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
ShareThis31 Comments:
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 living legend Matthew Carter the most beautiful size of Centaur
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/
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.
font is what you use, and typeface is what you see.
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.
Post a comment:
The FontFeed
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
- 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
- Akira Kobayashi on FF Clifford
- To coincide with our newsletter featuring the work of Akira Kobayashi, we publish his essay on the making of FF…Read more
- Jeffery Keedy: Thoughts on Designing Type
- The following article was written for FontShop by Jeffery Keedy. In the early days of digital design I was frustrated by…Read more
- Tip: Using FF Headz
- FF Headz is the first typeface by designer and illustrator Florian Zietz. The concept for FF Headz is similar to…Read more
- ATypI’08 | Nick Shinn Unveils his Scotch Modern
- Nick Shinn’s ATypI’08 paper presented the revival of a mid-19th century typeface as a balance between the demands of authenticity,…Read more
[…] Check out the post on the Font Shop Blog. […]