Comments for Web Graphics I

Comment on Typography Focused Articles by Chris

Chris — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:06:31 +0000

Don’t get too frustrated with the standardization or legal battles brewing. I let the browser makers and the foundries sort it out. We’ve come very far in just the last couple of year – smoother sailing is ahead. I expect in another two years, purchasing fonts for online use will be as simple and painless as purchasing legal .mp3s from Amazon or iTunes.

Instead, for now, focus on familiarizing yourself with the services and the body of typefaces at your disposal.

Comment on Typography Focused Articles by Chris

Chris — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:02:30 +0000

I appreciate the positivity in your summary. Web fonts, despite the current complexity, are getting easier and easier to design with and implement every day.

Your iTunes analogy is a good one. Type Foundries want to be protected, much like the record labels want. iTunes provides a service that satisfies both the music love and the music distributor. I think services like Typekit are the web-font version of iTunes.

Comment on Typography Focused Articles by Chris

Chris — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:58:58 +0000

I think you hit the nail on the head; we are only in the infancy of what web typography means. The activity of the last 2 years has eclipsed the combined efforts of the previous 15.

I’m glad you have a better understanding and hopefully our typographic palette for the web has opened up!

Comment on Typography Focused Articles by Chris

Chris — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:55:34 +0000

The growth of web licensing in the past year has been unbelievable. Yet, all web-specific versions of typefaces are not created equally. Look for the next 2-3 years be about “quality” of the typeface as it ports itself into the web version. Things like screen “hinting” are going to be big deals.

Meanwhile, I don’t see the foundries charging to simply raise money. They charge their prices to protect their investments and to also tier their costs per views. If you use a fonts.com web font, you must specify the amount of page-views. The more views, the higher the cost. Data costs money.

Comment on Photoshop Etiquette Primer by Chris

Chris — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:50:46 +0000

We’ve had issues with consistency in how we organize files. For instance, if there is a tight deadline on a project, sometimes designers (myself included) get a bit sloppy with the details. Usually, this is caught before the file gets into the hands of the front-end developers. I’ve never had to get too angry about it; everyone on my team understands that, at any moment, your Photoshop file might end up in the hands of a different designer. If someone else’s PSD ended up on your desktop, you’d hope that it was organized rationally and vice versa.

Remind me to talk about masks the next time we have class. Also, if you have any other questions regarding Photoshop etiquette, just let me know.

Comment on Typography Focused Articles by Peter J.

Peter J. — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:53:29 +0000

Reading through these articles, especially after starting with the Typedia blog entries on alternatives to Ariel & Georgia was very interesting. In the past I was always aware that MAC fonts were at risk of not displaying correctly on PC’s and vice versa, but I had no idea to what extent. After reading the list of alternatives and reading about which typefaces could cross platform successfully I was shocked.
I also found it interesting the rate at which more web fonts are becoming available. It seems as though it were just a year ago that we were instructed as graphic designers to stick to the basic web safe typefaces such as Arial, Georgia, Lucida, and Verdana, and now foundries all across the internet are opening their doors to new possibilities and a wider range of web safe fonts.
The downside to this growth of more web safe fonts is the cost vs. quality ratio. It seems that while many new typefaces are emerging as supposed, “Web safe fonts” they do not necessarily standup to the quality that traditional non web safe typefaces uphold. As a result these typefaces are free. Typefaces that are better quality however, are being sold at costly prices, in an effort to raise money for the type foundries that produce them.

Comment on Typography Focused Articles by Alana

Alana — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:45:41 +0000

I feel as though the use of type on the web is something that has the potential to really blossom in the next few years. Already the amount of typefaces available has significantly spiked and if things keep going the way that they are, I think soon the web and print will become a lot more similar. We are continuing to discover everything we can do with the web, which 30 years ago would have never been anything we could even imagine. As we learn more and more about what we can do with typography on the web, there will be a definite growth in the use of web instead of print. Though I understand the need for paying for fonts, I also understand the fear web designers have of purchasing a font that may not end up suiting their web needs in the end. Maybe as typography on the web continues to grow, prices will go down or things will shift. However, in the long run, typography on the web definitely needs much more consideration that print typography. It’s a more complicated art that needs to be designed to allow for shifts that will happen with different browsers and computers. More thought needs to go into the choices that you make because there is a lot more increase in variables. I used to feel more trapped in my options with typography and now that I know there is more options, I’ll be able to loosen up more with my type choices. The articles were very interesting and showed a lot of different opinions and ways of seeing things that I had never even considered. Though I previously knew very little about typography on the web, I now feel much more informed and will be able to make better choices in the future in regards to my web typography.

Comment on Typography Focused Articles by Hannah

Hannah — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:02:06 +0000

I know that in my limited experience designing for the web, I have ignored the looming possibility of the typefaces I choose to not be available to use, or at a large cost to me. I knew there were limitations, but I also knew that I have visited hundreds of websites with beautiful typography, that clearly worked around the issue and did not limit themselves to Georgia, or Times. These articles “woke me up” in a sense, because while the projects I have worked on as a student probably will never be coded and put into use, being aware of the current state of web typography will force me to get into the habit of researching what my options are, and not approaching my typography decisions the same way as I would with print. I also find it interesting that some typefaces are being designed specifically for the screen, rather than print.

These articles also portrayed a pretty fair look at each sides of the problem. While limitations are frustrating, I can see why most type designers aren’t being generous with their typefaces and contributing to the kind of disarray web typography is in. I found the comparisons to the iTunes solution to pirating music as hopeful. This “battle” is very similar to those in other fields, so while we might be in a grey area now, I think a solution that satisfies both parties will be reached. I also hope to get more comfortable with all the different acronyms of the type files. The first article that had three different acronyms in one sentence seemed like another language to me at first. But as I continued to read, I did gain some clarity, and glad I am aware of the developments on the technical side.

Comment on Photoshop Etiquette Primer by Peter J.

Peter J. — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:37:32 +0000

I understand that you work with professionals, but has anyone from your firm ever butchered the organization of layers/ folders? If so did you ream them out for it? Whats the worst organizational nightmare you’ve had in terms of clients?

Could you speak about masks and grouping masks in one folder as opposed to masking each individual layer?

Comment on Typography Focused Articles by Jeremy Bloom

Jeremy Bloom — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:12:37 +0000

If strategically using WOFF systems for Fonts is so effective, than why haven’t all browsers agreed to accept it? Though I understand that for type sellers, this would be a great tool to enforce the legal use of their typefaces. This would allow creators to license their type making it more easily accessible for us designers. But what I don’t get is how there going to be able to regulate all these Fonts from a legal standpoint. If the font is posted on a website, cant anyone get it from the page source? Also, how would breaking these license terms be so evident? It sounds like a lot of added work and stress. If these sites (such as fontsquirrel and font.com) are hosting all these fonts that are currently on our private websites, where is the security that nothing will happen to jeopardize the functionality of our sites given a problem should happen to the host site?

From a design perspective, I found it interesting how professionals have broken down using specified type to a science. Especially the idea of the “legibility spectrum” or 4 quadrant graph. I did not know so much thought and energy went into this choice. The idea of type contrast is another fascinating element to the design decision, in particular, very different typefaces can play off of each other in complementary ways or resist each other to create a bit of tension, while typefaces that appear too similar can weaken the message and confuse a design’s visual language. I hope to gain more valuable insight into this methodology.