Mixing
What is the difference between a well constructed and a poorly constructed font?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
11
down vote
favorite
I'm speaking of both, fonts optimised for print, and fonts optimised for screens. Serif and sans-serif doesn't matter. Commercial or free — also doesn't matter.
What matters is the quality of the font. There are some fonts that you'd want to use for headings in a national newspaper or for a text in a printed book. And on the other hand there are poorly made fonts with details that a professional designer would spot and would want to avoid.
So, what distinguished a good quality font from a badly made font from a design point of view?
fonts typography font-design
edited 7 mins ago
Scott
139k14193396
asked 16 hours ago
Oleg
634
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
11
down vote
favorite
I'm speaking of both, fonts optimised for print, and fonts optimised for screens. Serif and sans-serif doesn't matter. Commercial or free — also doesn't matter.
What matters is the quality of the font. There are some fonts that you'd want to use for headings in a national newspaper or for a text in a printed book. And on the other hand there are poorly made fonts with details that a professional designer would spot and would want to avoid.
So, what distinguished a good quality font from a badly made font from a design point of view?
fonts typography font-design
edited 7 mins ago
Scott
139k14193396
asked 16 hours ago
Oleg
634
3
Although a common use of the word amateur is "badly made" or "mediocre" - it also has another meaning: a hobbyist/enthusiast. Perhaps you really meant to contrast commercial fonts versus free fonts? I think it's probably better to avoid the words professional and amateur because ultimately they have nothing to do with the quality of anything. I know some "amateurs" in certain fields, who are better than some so-called "professionals", not to mention the fact there are some beautiful free fonts, and some utterly abysmal commercial fonts - like Comic Sans or Arial.
– Billy Kerr
16 hours ago
A good point! I did NOT mean a difference between commercial and free fonts. There are indeed some very good freely available fonts. What I meant was a difference between "well made" fonts which you'd want to use for headings on a national newspaper, or for a text in a printed book - compared to "badly made" fonts which a highly experienced graphic designer would spot and want to avoid.
– Oleg
15 hours ago
1
The problem is you are using "amateur" as a synonym for badly made or mediocre, and "professional" as a synonym for high quality - but these are ambiguous terms, because these words have other meanings which have nothing to do with the quality of a font, just whether someone was paid to create a font or not. Just because someone is paid to do a job doesn't necessarily mean they are any good at it.
– Billy Kerr
15 hours ago
1
Ok, I see. Do you suggest to rename the question? To "mediocre" and "high quality"? Would that make the question less ambiguous?
– Oleg
15 hours ago
Yes I think that would work.
– Billy Kerr
15 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
11
down vote
favorite
up vote
11
down vote
favorite
I'm speaking of both, fonts optimised for print, and fonts optimised for screens. Serif and sans-serif doesn't matter. Commercial or free — also doesn't matter.
What matters is the quality of the font. There are some fonts that you'd want to use for headings in a national newspaper or for a text in a printed book. And on the other hand there are poorly made fonts with details that a professional designer would spot and would want to avoid.
So, what distinguished a good quality font from a badly made font from a design point of view?
fonts typography font-design
edited 7 mins ago
Scott
139k14193396
asked 16 hours ago
Oleg
634
I'm speaking of both, fonts optimised for print, and fonts optimised for screens. Serif and sans-serif doesn't matter. Commercial or free — also doesn't matter.
What matters is the quality of the font. There are some fonts that you'd want to use for headings in a national newspaper or for a text in a printed book. And on the other hand there are poorly made fonts with details that a professional designer would spot and would want to avoid.
So, what distinguished a good quality font from a badly made font from a design point of view?
fonts typography font-design
fonts typography font-design
edited 7 mins ago
Scott
139k14193396
asked 16 hours ago
Oleg
634
edited 7 mins ago
Scott
139k14193396
asked 16 hours ago
Oleg
634
edited 7 mins ago
Scott
139k14193396
edited 7 mins ago
Scott
139k14193396
edited 7 mins ago
Scott
139k14193396
139k14193396
asked 16 hours ago
Oleg
634
asked 16 hours ago
Oleg
634
asked 16 hours ago
Oleg
634
634
3
Although a common use of the word amateur is "badly made" or "mediocre" - it also has another meaning: a hobbyist/enthusiast. Perhaps you really meant to contrast commercial fonts versus free fonts? I think it's probably better to avoid the words professional and amateur because ultimately they have nothing to do with the quality of anything. I know some "amateurs" in certain fields, who are better than some so-called "professionals", not to mention the fact there are some beautiful free fonts, and some utterly abysmal commercial fonts - like Comic Sans or Arial.
