ted@mbunix.mitre.org (Edward J. Ede) (01/26/89)
In article <1989Jan23.144822.29002@cs.rochester.edu> ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) writes: >Small nit: it's Helvetica Oblique. Italics are for serif fonts. Correct me if I'm wrong (he says, reaching for his flame retardent suit). I was told that an Oblique font was just a normal font tilted (by an algorithm) a certain number of degrees and an Italic font was one that was re-designed (by hand) at that angle. As a counter example, both Courier (not a serious font, I know) and ITC Lubalin Graph have oblique versions and serifs. A stroll through Adobe's font dictionaries may prove this. Ted |Ted Ede -- ted@mbunix.mitre.org -- The MITRE Corporation -- Burlington Road| | linus!mbunix!ted -- Bedford MA, 01730 -- Mail Stop B015 -- (617) 271-2524 | | - this line intentionally left blank - | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
bryan@iconsys.UUCP (Bryan Cardoza) (01/30/89)
In article <1989Jan23.144822.29002@cs.rochester.edu> ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) writes: >Small nit: it's Helvetica Oblique. Italics are for serif fonts. In article <43873@linus.UUCP> ted@mbunix (Ede) writes: >Correct me if I'm wrong (he says, reaching for his flame retardent >suit). I was told that an Oblique font was just a normal font tilted >(by an algorithm) a certain number of degrees and an Italic font was >one that was re-designed (by hand) at that angle. You were told wrong; Ken is correct according to my professional designer friends. -- Bryan Cardoza uunet!iconsys!bryan Software Engineer SANYO/ICON Telephone: (801) 225-6888 Orem, Utah FAX: (801) 226-0651
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (02/01/89)
In article <323@iconsys.UUCP> bryan@iconsys.UUCP (Bryan Cardoza) writes: >In article <1989Jan23.144822.29002@cs.rochester.edu> ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) writes: >>Small nit: it's Helvetica Oblique. Italics are for serif fonts. > >In article <43873@linus.UUCP> ted@mbunix (Ede) writes: >>Correct me if I'm wrong (he says, reaching for his flame retardent >>suit). I was told that an Oblique font was just a normal font tilted >>(by an algorithm) a certain number of degrees and an Italic font was >>one that was re-designed (by hand) at that angle. > >You were told wrong; Ken is correct according to my professional designer >friends. So why don't you post their names so none of us makes the mistake of hiring them ? (insert :-)'s until you feel better) -- What I'd really like is a tie-dye T-shirt with a Mercedes symbol on the back. richard@gryphon.COM {...}!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov
bryan@iconsys.UUCP (Bryan Cardoza) (02/02/89)
In article <11514@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: Followup-To: nowhere, it's only a joke Keywords: no bryan, ken said he was wrong already >(insert :-)'s until you feel better) Sorry, I have to make myself clear, since you took the trouble to raise the issue. I made reference to the common usage by professionals; follow if you will. [Skip to the end for the short version.] In article <1989Jan23.144822.29002@cs.rochester.edu> ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) writes: >>I agree that regular Helvetica kind of gets on one's nerves, but Helvetica >>Italics aren't half bad at all... > >Small nit: it's Helvetica Oblique. Italics are for serif fonts. In article <11122@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >Is this really true ? I thought that Italics were a very old idea, >and were basically a curvy character different from the ``original'' ... >serif vs. sans-serif fonts. Another thing to perhaps back this >up is that Times-Roman oblique != Times-Italics. In article <1989Jan24.053717.19313@cs.rochester.edu> ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) writes: >Yes, I agree. That's the very point I was making badly. Italic is not ... >through a skewing matrix. Italics are a different design within the >family. In careless nomenclature, all sloping fonts, italic or not, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >get called italic. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PLEASE NOTE, it doesn't look like Ken is saying he's wrong. In article <43873@linus.UUCP> ted@mbunix (Ede) writes: >Correct me if I'm wrong (he says, reaching for his flame retardent >suit). I was told that an Oblique font was just a normal font tilted >(by an algorithm) a certain number of degrees and an Italic font was >one that was re-designed (by hand) at that angle. In article <323@iconsys.UUCP> bryan@iconsys.UUCP (Bryan Cardoza) writes: >You were told wrong; Ken is correct according to my professional designer >friends. In article <11514@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >So why don't you post their names so none of us makes the mistake >of hiring them ? Cute. In the common usage of typographers [that I know] (those who design type) italic is a slanted serif face oblique is a slanted sans serif face In the common usage of type typesetters [that I know] (those who place type) italic is an originaly crafted slanted face oblique is a non-slanted face skewed by machine In article <1989Jan24.053717.19313@cs.rochester.edu> ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) writes: >Being too terse in postings has drawbacks too. AMEN. End of story. -- Bryan Cardoza uunet!iconsys!bryan Software Engineer SANYO/ICON Telephone: (801) 225-6888 Orem, Utah FAX: (801) 226-0651
