more or you're banned.

You should all buy (and read, if you wish) my friend's book about the origin of language.

I considered Fraktur, but that didn't seem practical.

And all those long and short s's to sort out.

Nothing should be in Arial, ever.

Amen. It's fascinating to print off the same page in Helvetica and Arial. Although I much prefer serifs, there is something undeniably clean and perky about the Helvetica page, whereas the Arial one just looks soulless and bland. Let no one deny that font-making is an art.

14: Ever look at
bookman?

12: yes, that's what I meant by my inarticulate `posters etc.'. Works fine for desktop-publishing, and short bits of text with layout, like a resume or slides/poster. They are just a bad idea for typsetting a book or article, though.

Oddly, one of my science-oriented readers liked the appearance of the book.

I plan on buying it, but I'm holding out for an edition set in zapf dingbats.

21: Have you met the guy? And do you have any reason to trust his taste generally?

In Zapf anything! Er, maybe except the dingbats. Zapf Book Light!

LB, I know it's difficult to tell someties, but 4 was a serious question.

Whoops. Sure. I'll review basically anything. Mostly, I just like it when people send me books. The first time (of the three, so far) that a publisher sent me a book to review, I began to realize that this blogging thing had potential.

23: He's not artsy at all, but he has an idea of what a legit science publication looks like.

23: he may just be tired of computer modern, so his judgement is wonky.

Well, not everyone agrees with me. I know some perfectly competent lawyers who, as I said, prefer sans serif fonts. They're just WRONG WRONG WRONG!!1!!ONE!1!11!!!!!

29: Lawyers aren't known for taste, right? The typographers pretty much completely agree with you, so you're golden.

perfectly competent lawyers who, as I said, prefer sans serif fonts

I realize you are a few miles away from the 7th Circuit, but they officially frown on sans serif. Competent lawyers in this jurisdiction, take heed!

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/Rules/Painting_with_Print.pdf

27: Science publications are often unspeakably illegible crap, unfortunately. I had textbooks assigned during science courses in undergrad that hadn't seen hide nor hair of a proofreader, let alone a designer.

I'm sure your book is fine, mind you. But if you decide to revisit this kind of exercise, you should talk to someone with arty experience, and the fruitier and artier the better. They know things.

I'll order your book, Emerson.

Although I have to confess that my favorite widely-available font is Futura. I sneak Futura into material I produce for Anonymous Tiny Research Institute even though Anonymous Director says that our official font is....Arial! Luckily, since I'm the only one who really notices stuff like that I can usually do as I please. Futura! It helps me pretend that I'm working in some kind of early-sixties supercomputing facility.

The first time (of the three, so far) that a publisher sent me a book to review, I began to realize that this blogging thing had potential.

I know! I got on someone's list who handles art books for Princeton University Press. Suh-weet! I'm waiting for one now. On the other hand, I routinely get emails from struggling artists that make me sad, and from publicists that annoy me (no, I will be attending your opening this Friday in Los Angeles. Open a gallery in Providence and I'll consider it . . . and still not go.)

At work most of the important documents we need outsiders to read and sign are done in Arial. I can't think of anything for use in-house that's in it, although I rather like it for a font in email when using Outlook.

At work most of the important documents

There you go. Arial is a perfectly fine font for bureaucratic purposes: tax forms, reports, PowerPoint presentations, et cetera.

36: Mostly granted, with the exception that every single usage of Arial would be improved by using Helvitica instead. Why use an inferior imitation?

Helvetica, even.

every single usage of Arial would be improved by using Helvitica instead

In print, Helvetica; on line, Verdana. I'm still looking forward to reading Emerson's book, though.

You know, after the first couple of pages, I forgot the font. Given the strength of my feelings in this regard, that's high praise.

40: Ah, right, I'm strictly referring to print in above. On line usage is a different bucket of worms.

Worth reiterating your point --- all this nonsense about fonts isnt' meant as a reflection on John's book, which I haven't yet read (but also look forward to).

