Thanks for the links frd. Really seems to be not definitive.
Reading across these extensive threads, I come to the following conclusion: Book is a weight for extensive reading and refers to smaller sizes. Therefore it also refers to optical weights that are optimised for better reading in small sizes, which results in a lowering of contrast by thickening the thinnest strokes in a letter. If Regular is the standard weight (also named as Roman in the past), wich is good for casual setting in 10-12 pt, Book should be a bit darker analogue to optical weights, because long text in publications like books tend to be set in a smaller sizes like 8 pt. Even if the font is a grotesque and has less stroke contrast, I would consider Book as a darker weight, because as I mentioned before, too much white at long text is making the eyes tired. This is something I experienced by myself. The smaller type is set, the thinner the strokes get. In result the white of the page is eating up the glyphs and this is tiring the readers eyes.
Of course, this is my view, but to me it makes more sense to place a Book weight between Regular and Medium. What definitely makes no sense to me, is to place a Book weight between Regular and Light.
Hi, a question I stumbled over several times without having an satisfying answer: Which weight is darker, Roman or Book?
I always was sure, that book is the darker weight, because too much white at long text is making the eyes tired and so a darkish text is a better choice. But over and over again I see book weights, that are lighter than the roman weight. I wonder if even type designers seem to be confusing this in present times?
I'm very curious what you think! What is correct or more common?
Okay, just to give an example. Here I have a font I started 15 years ago and didn't finish it because I lost interest. Now I would like to offer designers to play around with it, rework it or just make some modifications to show what direction the font could go in their opinion. Therefore I would throw it into the “trashcan“ and make it downloadable. My only claim for letting designers work with it is, they must upload their version of the font and post a short description of the result at the same place, so this is downloadable either. The results would be public domain just like the source.
The example here is a duo of two fonts. A “screen font” and a “print font” that is based very close on the pixels of the screen font. The idea is somehow simple but the execution is tricky ... and btw, who needs a pair of print and pixel fonts these days? Aesthetically I think this could still become something interesting and that's why I would offer designers to play around with it and find their solutions if they like.
The two fonts have already raw drawings of an alphabet, numbers and several punctuation marks.
Aha, this is the result of a collaborative design? I took a look at the font information but couldn't find the list of people that have contributed to the font. What a pity! But this is kind of perfect ... a bit too decorative in my opinion, but it's well done. (Couldn't translate your french properly, so I'm not sure if I got it completely.)
@claudeserieux / meanwhile I found an ebook with this information. thanks claudeserieux.
@claudeserieux / "WTC 145" ... okay, an abbreviation and a number. You would like to communicate?
@marty666 / "Why ask many people to contribute if the desired product is a shitty unambitious font ?" ... I wouldn't ask people for anything. The thing is, anyone can throw something into the trashcan and anyone can make something with it. In this case it would be a FONT. It doesn't have to be ambitious but it could be, of course! It simply depends on the amount of time and the kind of input someone is willing to give. (Have in mind, that everything you and others are investing could be for your own and everybody else's benefit.) I would be curious what will be the case depending on the work that is thrown into the trashcan. Sorry, I like the word "trashcan" in this context, because I really like to think of it like a designer who creates a usable product by doing upcycling. This is only metaphoric, but why not think like this when reworking digital products? Getting creative without having to produce something high end is very refreshing. We could learn so much from each other!
But as I wrote in the header, this is "just an idea" and I feel like I botherd some people who don't want to be disturbed. However, thanks for your input and response! After all I got more response here than I thought I would get! Maybe somewhere else this idea will become reality and people with the same imagination will try something like this ...
@claudeserieux / Now, I said it all before ... this is definitely not a starting point for a "trashcan" I have in mind. Can you tell me, who designed the alphabet? Is it really public domain? (There are tons of Typefaces whos creators have died over hundred years ago. Even many of the Grotesques have expired and lots of pros already scanned these typesamples for a revival. Tasty historism is profitable.)
@toto / "Release the font as public domain without any restriction or limitation for its use" – that's it. Anyone who puts a piece of work in the "trashcan" declares it as public domain. The only claim is, the result of a rework has to be postet in the "trashcan" as well and be downloadable.
Sorry claudeserieux, did you mean really old typefaces, that are public domain? I'm not a fan of modernised classics, because all the pros nowadays do design fonts that are more or less replicas of classic typefaces. They bore me like all these script revivals ... and maybe this is too ambitious in another way, because these old typefaces have a history of their own.