ted@mbunix.mitre.org (Edward J. Ede) (02/02/89)
In article <323@iconsys.UUCP> bryan@iconsys.UUCP (Bryan Cardoza) writes: >>In article <1989Jan23.144822.29002@cs.rochester.edu> ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) writes: >>>Small nit: it's Helvetica Oblique. Italics are for serif fonts. > >In article <43873@linus.UUCP> ted@mbunix (Ede) writes: >>Correct me if I'm wrong (he says, reaching for his flame retardent >>suit). I was told that an Oblique font was just a normal font tilted >>(by an algorithm) a certain number of degrees and an Italic font was >>one that was re-designed (by hand) at that angle. > >You were told wrong; Ken is correct according to my professional designer >friends. Designers of what? Hardware, software, home fashions... >-- >Bryan Cardoza uunet!iconsys!bryan In my previous posting I gave an example. I guess Bryan chose to ignore it. ITC Lubalin Graph is a typeface designed by Herb Lubalin. It HAS serifs. Its slanted version is called OBLIQUE, not italic. (If this is not painfully obvious, let me know and I'll expand it to a small novella.) Italic fonts are redesigned versions of the original fonts. Look at the little "a" in Times. The roman version of this letter is not the same as the italic version. This is what I'm talking about. In general, serif-oblique fonts look funny. This is due to varying width strokes in Roman fonts. So, the fonts are redesigned and they become serif-italic fonts. But in Lubalin Graph, the stroke width is constant, so slanting the font does not make it look bad. And that is what is done to produce Lubalin-Oblique, an oblique font with serifs. So, it is not true to say that italics are for serif fonts. This information comes from two sources. The instructor at my PostScript class (one of Adobe's first twenty employees) and our lead typographer in our publications and graphics department (35 years experience; used to kern letters with a hacksaw.) I consider both of the people pretty reliable sources in the typesetting field. I know I am probably going overboard on this issue, but I am annoyed by people that spread misinformation as fact. If you want to speculate, go ahead, I'm all for it, just preface it with some kind of warning. |Ted Ede -- ted@mbunix.mitre.org -- The MITRE Corporation -- Burlington Road| | linus!mbunix!ted -- Bedford MA, 01730 -- Mail Stop B015 -- (617) 271-2524 | | - this line intentionally left blank - | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
bts@sas.UUCP (Brian T. Schellenberger) (02/02/89)
In article <323@iconsys.UUCP> bryan@iconsys.UUCP (Bryan Cardoza) writes: |In article <1989Jan23.144822.29002@cs.rochester.edu> ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) writes: |In article <43873@linus.UUCP> ted@mbunix (Ede) writes: |>Correct me if I'm wrong (he says, reaching for his flame retardent |>suit). I was told that an Oblique font was just a normal font tilted |>(by an algorithm) a certain number of degrees and an Italic font was |>one that was re-designed (by hand) at that angle. | |You were told wrong; Ken is correct according to my professional designer |friends. Not so fast. An oblique or slant font is, indeed, a slanted version of a "normal" roman font. It can be slanted algorithmicly or by design, and it can be sans or with serifs, but it is always made with the same basic letter shapes as the roman version of the same font. An italic font, on the other hand, has different letter shapes. It more closely resembles a hand-written script; notice especially the differences in "a" and "g" in most italic vs. roman fonts. An italic font may or may not exist for a serif or sans serif font. However, *in*practice*, modern oblique fonts are almost always slanted by algorithm. If you want the same shape, why do otherwise? And italic fonts can never be done by algorithm. So, for most practical purposes, the original statement was correct. Also, for most practical purposes (although this is a poorer generalization), the original statement that started this thread is correct, too. Although the concepts are independent, serif body fonts almost always have italics, and sanserif fonts almost never do (though their obliques are sometimes mis-called italic). It is simply harder to create a distinctly different, yet related, set of letter shapes without the serifs to work with. And since nobody in their right might sets entire documents in sanserif fonts, it isn't as important to have real italics anyway. (Plus, sanserif fonts are supposed to look simple and uncluttered, and having multiple basic shapes for each letter tends to work against this idea.) -- -- Brian, the Man from Babble-on. ...!mcnc!rti!sas!bts -- "All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin." -- THEY MIGHT BE GIANTS
capslock@cup.portal.com (Allen M Crider) (02/02/89)
There is actually quite a difference between obliqued sans serif typefaces and true cut sans serif italics. You can easily spot this when comparing the rounds (uppercase 'O' for example) of an obliqued with an italic version of the same face. Also, a few faces such as Gill Sans use different lowercase 'a's in their roman and italic versions. For a real standout example, look at Adobe Systems' Font and Function catalog. Notice Futura Heavy Oblique. Doesn't the 'O' in the word Oblique appear a bit off balance?