Utopia. Has a slight boxiness and some of the spirit of a sans-serif. As a bonus, it's also available in LaTeX (where it's known as Fourier).

If you're stuck with something like Arial, it's always worth experimenting with line spacing and margin width. I think you can get something respectable out of it with a bit of attention to white space.

My company has just redone all its branding in Helvetica Neue. But word has gone out that only the graphic designers get to work with that font: everyone else has to use Arial and pretend it's the same. Depressingly, that washes with a lot of people. The justification is that recipients of our MS Office documents are guaranteed to have the correct font.

33- Futura just dissolves into lines and circles for me in any longer text. Though if you're going for that retro look, I can see where you're coming from. But here in Germany it is much more specifically associated with the Bauhaus than I think it is in the U.S., making it a different kind of retro.

A type designer I know named one of his daughters Carlotta Futura. The poor thing.

36+7: Aren't most tax forms in Helvetica already?

44: I don't know about the IRS; Revenue Canada uses Arial. A common (and actually pretty good) reason is just what Charlie mentions in 42.3. Arial is already widely dispersed enough that you can send and receive documents with reliable results.

And per 41.2, of course I'd read Emerson's book if it was in Haettenschweiler. I've been a Zizka-head since back before it was cool.

44a: right, this is the sort of lowest common denominator result you'd expect. Ending up with arial (and times n.r) is more an (unfortunate) historical quirk to do with adobe vs. microsoft than anything reasoned out, though.

I'm actually more offended by Times NR than by Arial, for whatever reason.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the reason is that the serifs in TNR are each, individually, super-offensive. So on a letter like W, that's 5X the offensiveness of any given bad letter in Arial.

The link in 31 is quite valuable, although it's awfully technical and verbose for what I'm sure is taught on Day One of Typography 101. But that's law writing for you.

Official fonts of JRoth, Architect: Perpetua (for body text) and Gill Sans (for drafting, headings, and letterhead). I had initially used Big Caslon, which looks gorgeous on screen, but poor on paper. I couldn't figure out why, until I read that it's called "Big" because it's designed for use at 18+ pt. I switched to Perpetua partly because it's designed (IIRC) by Gill.

Futura, avenir, gill sans, verdana, helvetica: all nicer than arial. Garamond is a vv nice serif font.

'd' and 'k' aren't anywhere near each other, but they're both struck by the middle finger. I posit that confusion as the source of the typo.

Depressingly, that washes with a lot of people. The justification is that recipients of our MS Office documents are guaranteed to have the correct font.

I agree with a lot of people. Don't be sending people something in a crazy-assed font they have to pay extra for.

I agree with a lot of people. Don't be sending people something in a crazy-assed font they have to pay extra for.

This is why you send people PDFs.

(I know, I know - collaboration. Then format it properly at the end, if that's what it takes to make your doc not suck).

50: But even so --- Arials entire purpose was to be a fake Helvetica with exactly the same spacing, so if you specify it you should be able to fall back on Arial without messing up any layout, just looking a bit worse. Or am I forgetting something and for some reason MS products break this?

Garamond is a vv nice serif font.

I heartily agree. I used to be a Palatino guy, then I discovered Garamond. But it's a bit not-distinctive, if you're trying to be distinguishable.

51: To that end --- collaborating with Word documents just sucks. I only rarely have to do it, but when I do it's invariably a pain.

I can't believe you're all this picky about fonts. I mean, I can beleive it, but still. I don't think I've ever given the first thought to the font of anything I was reading, or even writing. They all look better than most handwriting, which makes them all look pretty good to me.

The link in 31 takes me to an unbelievably ugly looking document, which is surely meant ironically, no?

Collaboration is great, but in almost every case I'd want to send a .pdf rather than something editable.

Futura was the font used in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Both in the film and in the publicity material.

I sometimes send people pdflatex-created pdfs, which they comment on in a way that xpdf can't read.

Maybe gpdf can, though. I should try it.

57/58 out of curiosity, have you tried them in acrobat/linux?

acroread or whatever they call it? I don't have it installed. I should give it a shot too.

