Font or Typeface?
As we’re collaborating with multiple authors on the FontFeed, we compiled a list of guidelines for ourselves and guest contributors. One of our concerns is that we should attempt to “speak the same language” when using typographic and related terms. Because these terms evolved over a considerable period of time and saw several transitions in technology, they can sometimes be interpreted in varying ways. This resulted in a terminology that is often perceived as at best esoteric, at worst plain confusing.
The first terminology we agreed upon was in which situations we’d use font and when typeface. Mark Simonson once recapped it handsomely in this discussion on Typophile. The gist of it is that
the physical embodiment of a collection of letters, numbers, symbols, etc. (whether it’s a case of metal pieces or a computer file) is a font. When referring to the design of the collection (the way it looks) you call it a typeface.
Nick Sherman used an interesting analogy in a comment on Typographica’s Our Favorite Typefaces of 2007:
The way I relate the difference between typeface and font to my students is by comparing them to songs and MP3s, respectively (or songs and CDs, if you prefer a physical metaphor).
Stephen Coles agrees:
When you talk about how much you like a tune, you don’t say: “That’s a great MP3”. You say: “That’s a great song”. The MP3 is the delivery mechanism, not the creative work; just as in type a font is the delivery mechanism and a typeface is the creative work.
Update, Nov. 12 2008 – Norbert Florendo commented with this concise explanation:
font is what you use, and typeface is what you see.
Origins
The exact origin of the word font isn’t entirely clear. Type designer and SOTA Typography Award 2007 recipient David Berlow claimed that “it’s mostly believed to have originated in France, where the idea of a spring of water (fontaine) was close enough to the ideas that spring from words, I guess, to merit the additional definition of the word…” Jim Rimmer expounded a variation on that theory. “Font sprung fom the word fount (still used today in the UK) meaning a source from which words gushed.”
However another theory seems more plausible (please keep in mind I have no academic background in typography whatsoever; I’m just your average graphic designer). As Norbert Florendo explained in that same Typophile discussion:
The term font would be derived from fount and foundry going back to the manufacture of type using molten metal. The fount was the reservoir or pot of molten lead/tin/antimony which was used for casting individual type characters, and eventually complete lines of type (linecasters, Linotype contraction of ‘line-of-type’).
Originally – when type still were little blocks of metal or wood and thus only fit for a specific size – a font was a single point size of a complete set of characters for setting text, so for example Centaur Roman 16 point (according to living legend Matthew Carter the most beautiful size of Centaur). With the advent of film type and eventually scalable outlines the term font became size-independent.
Do you have a type-related question? Send it our way and we’ll answer it in a future episode of Typography Basics.
Header image: Letterpress wokshop at the London College of Communication © Jamie Pulley
-
News
The latest in the world of typography, lettering, and type design.
-
Handpicked Typefaces
Whether they’re newly released, stalwart classics, or hidden gems, these typefaces deserve special mention.
-
Type Tips
Improve your typography skills with these basic tips and advanced tutorials.
-
Fonts in Use
Specimens are nice, but we love to catch a typeface in the wild, where it can truly show how it performs in the real world.
The FontFeed is a daily dispatch of recommended fonts, typography techniques, and inspirational examples of digital type at work in the real world. Eat up.
Related Posts
- FontFont Introduces Forty9 Magazine
- Forty9 is a PDF magazine that can be viewed on screen, but was also designed to be printed, showcasing the…Read more
- The Most Sportsmanlike Way To Design Letters
- Takahiro Yamaguchi used the topography of Shibuya, Tokyo to design letter forms for his Urbanized Typeface project.…Read more
- FontShop Fan Video Celebrates Typeface Diversity
- This advertisement aimed at non-designers shows how expressive fonts can be and how many different ways there are to visualise…Read more
- Styles, Weights, Widths — It’s All in the (Type) Family
- In a previous Type Basics we examined the difference between a typeface and a font. Both terms refer to a…Read more
- Letters Are Pictures of Things, Pt. 1: Garamond Powerline
- Daniel Adolph of German design bureau 0c/0m/0y/0k has created Garamond Powerline, a typeface whose letters are built using photographs of…Read more
The FontFeed RSS
58 Comments:
[...] Check out the post on the Font Shop Blog. [...]
I must have taken a dumb pill this evening. That didn’t clear things up for me one bit.
there was a great post on an aiga message board a few years ago- http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/theyre-not-fonts
in which someone said the following:
“a font is a quantity, not an entity”
The way I remember it is that referring to, say, Helvetica as a nice font is like saying that my wife wore a nice wardrobe on our wedding day. I expect equal punishment should be meted out in response to either statement.
