Design | Forum profile

Nina is right, a font’s ideal usage isn’t determined by its most popular usage. > There is no reason “classic” (hardcover) > book faces need have a small x-height Except, of course, readability! > it is now understood that he swiped the design from > Starling Burgess and Victor Lardent did all the work. Have there been new revelations since the APHA articles? Because if not, this...

Except, of course, readability! Times has almost the same vertical proportions (cap to x-height ratio) as Minion, a face that has become quite popular and respected for book and text work in general. Is Minion, too, not really a “book” face, because of its x-height? (Don’t tell Robert Bringhurst!)

One thing is that Folio has much narrower proportions, *and* it’s a lot bolder; both these things make its counters / interior spaces much smaller. And the amount of interior white makes a big difference as to how we perceive “size” of type. You can see this by comparing a very light and a very bold weight of the same typeface at the same point size; the bold will most often appear to be smaller. (But of course,...

What Scotch is that?

Exactly! One of the original advantages of the Monotype system over Linotype was that the Monotype caster could be kept continuously busy, at an optimum speed, playing tapes generated on multiple Monotype keyboards. The 18-unit system was a typographical disadvantage intrinsic to Monotype which Linotype did not share. On the other hand, Linotype had the disadvantage that Roman and Italic were normally identical in width (but bold was on...

@ dumitru The strokes of the modified letters of your logo become thinner and thinner now, while Urquell sets the point, from which the strokes become thin earlier and then the stroke width does not change anymore. Thin it down, till it hurts, may be a bit overdone, but calligraphically it was better in Urquell’s example. I miss the correct terms, but I hope it is clear enough, what I mean.

Probably most Tribal bellydancers have one or more tattoos, so it is considered by some to be part of their stage image and identity, yes. Sharon Kihara does indeed have extensive permanent tattoos. The peacocks on her abdomen are photo-realistic. I’m not into the tattoo scene; when I see hers, I’m fascinated yet slightly horrified that young impressionable girls try to copy this. So the other two dancers pictured on the...

շատշնորհակալեմ _____________________________________________ Personal Art and Design Portal of Ivan Gulkov www.ivangdesign.com

here are my two pence. Nice type. Pity for the missing d… ;-)

ha ha.. : )