54: It's the legibility. I'm not overly concerned with the esthetic qualities of a document, but I find a page full of sans serif type really much more of an effort to read, to the point that it makes me angry. People fussing about the differences between Palatino and Garamond are caring about it on a level beyond what I'm interested in, but I want serifs.

yeah, whatever it's called. I don't really use it much, but as a fallback when a pdf doesn't read properly it's useful.

I find a page full of sans serif type really much more of an effort to read, to the point that it makes me angry

I realize you're probably being hyperbolic, but even so this just perplexes me. But hey, whatever.

63: I'm sure she was being hyperbolic, but it is pretty well established that serif fonts are easier/more efficient to read.

64 applies to on paper, at decent resolution. Computer screens introduce a host of other issues, and the low resolution makes serifs have different effect.

55: If you've ever noticed that a document or book looks ugly, or looks good, or is easy to read or hard to read over any considerable length of time, then you've noticed the reasons that some people are fussy about fonts.

I've never been angered by a choice of font (I think LB has alluded to having issues with reading that are perhaps not universal), but certainly a page full of, say, Courier type creates a specific impression and has a specific effect. I'd expect to encounter it in certain settings and find it unprofessional in others.

Yeah, but it's something like a 2% speed difference, right?

I hate hate hate PDFs. That document format is far more offensive than any possible font.

Yeah, but it's something like a 2% speed difference, right?

You let the partners at your firm know this is your attitude?

I write my really important documents directly in postscript, myself.

56: what's ugly about it? It looks fine to me. I'm completely bemused by all this. It's like there's this entire aesthetic dimension to everyday, ordinary documents to which I'm totally blind.

Angry may be an overstatement -- cranky? Reading a normal, decent, font is an effortlessly unconscious process -- I look at the page, and its contents are in my mind without my having to do anything. With goofy fonts, I read word-word-word-word-word-word-word-word-punctuation-word-word-word... I don't know how much slower it actually is, but it changes an effortless process into an effortful one, and I'm brutally lazy about that sort of thing.

I've never been angered by a choice of font

nworb werdna scolded me harshly over the font used in the contact form on my website. I pretended to appreciate the constructive criticism, but I was sobbing on my keyboard, really.

71: The unmatching headings are kind of fucked up, don't you think? Document or ransom note, you decide!

I'm glad LB hasn't seen it. She would probably come to Boston just to kill me.

It's like there's this entire aesthetic dimension to everyday, ordinary documents to which I'm totally blind.

It's exactly like that. Blind-o.

73: Actually, I just went looking for it. Given that we're talking about what, four words total? a fussy font is fine, and the total effect of the page is pleasing. If you tried to make me read a paragraph in that font, I would hurt you.

I never paid any attention to such things, other than thinking fully justified Times New Roman looked "professional," until I had to write a brief in a case where the "readability" of a document was at issue. (Something credit related -- if I could remember details about the law as well as I do details about serifs, I'd be doing much, much better... I just remember that our document was poor typography, but not illegally so.)

Lessons learned from the experts, and then from the article linked in 31, are that the following all slow a reader down:

1. Sans serif fonts.
2. Full justification.
3. ALL CAPS.

Figuring a few judges may feel as strongly about such things as LB does in comment 61 -- and the fact that the 7th Circuit actually posts the article suggests they do -- persuaded me that, for professional work product, I really had to start caring.

Just did the same thing LB did in 77, and came to the same conclusion, was in fact composing almost the same comment until I read hers.

77: The horror begins when you actually type in the message box. My codey friend specified this weird curly italic font. I'm going to have to make him change it, but I'm going to have to bake cookies.

71: Seriously, you've never ever noticed that text has aesthetic effects? Of any kind? At all? The OPINIONATED GRANDMA gag is lost on you?

73: Oh, I've been completely crushed by someone else's inability to appreciate my taste in fonts. Whole other ballgame. I feel your pain.

80:Right, I sent one of those and had forgotten about it.