According to to living legend Sir Matthew Carter the most beautiful size of every typeface! :)
A colleague of mine uses the term “type font” all the time. It sounds very wrong to me and bugs the hell out of me. Yes, I should get a life but until then does anyone know if the term has any history. Is it right in some way or just plain wrong, as I suspect?
Richard, I have never heard or read from any respected typographer who uses the word “type font”. Perhaps the term came out of the photocompositor era, maybe picked up in the ’70s and ’80s — like bad architecture and fashion — and then mercifully dropped by the majority.
This reminds me of an old post on InspirationBit, about when it’s a typeface, when it’s a font:
http://www.inspirationbit.com/when-is-it-wrong-to-call-a-typeface-font/
I like Jon Tan’s explanation about this:
http://jontangerine.com/log/2008/08/typeface–font
There is a nice discussion about the issue on Jon Tan’s blog: http://jontangerine.com/log/2008/08/typeface–font
Thanks for linking to Jon Tan’s entry on the subject; very interesting explanation indeed. :)
[...] May we never forget [...]
Jon Tan’s interpretation seems to be a little different than this one. He’s says that the typeface is (also?) the type family, and fonts are the individual members of the typeface/type family. I like your font definition better, the font is the carrier; either metal type, or the software. Would it be reasonable to say that the type family consists of all the individual typefaces? For example: Helvetica is the type family, Helvetica Bold Italic is the typeface.
David, thanks for linking to my post re: font vs. typeface. I too liked Jon Tan’s interpretation the best.
Yes, you’ve got it, Kevin. Though for clarity I try to say “the Helvetica family” when referring to the various styles and weights.
The distinction between typeface and type family is a classic grey area in type terminology, which I was going address in the next episode of Typography Basics. Basically there are people that say typeface and type family basically mean the same thing, while others insist that a typeface is a single variant or style within a type family. There is no clear consensus. If you have a little patience it will be rewarded very soon. 8)
Also, I have received a very nice sketch by Peter Bruhn which I will turn into a graph, showing visually which is which. I hope that will make it clear for hcabbos. ;)
[...] Font or Typeface? Kim Siever | 12 Sep 08 | Link | Categories: [...]
“fonte” is the french for “melted”
As I understand it, “fondre” is French for “melt” and “fondu” for “melted”.
It’s entirely possible that “font” is the result of a non-French speaker hearing “fondre” and interpreting it as “font”.
[...] have waded into the great “font or typeface” debate with some pretty definitive definitions. Their advice? Think of it terms of [...]
As a linguaphile as well as a typophile, I think this discussion could really use an injection of something that’s pretty well-established among linguists: that is, whether or not it’s necessary to try to be prescriptive about the differences in the definition of font vs. typeface when it’s in clear conflict with the descriptive reality of the situation.
What I mean to say is whether we as typographers like it or not, font has become synonymous with typeface or type family in the common lexicon. And why shouldn’t it? What use is the distinction in most instances? How often do you really need to distinguish between the face itself and the file that carries it? And in the case of the physical font setting made of the individual lead characters, surely that usage is only needed for historical discussions.
The fact is that when someone refers to a font, you know what they’re talking about. Correcting that person and telling them they really mean typeface is likely just a kind of snobbery, unless there’s a good reason to make the distinction.
Fair enough, but for example when foundries advertize they have that many thousand fonts in their library, you mustn’t complain there are considerably less typefaces or type families, as every type family consists of several fonts.
It’s not like we’re going to go about correcting everyone who may use those terms incorrectly. I think the least we ourselves as FontFeed editors can do is use the proper words. That’s why the list are guidelines for contributors. :)
What use is the distinction in most instances?
Like any trade, typedesigners and typographers use terms that have specific meaning. I design a typeface and then i make (or someone else makes) a font out of that. Those can be two very separate activities, different skills, fee structures, processes and even have different clients. A carpenter and a joiner make different things from wood, as do mechanics or fitters from metal.
To me, this distinction is as important as the difference between woodwind and brass instruments to a tuba player. To the layman it’s all type or music, respectively. That is, however, no reason to use fuzzy terms when precise ones exist.
For the record, I knew the difference between the two. It’s just that the quotes referenced in this post were more eloquent than helpful. In contrast, Tan’s article was refreshing. Thanks to all for posting.