– Billy Kerr
16 hours ago
A good point! I did NOT mean a difference between commercial and free fonts. There are indeed some very good freely available fonts. What I meant was a difference between "well made" fonts which you'd want to use for headings on a national newspaper, or for a text in a printed book - compared to "badly made" fonts which a highly experienced graphic designer would spot and want to avoid.
– Oleg
15 hours ago
1
The problem is you are using "amateur" as a synonym for badly made or mediocre, and "professional" as a synonym for high quality - but these are ambiguous terms, because these words have other meanings which have nothing to do with the quality of a font, just whether someone was paid to create a font or not. Just because someone is paid to do a job doesn't necessarily mean they are any good at it.
– Billy Kerr
15 hours ago
1
Ok, I see. Do you suggest to rename the question? To "mediocre" and "high quality"? Would that make the question less ambiguous?
– Oleg
15 hours ago
Yes I think that would work.
– Billy Kerr
15 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
3
Although a common use of the word amateur is "badly made" or "mediocre" - it also has another meaning: a hobbyist/enthusiast. Perhaps you really meant to contrast commercial fonts versus free fonts? I think it's probably better to avoid the words professional and amateur because ultimately they have nothing to do with the quality of anything. I know some "amateurs" in certain fields, who are better than some so-called "professionals", not to mention the fact there are some beautiful free fonts, and some utterly abysmal commercial fonts - like Comic Sans or Arial.
– Billy Kerr
16 hours ago
A good point! I did NOT mean a difference between commercial and free fonts. There are indeed some very good freely available fonts. What I meant was a difference between "well made" fonts which you'd want to use for headings on a national newspaper, or for a text in a printed book - compared to "badly made" fonts which a highly experienced graphic designer would spot and want to avoid.
– Oleg
15 hours ago
1
The problem is you are using "amateur" as a synonym for badly made or mediocre, and "professional" as a synonym for high quality - but these are ambiguous terms, because these words have other meanings which have nothing to do with the quality of a font, just whether someone was paid to create a font or not. Just because someone is paid to do a job doesn't necessarily mean they are any good at it.
– Billy Kerr
15 hours ago
1
Ok, I see. Do you suggest to rename the question? To "mediocre" and "high quality"? Would that make the question less ambiguous?
– Oleg
15 hours ago
Yes I think that would work.
– Billy Kerr
15 hours ago
3
3
Although a common use of the word amateur is "badly made" or "mediocre" - it also has another meaning: a hobbyist/enthusiast. Perhaps you really meant to contrast commercial fonts versus free fonts? I think it's probably better to avoid the words professional and amateur because ultimately they have nothing to do with the quality of anything. I know some "amateurs" in certain fields, who are better than some so-called "professionals", not to mention the fact there are some beautiful free fonts, and some utterly abysmal commercial fonts - like Comic Sans or Arial.
– Billy Kerr
16 hours ago
Although a common use of the word amateur is "badly made" or "mediocre" - it also has another meaning: a hobbyist/enthusiast. Perhaps you really meant to contrast commercial fonts versus free fonts? I think it's probably better to avoid the words professional and amateur because ultimately they have nothing to do with the quality of anything. I know some "amateurs" in certain fields, who are better than some so-called "professionals", not to mention the fact there are some beautiful free fonts, and some utterly abysmal commercial fonts - like Comic Sans or Arial.
– Billy Kerr
16 hours ago
A good point! I did NOT mean a difference between commercial and free fonts. There are indeed some very good freely available fonts. What I meant was a difference between "well made" fonts which you'd want to use for headings on a national newspaper, or for a text in a printed book - compared to "badly made" fonts which a highly experienced graphic designer would spot and want to avoid.
– Oleg
15 hours ago
A good point! I did NOT mean a difference between commercial and free fonts. There are indeed some very good freely available fonts. What I meant was a difference between "well made" fonts which you'd want to use for headings on a national newspaper, or for a text in a printed book - compared to "badly made" fonts which a highly experienced graphic designer would spot and want to avoid.
– Oleg
15 hours ago
1
1
The problem is you are using "amateur" as a synonym for badly made or mediocre, and "professional" as a synonym for high quality - but these are ambiguous terms, because these words have other meanings which have nothing to do with the quality of a font, just whether someone was paid to create a font or not. Just because someone is paid to do a job doesn't necessarily mean they are any good at it.
– Billy Kerr
15 hours ago
The problem is you are using "amateur" as a synonym for badly made or mediocre, and "professional" as a synonym for high quality - but these are ambiguous terms, because these words have other meanings which have nothing to do with the quality of a font, just whether someone was paid to create a font or not. Just because someone is paid to do a job doesn't necessarily mean they are any good at it.
