tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3195869989354907758.post4506189556746311585..comments2024-03-01T15:21:50.710-08:00Comments on Davis Typewriter Works: Typewriter TypeWill Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04371377137844175320noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3195869989354907758.post-85441367178645427582017-10-22T08:02:05.245-07:002017-10-22T08:02:05.245-07:00This was fascinating and exhaustive. Thank you for...This was fascinating and exhaustive. Thank you for the research. I think I disagree, however:<br /><br />I have my reservations about the approach of continuing to use the words the industry used at the time. What if the industry was wrong? What if our understanding of things changed? We don’t call Caligraph typewriter “caligraphs” any more, even though we used to very early on. We don’t call early typists “typewriters” today except as an interesting side note. We try not to use “manpower“ as it’s sexist, etc. The word “font” was not in public use up until typesetting became desktop publishing and then word processing, and its earlier absence might be explained simply by its unfamiliarity – rather than it being a wrong word to use. Today, knowing what that word is, we can consider applying it retroactively and I don’t think it’s disrespectful or inappropriate – our vocabulary is simply different/better today, and using contemporary vocabulary for the ease of communication with people seems like a natural approach. It’s “type style” and “types” that feel anachronistic today – and it might be better to say “typeface” or “font” for modern audiences to relate, and maybe explain in parenthesis what it was once called.<br /><br />Typeface is an (abstract) design, and font is an instantiation of this design (cast in metal for traditional typesetting, a digital file on a computer, etc.), often at a specific size and style. They’re typically used interchangeably, and often it makes sense. “I like this font” and “I like this typeface” both make sense and either way the person probably means “I like this font’s rendering.” :·) But a “font file” makes much more sense than a “typeface file,” you cannot technically “buy a typeface” unless you’re thinking about buying the entire *design* from the type designer, etc. With that understanding, I think pointing at typebars it is not inappropriate to say “this is a font,” same with “buying a typewriter with a Vogue font” – since a typewriter comes with a typeface instantiated in metal. But the other way is not inappropriate, either, calling it a “typeface” – or using the typewriter-specific word “type” meaning “the set of typebars” as you quoted.<br /><br />I think this is largely academic, and it was fun to think through the defense of “font” on this Sunday morning, for which I’m grateful to you!Marcinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04663244405495235071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3195869989354907758.post-17055231899240996732016-03-28T11:48:09.978-07:002016-03-28T11:48:09.978-07:00Excellent essay - thanks for the archive photos. ...Excellent essay - thanks for the archive photos. Type on... ~TH~Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12986671151848156674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3195869989354907758.post-49718550500314777282016-03-25T19:09:06.571-07:002016-03-25T19:09:06.571-07:00This is such a great blog and I found it very inte...This is such a great blog and I found it very interesting. So much so, I'm going through all my old typewriter manuals just to see what they say, just for the fun of it. Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05555693618145734681noreply@blogger.com