I'm going to have to bake cookies

IYKWmcmcM.

ALL CAPS is very hard to read, yes. I wouldn't read Emerson's book if it were in all caps. That seems like a different issue than font selection.

Hmmm, I can't find this form on mcmc's site that's supposed to be so terrible...

He is not bacon, so by cookies, I mean cookies.

Not her blog -- if you go down the blog to the post with the ridiculous kitten, it's got a link to a site with artwork where the contact form under discussion is.

85: for link, click on my name

I wouldn't read Emerson's book if it were in all caps

Many would agree with you. Opiniated Grandma's Book of Aphorisms, or How I Learned the Stop Worrying and Chimpeach the Chimperor will be a hard sell.

I just did some typing on the contact form, and it's not that bad. Just a bit italic, really.

88: Huh. Well, I didn't get a weird, curly italic font when I typed in the message box. Record for avoiding font-related rage: intact!

Nice-looking website, too.

Among the absolutely absurd arguments made for the switch from Fraktur to Latin type for German was the increasing use of acronyms (acronyms are the future!) and how stupid they look in Fraktur caps.

84: Agreed. And, if the article in 31 is to be trusted, you are right that the difference between serif and sans serif is only about 2%. Just interesting all the little ways you can make things easier for a reader.

That said, I recently pissed off a partner for having the audacity to not put my headings in ALL CAPS. So, you know, preferences vary.

What's so absurd about that? Acronyms are the future.

84/93: There are small caps fonts that are meant for this, and they are more readable. You still wouldn't want an entire document in them, but...

91: Thank you. I take credit for everything but the contact form code. Unless anyone doesn't like it. Then it's my friend's fault.

Trivia: Fraktur is used as a Nazi motif, but the Nazis did not like Fraktur.

97: I think of it as more Kaiser/WWI. No? The Nazis had cleaner design.

The Klaus Thewelhiet book used that IIRC, and that was about Nazis, yes?

Trivia: Fraktur is used as a Nazi motif, but the Nazis did not like Fraktur.

Only officially after the Frakturverbot of 1941! Before then, they had embraced Fraktur as an expression of German character. Once they started taking over other countries it was a hindrance to communication, though, so they invented an anti-Semitic explanation of the Jewish origin of one of the kinds of blackletter type.

97: Yeah, I just did a find for Nazi posters, and lots of them look Russian constructivist--Avant-garde or futura-ish type.

I'm wondering what "kocksaugen" means.

98: The kind of blackletter the Nazis used was a crudely simplified version of the gorgeous Fraktur faces cut in earlier decades. It was known among typesetters as Schaftstiefelgrotesk -- jackboot grotesque.
(Grotesque here meaning sans serif.)

Saugen means vacuuming, so I think it means just what it looks like.

97: The way I heard it, the Nazis originally championed Fraktur and Kurrent as German fonts (though they had been waning in popularity prior to that), then abruptly reversed this decision in 1941 and proscribed both fonts as being of "Jewish origin," apparently because legibility problems made it hard to use them in administering newly-conquered territories in the East.

(Partially-pwned by 101.)

Or it could be an antiquated spelling of Koksaugen, which would be the eyes you get after doing too much blow.

102: Hmm. A fake, then, I suppose. Some kind of counter-propaganda? Now I think about it, "a-ok" was probably not popular nazi slang.

If you look at the site it's on, the guy says he photoshopped it.

Lots of blackletter (but not exclusively) on Nazi propaganda collected here. It does seem to fade out later in that particular archive, FWIW.

Obviously an amateur-- didn't even get the plural of 'cocksucker' right.

Oh, Christ, I completely missed 99 too. How 'bout that.

I wondered what you meant by 'partially'-pwned.

So I've been doing as the post suggests, poking around Idiocentrism, and have found the wonderful Oafs and Wimps. I've often felt just the way this piece recalls, about these characters and the way of describing them being noticed.

At this point, the tendency of artists—and teachers—to identify with bullies, or at least the kool kids, is not news, but when young you don't know that.