Did anyone say "not"? Of corse, source could be any "old" typeface that you designed in the past and is copyrighted by you and no one else. You just should be shure that you don't want it to be your exclusive work anymore. Therefore I think too far developed fonts make less sence in this area ... some glyphs with an initial design idea would be more promising. But anything between could be the startingpoint as well!
Thanks for your reply ... well, I didn't think of ambitious projects like these in your examples, marty666. I think of a section like a trashcan, where everybody can pick the torso or maybe the basic body of a font up and rework it, develop something completely different or just making a few tweaks to give it another base ... of course this refers more to display type or experimental and conceptual work. The guidelines should be as simple as possible: “Everything you design on these bases has to be released as freeware at the same thread like the original. Anyone who uses the results does it at full own risk!“
Protocol would be just the timeline of the releases. Anyone who does a rework of a font simply needs to mention on which source in the timeline he based his version.
Anyway, I don't want a squabble either, Mr claudeserieux ... but sometimes I think, life would be much more interesting if we would collaborate without thinking of ownership. If I would throw something in this trashcan, I would be happy if something interesting would be developed out of it. This could be something really small and neat, I would love it! Just be sure you are ready to quit your exclusive ownership to the initial design, then maybe the idea of someone else will breathe it back to life ... and it will be free.
What if dafont would create a new section at their site. In this section the first creator can upload "old" unreleased font or uncompleted work, in which she/he is not interested anymore. In return people can download these attempts, rework them and upload them to the same place as the original. Everything done with the original has to be released as freeware under the same thread.
Imagine what could be the result! Fonts that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day, could be reworked by others that see a potential and become a source for all! Even if someone would like to make a minor change for a singular task, this would be no problem!
The only thing is, the person who decides to release his first attempt there, has to accept any rework that is done. And anyone who downloads one of the versions that have been created, should be aware that this version could be far away from finalization and may need a checkup before usage.
Fonts as free source may be not a new idea, but where do we have these really free sources?
Oh come on, don't get too serious about my comment, just because I didn't place a stupid emoticon behind it. BTW, I wrote "here and everywhere else!", so I'm tired of that 'retro script thing', no matter if it is done 'high end' or not. dafont is a great resource, even if many fonts are made "in half an hour"! Between all these first attempts you can find pearls that have more character than the output of many professionals. But I feel like people are getting more and more afraid of putting their imperfect work on this site. So the "pearls" look more and more similar just because they want to look "professional".
... by all these script and signpainter fonts postet here and everywhere else! Could dafont please outsource them to another page? Just call this page "the bourgeois typographer's script heaven" or "my computer can write prettier than you — you loser!" or what ever ...
Peter Licht „In Praise Of Reality“
Dear toto, dear metaphasebrothel thanks for your response!
toto, I also did not get any response from them, and I guess they also will not remove my fonts from their site. They sit on the British Virgin Islands and rip fonts apart like they want. Okay, they display the font information and hint to contact the designer for licensing issues if the fonts are used commercial, which is a minimum I would expect. I even told them, that I would not mind them putting my font on their site, if they only would keep the read me and not rip the two weights apart – which really just make sense if they are provided together in one zip file. In my case it's not about any loss of profit, my ego or something, it's simply about disinformation. Why are they making their offerings more stupid than it would be, by just offering the files as original zip files? If they additionally had added installing information as a service of the provider, I wouldn't mind.
However, if I should get a response from them later on, I surely will get back to you.
metaphasebrothel, thanks for the interesting legal explanation. I'm a real newbee to dafonts and actually I should have included the whole readme in the fontfile itself. (But even there it can be removed easyly, if people just don't care about what they're doing.) I designed several "professional" fonts in the past and I always refused to manage the legal stuff, since there are foundries who earn enough money selling my fonts, so they have to handle this for me accurately. At dafonts I just made an early work available, since it otherwise would have not been released at all. But when it comes to the "real world" ... well ... :]
The download page fonts2u is offering the fonts uploaded at dafont.com by removing the original readme files. These are simply substituted by installation instructions and a note, that the font has been provided by fonts2u. This evening I wrote them to remove my fonts from their page and I'm waiting for reaction. Does anyone know since when they are doing this?
Édité le 02/02/2015 à 22:56 par koeiekat
Fuseau horaire : CEST. Il est actuellement 03:51