– Billy Kerr
15 hours ago
1
1
Ok, I see. Do you suggest to rename the question? To "mediocre" and "high quality"? Would that make the question less ambiguous?
– Oleg
15 hours ago
Ok, I see. Do you suggest to rename the question? To "mediocre" and "high quality"? Would that make the question less ambiguous?
– Oleg
15 hours ago
Yes I think that would work.
– Billy Kerr
15 hours ago
Yes I think that would work.
– Billy Kerr
15 hours ago
 |Â
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
A Good font:
- Pair kernings have been addressed. How does "AV" look? Or "To"?
- The glyph box is not dramatically larger than the glyphs
- Glyph alignment on the baseline is correct, including adjustments for cap and rounds such as C, O, G, Q, S, etc.
- Stroke weights, thick or thin, are constant between various glyphs even if they have varying contrast.
- The x-height is an appropriate size compared to the Cap height. Some fonts have a drastically smaller or larger x-height.
Proper family naming. This is a big one for me. And often a harbinger to just how much I'll use the font. I detest when a font, even a beautiful typeface, is provided in a single file for every possible weight and style variation. Rather than naming the family all the same family name the designer chose to separate each face and not provide a common family name. Thus causing each and every face variation to take up a line in font menus rather than creating a submenu under a family name. If my menus are 3-screens tall to list all 20 faces in each of only 4 fonts... well, I won't use those 4 fonts.
These are few factors I look at.
Then beyond that a "good" font for me has a few subjective preferences. These are merely opinions and not really a factor in technical terms:
- OpenType format with a large table of glyphs
- Multiple weights, not just the 4 standard faces (Regular, Italic, Bold, Bold Italic). I really prefer "mega", "pro" or "super" families with 15-20 face variations from condensed/compressed to black/heavy.
- I tend to prefer typefaces with larger counters and slightly larger x-heights for easier reading.
answered 11 hours ago
Scott
139k14193396
@Oleg: a much more informed answer here.
– Lucian
10 hours ago
Of all of the things that makes up a font: Pair keerning is the most expensive to do. Therefore its the most valuable indication of good fonts.
– joojaa
52 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
It really tends to come down to flow: is the spacing even? Are there uneven blobs of color where everything gets to seem too thick or thin? Do strokes feel like they narrow to join evenly on the 'm' or 'n'? Do characters like @, $ and %, the parentheses and quotation marks, complement the design, or have they been clearly borrowed in from another font, or not properly scaled to match the bold or light weights? How about accents?
This link shows you a font that deliberately breaks some of these rules (over-'constructed' characters, lumpy joins, a 'W' whose base is too narrow, etc). Tobias Frere Jones who lectures on type design at Yale has two good articles (part 1 & part 2) on mechanics of type design and how letters can look lumpy if misproportioned. Professor Indra Kupferschmid has a checklist, but it's not got any illustrations sadly. Paul Shaw's Flawed Typefaces article is very good at illustrating specific quirks in some very good typefaces that still might cause problems. Some are historically appropriate or justifiable in the name of variety, others were caused by long-gone technical limitations.
answered 10 hours ago
Copilot
68746
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
These are not rules, as you can find good quality free fonts as well as lousy commercial (paid) fonts, but generally a few differences:
- The quality of details: I have seen free families from Google Fonts which have actual errors in some characters. Other times you can expect bad optical corrections, bad spacing or limited character set. More experienced type designers will generally put their effort into commercial families, whereas working with a free font, you kind of expect that's been published by a less experienced designer which may not apply all the fine tuning found in commercial work (again not a rule).
- Number of weights: While a free font family may come in Regular and Bold, a commercial family may include alot more. Lets just look at Helvetica which has 34 different weights for sale.
- Character set: a commercial font usually has an extended character map and is available for multiple languages, which is important for companies as they need to operate and address multiple markets, they need language specific characters.
answered 16 hours ago
Lucian
12.6k103060
Thanks! Could you elaborate a bit more on "The quality of details" please — if there's anything to add? This is exactly what I meant to find out (things like optical correction, spacing, but apart from the limited character set).
– Oleg
15 hours ago
I like to think that fonts with larger character maps are better for what I need them, but I don't believe it should be a criteria to define font quality from a design point of view. Or font weights for that matter.