Yves, thanks in advance. I’d love to see the graph :)
[...] Once and for all, is it a font or typeface?! (via [...]
[...] or Typeface? Articles Fontfeed clarifies the difference between a font and a typeface. Tags FontFontfeedTypeface → [...]
A typeface is like a work of art, a creation. A font is like this work of art, when it becomes mass produced into prints and gets framed on the wall of peoples homes to become named -a painting. I see the names being used by the public interchangably but maybe a more sophisticated, educated, art and design savvy individual would use ‘typeface’ instead because this represents the creation of the design or the work of art.
It’s really not that difficult to keep the two terms clearly defined — font is what you use, and typeface is what you see.
Someone can design a typeface that might never become a font (in fact, most don’t). A hand-painted sign might display letter-forms strikingly similar to Garamond, though no font was used to create the sign.
It can also be argued that the inventing of new font technologies (metal to film to vector to outline and beyond) is an astounding engineering feat in itself, and not to be confused with the creation of new letterforms or glyph systems.
Brilliantly concise, Norbert. Thank you!
I do have a quibble with your hand-painted sign example, though. I don’t think that qualifies as a typeface either. It’s lettering. A letter design is a typeface when the intended end result is a font.
I completely agree, Stephen, regarding the difference between lettering and typeface. I was just pointing out from the viewer’s perspective that “seeing” letterforms in practical use does not always mean fonts were involved in the production.
In Norway they use the word font and in Sweden they say typsnitt (typeface) nomatter if you see it or not:-)
Very interesting Yves, something I’ve never actually thought about before. I like the song & mp3 analogy
These distinctions are very nice but nonetheless it’s not possible to impose definitions like this onto language. Computer users who are not typographers already use the word ‘font’ when we might prefer ‘typeface’ – and will no doubt do so more and more in the future.
When I hear someone say (about letterforms in print, or on the screen) “that’s a nice font” I can understand perfectly clearly what they mean. Which makes me wonder if there is really any point in making this distinction: there are plenty of other things where terms are used with similar imprecision, yet this doesn’t cause us any problems with comprehension.
We (typographers) can often come across as pedants when we think we are acting as protectors of ‘standards’. To paraphrase the old terrorist/freedom fighter dichotomy, we might even say that ‘one man’s font is another man’s typeface’.
As a graphic designer, I know what most of my clients mean when they use the word “font.” And, seeing as the client is always right (even when they’re wrong), I give them a pass. However, I would expect a vendor in the industry to use the term correctly. If I ask a vendor what font they used in a section of a particular project, I do not want to hear, “Garamond” — I want to hear, “Berthold Garamond italic, 12 point.”
The correct hierarchy of typographic terminology, as I learned it, is broken down into the four Fs.
FOUNDRY: The designer and/or manufacturer of sets of type. Berthold Direct Corporation is a type foundry.
FAMILY: Related typefaces from the same foundry. Berthold Garamond is a type family.
FACE: The style of the type (regular, medium, bold, etc.). Berthold Garamond regular is one typeface while Berthold Garamond italic is a different typeface.
FONT: A typeface at a specific size. Berthold Garamond italic, 10 point is one font while Berthold Garamond italic, 12 point is a different font.
Excellent article. Gives me something to think about. Personally, I use the word… ::hangs head:: …font.
As I know and I think I know this thing well, as I read a lot on this subject, a font comes from the old days of metal typesetting, when
all the metal pieces that shared the same characteristics: type size,
and type style(roman or italic, light or bold or heavy or black, condensed or normal or extended), where put toghether by means of having them together for practice. So they formed a FONT. So a font is a type face in specific size and specific typestyle!
Jacci Howard Bear is very clear about this:
“Back in the days when all typefaces were made of little pieces of metal that had to be arranged one character at a time in a big tray for use in a printing press, the word font referred to one specific style of type in a single size. 12-point Times New Roman and 72-point Times New Roman were two completely different fonts, one small, one large.”
I am very unhappy that a lot of good authors are ambiguos about this, when a hundred years ago or not even so long things very clear.
My definition is this: The type or typeface is the design of the letters in a font. A font is the sum total collection of glyphs hewn in the type’s design and assembled in one source, or font. Check the etymology of Font in a decent dictionary such as the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, and it turns out the origin of “font” is “source”. So a font is a source of letter or type sorts crafted in accordance with a particular typeface design.
> That is, however, no reason to use fuzzy terms when precise ones exist.