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (02/03/89)
In article <324@iconsys.UUCP> bryan@iconsys.UUCP (Bryan Cardoza) writes: > >In the common usage of typographers [that I know] (those who design type) > > italic is a slanted serif face > oblique is a slanted sans serif face As has been pointed out repeatedly (stone sans italic, lucida italic) there are sans serif italic fonts which are not just oblique. As knuth explains in one of his early books, Italics are hundreds of years old, while oblique faces are less than 100 years old. And while it is true that more serif fonts have italic versions, all this means is that more serif fonts have italic varsions. Translation: the people that you know who design fonts are not being entirely accurate >In the common usage of type typesetters [that I know] (those who place type) > > italic is an originaly crafted slanted face > oblique is a non-slanted face skewed by machine Sort of right. Although it's not just a case if being ``slanted''. An *italic*, while it is also slanted, has flourishes which distinguish it from the same character un-slanted. -- What I'd really like is a tie-dye T-shirt with a Mercedes symbol on the back. richard@gryphon.COM {...}!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov
snidely@inteloa.intel.com (David P. Schneider) (02/07/89)
> [previously posted text]
As a pointer to tradition, the original "fonts" dating back before Gutten-
berg were generally done with pens that did not exhibit the same line width
in all directions. This includes reed/quill pens, stone chisels, stylii
for tablets, etc. Brush letters are a different story, however.
Anyway, when holding one of these anisotropic pens, the nib was generally
slanted to the direction of the baseline of the text. Take a fat, broad
magic marker, draw a circle, and study the widths of various portions of
the resulting "character".
Typically, a roman hand uses a different nib angle than an italic hand.
But since hands are all done by individuals, distinguishing different
"fonts" requires a more generic approach than just minutiae. One key
difference is that italic was intended to be written fast, which meant
lifting the pen less: more rounded characters, smaller letters, joins
between letters (replacing serifs), and fewer strokes (one reason a's ap-
pear different). Slanting the whole letter was also characteristic. Go
back to your magic marker, and draw an oval slanted to the right (/, not
\).
Originally, typefaces where intended to imitate formal hands and italic
hands, and we can expect that italic fonts were designed by copying hand-
made text. Later (19th and 20th century in particular), font designers
made their decisions based on other criteria. For computer fonts, ease of
generation is obviously important, so simple obliquing has become more com-
mon.
By the way, "roman" originally was "upper case" [capitals] only -- and
stone cutting was a dominant force in its design, since the Roman culture
was much into permanent records. I believe was tablets were also very com-
mon, but I don't know as much about Roman pens and/or brushes.
Uncials were an early (Christian era) attempt to speed up the handwritten
Roman letters, and contain capitals only.
If you've read this far, thanks. References can be found in good calligra-
phy texts, and Disney has a short on calligraphy narrated by John Houseman
(narrated the "old-fashioned way"?); it shows up on the Disney Channel as
filler, occasionally. Also, the Western [American?] Italic Handwriting So-
ciety publishes journals and other information that may apply.
dave,
Mondayjejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (02/08/89)
As a fun, readable historical reference on the history of letters and the influence of tools on letter shapes, I would suggest *The 26 Letters* by the late (alas) Oscar Ogg. I'd forgotten about it, even though it's what started me on calligraphy, until I saw a copy of the second edition, being sold for cheap (remaindered?) at a local book store. Cheers, James Jones