– Luciano
15 hours ago
1
@Oleg: cannot get very specific, as the question is a bit on the broad side. Spacing, consistency, optical corrections, character set, anything related to fonts is likely to get compromised by choosing free or cheaper work. You know its like lawyers, you can get a free lawyer provided by the state, but then you can also choose to pay one if you can afford it. Both lawyers can resolve the situation, but the more complex the situation, the more likely you are to run into trouble with the non-paid, or cheap, alternative.
– Lucian
14 hours ago
@Luciano: clearly, number of weights and language support does not separate between 'good and bad fonts', which can also be subjective. I was just listing a few of the differences that will partly explain some of the pricing for commercial families.
– Lucian
14 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
A Good font:
- Pair kernings have been addressed. How does "AV" look? Or "To"?
- The glyph box is not dramatically larger than the glyphs
- Glyph alignment on the baseline is correct, including adjustments for cap and rounds such as C, O, G, Q, S, etc.
- Stroke weights, thick or thin, are constant between various glyphs even if they have varying contrast.
- The x-height is an appropriate size compared to the Cap height. Some fonts have a drastically smaller or larger x-height.
Proper family naming. This is a big one for me. And often a harbinger to just how much I'll use the font. I detest when a font, even a beautiful typeface, is provided in a single file for every possible weight and style variation. Rather than naming the family all the same family name the designer chose to separate each face and not provide a common family name. Thus causing each and every face variation to take up a line in font menus rather than creating a submenu under a family name. If my menus are 3-screens tall to list all 20 faces in each of only 4 fonts... well, I won't use those 4 fonts.
These are few factors I look at.
Then beyond that a "good" font for me has a few subjective preferences. These are merely opinions and not really a factor in technical terms:
- OpenType format with a large table of glyphs
- Multiple weights, not just the 4 standard faces (Regular, Italic, Bold, Bold Italic). I really prefer "mega", "pro" or "super" families with 15-20 face variations from condensed/compressed to black/heavy.
- I tend to prefer typefaces with larger counters and slightly larger x-heights for easier reading.
answered 11 hours ago
Scott
139k14193396
@Oleg: a much more informed answer here.
– Lucian
10 hours ago
Of all of the things that makes up a font: Pair keerning is the most expensive to do. Therefore its the most valuable indication of good fonts.
– joojaa
52 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
A Good font:
- Pair kernings have been addressed. How does "AV" look? Or "To"?
- The glyph box is not dramatically larger than the glyphs
- Glyph alignment on the baseline is correct, including adjustments for cap and rounds such as C, O, G, Q, S, etc.
- Stroke weights, thick or thin, are constant between various glyphs even if they have varying contrast.
- The x-height is an appropriate size compared to the Cap height. Some fonts have a drastically smaller or larger x-height.
Proper family naming. This is a big one for me. And often a harbinger to just how much I'll use the font. I detest when a font, even a beautiful typeface, is provided in a single file for every possible weight and style variation. Rather than naming the family all the same family name the designer chose to separate each face and not provide a common family name. Thus causing each and every face variation to take up a line in font menus rather than creating a submenu under a family name. If my menus are 3-screens tall to list all 20 faces in each of only 4 fonts... well, I won't use those 4 fonts.
These are few factors I look at.
Then beyond that a "good" font for me has a few subjective preferences. These are merely opinions and not really a factor in technical terms:
- OpenType format with a large table of glyphs
- Multiple weights, not just the 4 standard faces (Regular, Italic, Bold, Bold Italic). I really prefer "mega", "pro" or "super" families with 15-20 face variations from condensed/compressed to black/heavy.
- I tend to prefer typefaces with larger counters and slightly larger x-heights for easier reading.
answered 11 hours ago
Scott
139k14193396
@Oleg: a much more informed answer here.
– Lucian
10 hours ago
Of all of the things that makes up a font: Pair keerning is the most expensive to do. Therefore its the most valuable indication of good fonts.
– joojaa
52 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
A Good font:
- Pair kernings have been addressed. How does "AV" look? Or "To"?
- The glyph box is not dramatically larger than the glyphs
- Glyph alignment on the baseline is correct, including adjustments for cap and rounds such as C, O, G, Q, S, etc.
- Stroke weights, thick or thin, are constant between various glyphs even if they have varying contrast.
- The x-height is an appropriate size compared to the Cap height. Some fonts have a drastically smaller or larger x-height.
Proper family naming. This is a big one for me. And often a harbinger to just how much I'll use the font. I detest when a font, even a beautiful typeface, is provided in a single file for every possible weight and style variation. Rather than naming the family all the same family name the designer chose to separate each face and not provide a common family name. Thus causing each and every face variation to take up a line in font menus rather than creating a submenu under a family name. If my menus are 3-screens tall to list all 20 faces in each of only 4 fonts... well, I won't use those 4 fonts.