Erik, you have completely ignored the very sound and sensible reasoning Miles offered, and without good reason. Clear definitions and precision of reference are all very well, but relevance and context count too.
Most of the font snobs on this thread seem oblivious to context and relevance, as if they cannot deal with reality and refuse to play with a full deck of unmarked cards, like bad children.
James, what does relevance and context have to do with what we explain in this post? I don’t see why anyone would be against us FontFeed authors adhering to a certain terminology and explaining why, especially since we are in no way forcing anyone else to do the same. This post is meant to be educational, not dictatorial. Call them fonts or glyph sets or alphanumeric thingamagogs or whatever you feel like for all I care. We certainly won’t lose sleep over it.
And it’s typeface snobs, not font snobs.
Read Miles’ post again. He explains why context matters and should be the determinant of which term is used, depending on the setting. It’s simply common sense.
…what does relevance and context have to do with what we explain in this post?
That is so dismissive. Once again you’re conveniently trying to limit the range of this discussion to this discussion thread only. Such a black & white view. A flaw has been found in Erik’s rationale and to cover that up you change the range of the discussion topic.
And it’s typeface snobs, not font snobs.
Heh! At least you’ve got a sense of humor.
Relevance: yes!
That is precisely why I insist on the difference. When somebody calls me a fontdesigner or asks me to design a font, I have to contradict, as this is not what I do. I design a typeface, and then other people get involved in making this into a font, eg running routines that combine flying diacritics into fully accented characters, re-arranging the character set to allow for different code pages, applying hints, kerning, etc. The result is a font, the carrier of the typeface I designed. As a client will have to pay for the whole process, it helps if he understands it, the ensuing time constraints and technical issues.
I wrote my comment not in response to anybody else’s, so I did not intend to contradict Miles. Having worked in this business for 40 years now has made me more pragmatic than you can imagine. Which does not mean that I do not appreciate clear definitions for their own sake.
The one definition I make sure my graphic students get is that typeface is the look of the font – what makes it recognisable – made obvious because we all recognise each other by looking at each other’s face mainly. I used to struggle with the definition of font but now I’m clear. I do think it is the delivery of the typeface the designer designed. I agree with erik and appreciate the work that goes into a well designed typeface. My graphic design students in their ignorance think that it’s just the look of the type characters alone. I try to set them straight.
Thomas Phinney just completed an extensive survey on these definitions. Nice to see there is some general agreement.
Things are generally simpler than we make them. A font in ancient times [as now] was a vessel made for the holding of liquids, the remnant of which is to be found in churches. My information is that the typeface when produced in whatever material, however small, was kept in a ‘font’ [or watertight vessel] until required by the printer when the typeface was removed from the appropriately labelled ‘font’ and placed in what became the printers tray. QED
great thread—i really like what erik, and everyone actually, has had to say on the subject. my wonderful professor, Dina V. at RISD described it this way: font is the cookie-cutter, typeface is the cookie. i think of it as font=typewriter key, typeface=what it types. but… back in the OLD days (of metal type)?! letterpress is alive and well! it’s not the worst thing in the world to be called a font, er a typeface snob—it implies a passion for one’s craft. consider how many people who happen to know a certain software call themselves “designers” or how many frustrated marketing professionals wish they could “play”.
since i am still familiarazing myself with the topic i realoy font this helpful but the thing is i wanted to know the procaution necessary for video production
I think of fountain pens..original fonts?
That “complete set of characters” would not just be one each of a, b, c, and so on. When you ordered a font of, say, 16pt Centaur from the foundry, you would receive a lot more 16pt Centaur e’s than x’s. If you were ordering type for a different language, with a different average frequency of some letters, you would get different numbers of those particular letters. A font, in practice, was a package of metal sorts (individual pieces of type), sufficient to set an average page of text in that size.
This was all from the days when “type is something you can hold in your hand.”
In a remembrance about his designer father Jef Raskin in FastCompany’s Design Weekly today (2/8/11), Aza Raskin says his father was the Macintosh designer who “…misnamed what should be “typefaces” as the “fonts” menu. He never forgave himself for his incorrect usage of English.” But I’d say Jef should rest easy.
Regardless of the original and largely obscure usage of the word “Font” in pre-computer days, Jef’s so-called error promoted “font” into meaning “discrete family of typefaces,” and that’s a far more elegant and efficient use of the term… as a gazillion artists and designers who’ve used and loved the Macs since the mid ’80′s will attest.
That’s how languages evolve.
