garths%glass@Sun.COM (Garth Snyder) (08/09/89)
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes, about Adobe's Font&Function catalog: > I've always wondered about the type samples. Who picks the silly > little bits of text used in the type samples? I've wondered this too. Some of the samples are downright assinine. Reading Font & Function makes me blush with empathetic embarassment for Adobe. :-) The worst are the waspish comments such as "If you like Univers Bold Extra Putrid #523, and you should, since it's the world's best selling typeface, blah blah blah..." I don't have the thing handy, so I can't quote the actual text. -------------------- Garth Snyder Sun Microsystems, mail drop 14-40 ARPA: garths@sun.com 2550 Garcia Avenue ALSO: garth@boulder.colorado.edu Mountain View, CA 94043 --------------------
ath@helios.prosys.se (Anders Thulin) (08/09/89)
In article <120166@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> garths%glass@Sun.COM (Garth Snyder) writes: >roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes, about Adobe's Font&Function catalog: >> I've always wondered about the type samples. Who picks the silly >> little bits of text used in the type samples? >I've wondered this too. Some of the samples are downright assinine. >Reading Font & Function makes me blush with empathetic embarassment >for Adobe. :-) The problem is perhaps to adapt the message of the catalogue to the expected audience. If the catalogue was intended for professional typographers *only*, you'd probably see one single text used for all type faces. This text would be partly 'normal' and partly 'difficult'. 'VAX' is one such difficult word; the word 'Hamburg' is often considered as a 'fingerprint' of a type face -- it would probably included as well. You might even see a row of 'mambmcmdmemfmg...'. We, however, the actual and expected audience of the catalogue, would probably find this rather boring -- we would much rather have a 'real', preferably amusing text that says something we can understand, and perhaps learn something from: a text we think gives us an idea of how our papers and news sheets could look. That is, if we could persuade the boss to hand out some more money for fonts to replace those we bought last month and turned out to be useless except for advertisements of Tibetan temple bells or Singalese junks ... The explanation for 'silly little bits of text' and 'asinine' samples is probably, then, that Adobe has adapted their message to the expected consumer. [ Feel free to add as many smiley faces as you like to the previous paragraph in order to make it more adapted to the actual reader ] :-) -- Anders Thulin, Programsystem AB, Teknikringen 2A, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden ath@prosys.se {uunet,mcvax}!sunic!prosys!ath
greid@adobe.com (Glenn Reid) (08/10/89)
In article <120166@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> garths%glass@Sun.COM (Garth Snyder) writes: >roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes, about Adobe's Font&Function catalog: > I've always wondered about the type samples. Who picks the silly > little bits of text used in the type samples? >I've wondered this too. Some of the samples are downright assinine. >Reading Font & Function makes me blush with empathetic embarassment >for Adobe. :-) >The worst are the waspish comments such as "If you like Univers Bold >Extra Putrid #523, and you should, since it's the world's best selling >typeface, blah blah blah..." I don't have the thing handy, so I can't >quote the actual text. Our advertising agency produces the entirety of the Font & Function catalogue. It is intended for a very broad audience, including business people who don't know anything about type; a little leniency is appreciated on the ad copy.... I will pass your reactions along to the product manager, too. Glenn Reid Adobe Systems xx yy zz (to mollify the blasted Pnews)
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (08/10/89)
In article <1059@adobe.UUCP> greid@adobe.COM (Glenn Reid) writes: > Our advertising agency produces the entirety of the Font & Function > catalogue. It is intended for a very broad audience, including business > people who don't know anything about type; a little leniency is > appreciated on the ad copy.... I know of at least 3 types of people who read, or at least have looked at 1 or more times, F&F. Techie types like me who are in charge of tending networks and computer and laser printers but who know just enough about typography to be dangerous. Professional designers who deal with type on a day-to-day basis. And suits. What's really a blast is when (a real life example) the designer, a business type (i.e. suit), and myself sit down to a think-tank session about how to redesign our annual report, I discover that I know enough about typography, and she knows enough about computers, to allow us to really communicate. "ITC Garramond", she says, "I just *love* ITC Garramond". The suit looks real impressed when I can come back and say "ITC Garramond, oh sure, we can do ITC Garramond, it's right here in the catalog, see?" He doesn't know ITC Garramond from Univers Bold Extra Putrid #523, but it gives him a nice fuzzy feeling to see the two of us talking to each other in the same language. Now, what would be really nice is if F&F had some sort of introduction to typography section. That way, when people come to me and say "How come all the letters in Helvetica aren't the same size?" I can just hand them a copy of the catalog, open it to the section where it explains about proportional type, and let them read it at their own pace. Would be great for the suits. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network"