These are few factors I look at.
Then beyond that a "good" font for me has a few subjective preferences. These are merely opinions and not really a factor in technical terms:
- OpenType format with a large table of glyphs
- Multiple weights, not just the 4 standard faces (Regular, Italic, Bold, Bold Italic). I really prefer "mega", "pro" or "super" families with 15-20 face variations from condensed/compressed to black/heavy.
- I tend to prefer typefaces with larger counters and slightly larger x-heights for easier reading.
answered 11 hours ago
Scott
139k14193396
A Good font:
- Pair kernings have been addressed. How does "AV" look? Or "To"?
- The glyph box is not dramatically larger than the glyphs
- Glyph alignment on the baseline is correct, including adjustments for cap and rounds such as C, O, G, Q, S, etc.
- Stroke weights, thick or thin, are constant between various glyphs even if they have varying contrast.
- The x-height is an appropriate size compared to the Cap height. Some fonts have a drastically smaller or larger x-height.
Proper family naming. This is a big one for me. And often a harbinger to just how much I'll use the font. I detest when a font, even a beautiful typeface, is provided in a single file for every possible weight and style variation. Rather than naming the family all the same family name the designer chose to separate each face and not provide a common family name. Thus causing each and every face variation to take up a line in font menus rather than creating a submenu under a family name. If my menus are 3-screens tall to list all 20 faces in each of only 4 fonts... well, I won't use those 4 fonts.
These are few factors I look at.
Then beyond that a "good" font for me has a few subjective preferences. These are merely opinions and not really a factor in technical terms:
- OpenType format with a large table of glyphs
- Multiple weights, not just the 4 standard faces (Regular, Italic, Bold, Bold Italic). I really prefer "mega", "pro" or "super" families with 15-20 face variations from condensed/compressed to black/heavy.
- I tend to prefer typefaces with larger counters and slightly larger x-heights for easier reading.
answered 11 hours ago
Scott
139k14193396
answered 11 hours ago
Scott
139k14193396
answered 11 hours ago
Scott
139k14193396
answered 11 hours ago
Scott
139k14193396
139k14193396
@Oleg: a much more informed answer here.
– Lucian
10 hours ago
Of all of the things that makes up a font: Pair keerning is the most expensive to do. Therefore its the most valuable indication of good fonts.
– joojaa
52 mins ago
add a comment |Â
@Oleg: a much more informed answer here.
– Lucian
10 hours ago
Of all of the things that makes up a font: Pair keerning is the most expensive to do. Therefore its the most valuable indication of good fonts.
– joojaa
52 mins ago
@Oleg: a much more informed answer here.
– Lucian
10 hours ago
@Oleg: a much more informed answer here.
– Lucian
10 hours ago
Of all of the things that makes up a font: Pair keerning is the most expensive to do. Therefore its the most valuable indication of good fonts.
– joojaa
52 mins ago
Of all of the things that makes up a font: Pair keerning is the most expensive to do. Therefore its the most valuable indication of good fonts.
– joojaa
52 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
It really tends to come down to flow: is the spacing even? Are there uneven blobs of color where everything gets to seem too thick or thin? Do strokes feel like they narrow to join evenly on the 'm' or 'n'? Do characters like @, $ and %, the parentheses and quotation marks, complement the design, or have they been clearly borrowed in from another font, or not properly scaled to match the bold or light weights? How about accents?
This link shows you a font that deliberately breaks some of these rules (over-'constructed' characters, lumpy joins, a 'W' whose base is too narrow, etc). Tobias Frere Jones who lectures on type design at Yale has two good articles (part 1 & part 2) on mechanics of type design and how letters can look lumpy if misproportioned. Professor Indra Kupferschmid has a checklist, but it's not got any illustrations sadly. Paul Shaw's Flawed Typefaces article is very good at illustrating specific quirks in some very good typefaces that still might cause problems. Some are historically appropriate or justifiable in the name of variety, others were caused by long-gone technical limitations.
answered 10 hours ago
Copilot
68746
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
It really tends to come down to flow: is the spacing even? Are there uneven blobs of color where everything gets to seem too thick or thin? Do strokes feel like they narrow to join evenly on the 'm' or 'n'? Do characters like @, $ and %, the parentheses and quotation marks, complement the design, or have they been clearly borrowed in from another font, or not properly scaled to match the bold or light weights? How about accents?
This link shows you a font that deliberately breaks some of these rules (over-'constructed' characters, lumpy joins, a 'W' whose base is too narrow, etc). Tobias Frere Jones who lectures on type design at Yale has two good articles (part 1 & part 2) on mechanics of type design and how letters can look lumpy if misproportioned. Professor Indra Kupferschmid has a checklist, but it's not got any illustrations sadly. Paul Shaw's Flawed Typefaces article is very good at illustrating specific quirks in some very good typefaces that still might cause problems. Some are historically appropriate or justifiable in the name of variety, others were caused by long-gone technical limitations.
answered 10 hours ago
Copilot
68746
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
It really tends to come down to flow: is the spacing even? Are there uneven blobs of color where everything gets to seem too thick or thin? Do strokes feel like they narrow to join evenly on the 'm' or 'n'? Do characters like @, $ and %, the parentheses and quotation marks, complement the design, or have they been clearly borrowed in from another font, or not properly scaled to match the bold or light weights? How about accents?
This link shows you a font that deliberately breaks some of these rules (over-'constructed' characters, lumpy joins, a 'W' whose base is too narrow, etc). Tobias Frere Jones who lectures on type design at Yale has two good articles (part 1 & part 2) on mechanics of type design and how letters can look lumpy if misproportioned. Professor Indra Kupferschmid has a checklist, but it's not got any illustrations sadly. Paul Shaw's Flawed Typefaces article is very good at illustrating specific quirks in some very good typefaces that still might cause problems. Some are historically appropriate or justifiable in the name of variety, others were caused by long-gone technical limitations.
answered 10 hours ago
Copilot
68746
It really tends to come down to flow: is the spacing even? Are there uneven blobs of color where everything gets to seem too thick or thin? Do strokes feel like they narrow to join evenly on the 'm' or 'n'? Do characters like @, $ and %, the parentheses and quotation marks, complement the design, or have they been clearly borrowed in from another font, or not properly scaled to match the bold or light weights? How about accents?
This link shows you a font that deliberately breaks some of these rules (over-'constructed' characters, lumpy joins, a 'W' whose base is too narrow, etc). Tobias Frere Jones who lectures on type design at Yale has two good articles (part 1 & part 2) on mechanics of type design and how letters can look lumpy if misproportioned. Professor Indra Kupferschmid has a checklist, but it's not got any illustrations sadly. Paul Shaw's Flawed Typefaces article is very good at illustrating specific quirks in some very good typefaces that still might cause problems. Some are historically appropriate or justifiable in the name of variety, others were caused by long-gone technical limitations.
answered 10 hours ago
Copilot
68746
edited 6 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
Copilot
68746
answered 10 hours ago
Copilot
68746
answered 10 hours ago
Copilot
68746
68746
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
These are not rules, as you can find good quality free fonts as well as lousy commercial (paid) fonts, but generally a few differences:
- The quality of details: I have seen free families from Google Fonts which have actual errors in some characters. Other times you can expect bad optical corrections, bad spacing or limited character set. More experienced type designers will generally put their effort into commercial families, whereas working with a free font, you kind of expect that's been published by a less experienced designer which may not apply all the fine tuning found in commercial work (again not a rule).
- Number of weights: While a free font family may come in Regular and Bold, a commercial family may include alot more. Lets just look at Helvetica which has 34 different weights for sale.
- Character set: a commercial font usually has an extended character map and is available for multiple languages, which is important for companies as they need to operate and address multiple markets, they need language specific characters.
answered 16 hours ago
Lucian
12.6k103060
Thanks! Could you elaborate a bit more on "The quality of details" please — if there's anything to add? This is exactly what I meant to find out (things like optical correction, spacing, but apart from the limited character set).
– Oleg
15 hours ago
I like to think that fonts with larger character maps are better for what I need them, but I don't believe it should be a criteria to define font quality from a design point of view. Or font weights for that matter.
– Luciano
15 hours ago
1
@Oleg: cannot get very specific, as the question is a bit on the broad side. Spacing, consistency, optical corrections, character set, anything related to fonts is likely to get compromised by choosing free or cheaper work. You know its like lawyers, you can get a free lawyer provided by the state, but then you can also choose to pay one if you can afford it. Both lawyers can resolve the situation, but the more complex the situation, the more likely you are to run into trouble with the non-paid, or cheap, alternative.
– Lucian
14 hours ago
@Luciano: clearly, number of weights and language support does not separate between 'good and bad fonts', which can also be subjective. I was just listing a few of the differences that will partly explain some of the pricing for commercial families.
– Lucian
14 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
These are not rules, as you can find good quality free fonts as well as lousy commercial (paid) fonts, but generally a few differences:
- The quality of details: I have seen free families from Google Fonts which have actual errors in some characters. Other times you can expect bad optical corrections, bad spacing or limited character set. More experienced type designers will generally put their effort into commercial families, whereas working with a free font, you kind of expect that's been published by a less experienced designer which may not apply all the fine tuning found in commercial work (again not a rule).
- Number of weights: While a free font family may come in Regular and Bold, a commercial family may include alot more. Lets just look at Helvetica which has 34 different weights for sale.
- Character set: a commercial font usually has an extended character map and is available for multiple languages, which is important for companies as they need to operate and address multiple markets, they need language specific characters.
answered 16 hours ago
Lucian
12.6k103060
Thanks! Could you elaborate a bit more on "The quality of details" please — if there's anything to add? This is exactly what I meant to find out (things like optical correction, spacing, but apart from the limited character set).
– Oleg
15 hours ago
I like to think that fonts with larger character maps are better for what I need them, but I don't believe it should be a criteria to define font quality from a design point of view. Or font weights for that matter.
– Luciano
15 hours ago
1
@Oleg: cannot get very specific, as the question is a bit on the broad side. Spacing, consistency, optical corrections, character set, anything related to fonts is likely to get compromised by choosing free or cheaper work. You know its like lawyers, you can get a free lawyer provided by the state, but then you can also choose to pay one if you can afford it. Both lawyers can resolve the situation, but the more complex the situation, the more likely you are to run into trouble with the non-paid, or cheap, alternative.
– Lucian
14 hours ago
@Luciano: clearly, number of weights and language support does not separate between 'good and bad fonts', which can also be subjective. I was just listing a few of the differences that will partly explain some of the pricing for commercial families.
– Lucian
14 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
These are not rules, as you can find good quality free fonts as well as lousy commercial (paid) fonts, but generally a few differences:
- The quality of details: I have seen free families from Google Fonts which have actual errors in some characters. Other times you can expect bad optical corrections, bad spacing or limited character set. More experienced type designers will generally put their effort into commercial families, whereas working with a free font, you kind of expect that's been published by a less experienced designer which may not apply all the fine tuning found in commercial work (again not a rule).
- Number of weights: While a free font family may come in Regular and Bold, a commercial family may include alot more. Lets just look at Helvetica which has 34 different weights for sale.
- Character set: a commercial font usually has an extended character map and is available for multiple languages, which is important for companies as they need to operate and address multiple markets, they need language specific characters.
answered 16 hours ago
Lucian
12.6k103060
These are not rules, as you can find good quality free fonts as well as lousy commercial (paid) fonts, but generally a few differences:
- The quality of details: I have seen free families from Google Fonts which have actual errors in some characters. Other times you can expect bad optical corrections, bad spacing or limited character set. More experienced type designers will generally put their effort into commercial families, whereas working with a free font, you kind of expect that's been published by a less experienced designer which may not apply all the fine tuning found in commercial work (again not a rule).
- Number of weights: While a free font family may come in Regular and Bold, a commercial family may include alot more. Lets just look at Helvetica which has 34 different weights for sale.
- Character set: a commercial font usually has an extended character map and is available for multiple languages, which is important for companies as they need to operate and address multiple markets, they need language specific characters.
answered 16 hours ago
Lucian
12.6k103060
edited 14 hours ago
answered 16 hours ago
Lucian
12.6k103060
answered 16 hours ago
Lucian
12.6k103060
answered 16 hours ago
Lucian
12.6k103060
12.6k103060
Thanks! Could you elaborate a bit more on "The quality of details" please — if there's anything to add? This is exactly what I meant to find out (things like optical correction, spacing, but apart from the limited character set).
– Oleg
15 hours ago
I like to think that fonts with larger character maps are better for what I need them, but I don't believe it should be a criteria to define font quality from a design point of view. Or font weights for that matter.
– Luciano
15 hours ago
1
@Oleg: cannot get very specific, as the question is a bit on the broad side. Spacing, consistency, optical corrections, character set, anything related to fonts is likely to get compromised by choosing free or cheaper work. You know its like lawyers, you can get a free lawyer provided by the state, but then you can also choose to pay one if you can afford it. Both lawyers can resolve the situation, but the more complex the situation, the more likely you are to run into trouble with the non-paid, or cheap, alternative.
– Lucian
14 hours ago
@Luciano: clearly, number of weights and language support does not separate between 'good and bad fonts', which can also be subjective. I was just listing a few of the differences that will partly explain some of the pricing for commercial families.
– Lucian
14 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Thanks! Could you elaborate a bit more on "The quality of details" please — if there's anything to add? This is exactly what I meant to find out (things like optical correction, spacing, but apart from the limited character set).
– Oleg
15 hours ago
I like to think that fonts with larger character maps are better for what I need them, but I don't believe it should be a criteria to define font quality from a design point of view. Or font weights for that matter.
– Luciano
15 hours ago
1
@Oleg: cannot get very specific, as the question is a bit on the broad side. Spacing, consistency, optical corrections, character set, anything related to fonts is likely to get compromised by choosing free or cheaper work. You know its like lawyers, you can get a free lawyer provided by the state, but then you can also choose to pay one if you can afford it. Both lawyers can resolve the situation, but the more complex the situation, the more likely you are to run into trouble with the non-paid, or cheap, alternative.
– Lucian
14 hours ago
@Luciano: clearly, number of weights and language support does not separate between 'good and bad fonts', which can also be subjective. I was just listing a few of the differences that will partly explain some of the pricing for commercial families.
– Lucian
14 hours ago
Thanks! Could you elaborate a bit more on "The quality of details" please — if there's anything to add? This is exactly what I meant to find out (things like optical correction, spacing, but apart from the limited character set).
– Oleg
15 hours ago
Thanks! Could you elaborate a bit more on "The quality of details" please — if there's anything to add? This is exactly what I meant to find out (things like optical correction, spacing, but apart from the limited character set).
– Oleg
15 hours ago
I like to think that fonts with larger character maps are better for what I need them, but I don't believe it should be a criteria to define font quality from a design point of view. Or font weights for that matter.
– Luciano
15 hours ago
I like to think that fonts with larger character maps are better for what I need them, but I don't believe it should be a criteria to define font quality from a design point of view. Or font weights for that matter.
– Luciano
15 hours ago
1
1
@Oleg: cannot get very specific, as the question is a bit on the broad side. Spacing, consistency, optical corrections, character set, anything related to fonts is likely to get compromised by choosing free or cheaper work. You know its like lawyers, you can get a free lawyer provided by the state, but then you can also choose to pay one if you can afford it. Both lawyers can resolve the situation, but the more complex the situation, the more likely you are to run into trouble with the non-paid, or cheap, alternative.
– Lucian
14 hours ago
@Oleg: cannot get very specific, as the question is a bit on the broad side. Spacing, consistency, optical corrections, character set, anything related to fonts is likely to get compromised by choosing free or cheaper work. You know its like lawyers, you can get a free lawyer provided by the state, but then you can also choose to pay one if you can afford it. Both lawyers can resolve the situation, but the more complex the situation, the more likely you are to run into trouble with the non-paid, or cheap, alternative.
– Lucian
14 hours ago
@Luciano: clearly, number of weights and language support does not separate between 'good and bad fonts', which can also be subjective. I was just listing a few of the differences that will partly explain some of the pricing for commercial families.
– Lucian
14 hours ago
@Luciano: clearly, number of weights and language support does not separate between 'good and bad fonts', which can also be subjective. I was just listing a few of the differences that will partly explain some of the pricing for commercial families.
– Lucian
14 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgraphicdesign.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f115270%2fwhat-is-the-difference-between-a-well-constructed-and-a-poorly-constructed-font%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
3
Although a common use of the word amateur is "badly made" or "mediocre" - it also has another meaning: a hobbyist/enthusiast. Perhaps you really meant to contrast commercial fonts versus free fonts? I think it's probably better to avoid the words professional and amateur because ultimately they have nothing to do with the quality of anything. I know some "amateurs" in certain fields, who are better than some so-called "professionals", not to mention the fact there are some beautiful free fonts, and some utterly abysmal commercial fonts - like Comic Sans or Arial.
– Billy Kerr
16 hours ago
A good point! I did NOT mean a difference between commercial and free fonts. There are indeed some very good freely available fonts. What I meant was a difference between "well made" fonts which you'd want to use for headings on a national newspaper, or for a text in a printed book - compared to "badly made" fonts which a highly experienced graphic designer would spot and want to avoid.
– Oleg
15 hours ago
1
The problem is you are using "amateur" as a synonym for badly made or mediocre, and "professional" as a synonym for high quality - but these are ambiguous terms, because these words have other meanings which have nothing to do with the quality of a font, just whether someone was paid to create a font or not. Just because someone is paid to do a job doesn't necessarily mean they are any good at it.
– Billy Kerr
15 hours ago
1
Ok, I see. Do you suggest to rename the question? To "mediocre" and "high quality"? Would that make the question less ambiguous?
– Oleg
15 hours ago
Yes I think that would work.
– Billy Kerr
15 hours ago