In digital terms the term ‘font’ still makes sense to me. The bits and bytes (the .otf or .ttf) that are the instructions for rendering a typeface is a font seeing as (at it’s simplest) there is a single description for each character, and characters can be duplicated from that single source limitlessly.
What seems to be missing from this conversation is the origin or usefulness of the word font as opposed to typeface. Go to any letterpress studio that still has fonts(lead or wood)of type and you will get it immediately. The typeface is what is impressed on the paper and the font, a box with all the characters of that typeface family (usually wood or lead pieces) are divided alphabetically and numerically. Font is the box that holds all those pieces of lead or wood of that a particular typeface being impressed on paper. So, on your computer, those folders that hold your “Typefaces” with names like Helvetica and ugh!, Arial, are actual fonts. But with the advent of the computer, I think a font/folder can hold a whole type family! Where-in the old school physical world of letterpress the shear physical weight of lead type would make it impossible to put the entire helvetica family for example in one font!
1) a particular punchcutter, usually the designer of the style of the letters, weighting, etc. filed the letterforms of all the characters, punctuation, and diacritical marks onto the end of a steel punch.
2) about eight families of faces existed in the 14-17th centuries: rotunda, gothic, italic, roman, bastarda blackletter (“English letter” in England until the 1620) etc.), which were derived from scribal letterforms stretching back through manuscript history to about the 8th century A.D. when a particular script/style was developed, used and then replaced, but only to emerge in the later 15th century as the model for the “roman” family with the capital copied directly from roman temple and public building inscriptions and other sculptured images. The “italic” face evolved from letterforms that leaned right rather than standing erect, but quite similar to “roman” letterforms. Both were “perfected” and adopted in Italy, France by 1500, followed in England by 1554 and the arrival of the Geneva Bible from Switzerland in 1560 or so. Before the 1554 introduction, the romans and italics seen in English prinnting were crudely cut, poorly proportionated, and generally ugly. The major manuscript letterforms characterised by thick vertical strokes, very thin diagonal strokes (i.e., joining the left vertical of an “n” with the right vertical. The “gothic” and other related faces in his family spread primarly through the the Low Countries (Holland etc.) and Germany.
3) a set of punches transferred the letterforms onto brass matrices; the molten composite of lead + tin + antimony was poured into a mold (Gutenberg’s design of mold is not known; the earliest description of a handmold is from 1547 which uses the names of the parts of the mold that are found later in Joseph Moxon’s 1683 precise “as good as CAD” drawings of the parts of his mold, which then are repeated in 18th and 19th century descriptions and drawings.
4) The punchcutter’s name was attached to the set of punches, and contemporary type specimens describe the main characteristics: italic family, designed and cut by Garamond, in sizes such pariel, pica, auguste, Double canon etc. etc. sizes. Although eight sizes of roman type could carry Garamond’s name, unlike TruType scalable fonts, each size was an independent design generated from another set of punches and matrices. So, a Garamond pica roman was usually an attempt by Garamond to produce the exact same characteristics of the next sizes up and below, but there were never any exact duplicate designs across the range of sizes even though they all bear the same punchcutters’ name. Another twist is that in the apprenticeship system, the master Garamond contracted teach the “mystery” (i.e., the secret tricks of the trade) of letterform design and proportions to the apprentice. An early 16th century comment indicates that it took the typical apprentice four years to master the technique of cutting a pica “g” on the end of a punch.
5) The thousands of individual pieces of type consisting of the long vertical “shank” topped by the letterform on the shoulder of the shank all together formed a typefont. Each casting operation with a set of matrices to fill a “full bill” or “half-bill” order (the proportion of letterforms were determined by the frequency of each letter in the target language) of a complete alphabet, numerals punctuation, and diacritical marks produced another typefont. Usually a sequence of typefonts cast in the same set of matrices turned out pretty nearly identical except that the technology could not produce perfectly duplicated type “sorts”. As soon as the new type was set and pounded level with a mallet, that typefont began to be distguishable from every typefont produced by the same set of matrices.
cheers, A
boom Bap Bada Bop Boom POW
Type face : what you see
Font :what you type
Font is the variation of type in styles (bold, italic) and sizes (12pt, 1in).
Typeface describes the shape of characters, created by typographers.
The blueprint for the font is the typeface.
OK, so a font is like a technical term of the thing that designers call a type face? Did I get it right? Please advise.
my understanding:
font – collection or “family” of typefaces (ie. helvetica)
typeface – specific style within the font family (ie. neue)
Post a comment: