Well, I print with it. I have a letterpress and so do a number of friends. Someone always needs type.
The same guys that screwed up the size of the point?
Of course it’s called that. It manages fonts. Fonts being the files that contain the digital representation of typefaces.
I know I’m on the losing end of this battle. I just haven’t given up yet. The distinction is still useful to me (and others in the letterpress community) as I still have so many fonts of metal type. It makes a certain amount of sense to refer to the design separately from the drawers full of metal objects.
Yeah, and same guys (or company) that released Helvetica Narrow (a digital or photo squeezing of Helvetica) and that sponsored Myriad, the Frutiger clone.
However, I don’t mind the redefinition of point. I have the option of using the traditional measurement, but Adobe’s tying it to the inch is all good for my purposes. Even though we should all be using metric.
And I’m not buying your rationale for “Font Book.” If it isn’t defining or listing fonts by size, shouldn’t it be called Typeface Book?
Doesn’t bother me in the least, whichever they use.
[Hijack] Why is called “gunpowder” green tea? My conjecture is that it is because it “explodes” to at least three times its volume as it steeps.[/Hijack]
I primarily see Font Book as being a tool for installing, activating, and deactivating font files so you aren’t wasting time dragging files in and out of the /Library folder. It quite literally manipulates fonts. It doesn’t do anything with the typefaces other than show them to you. And I know no one cares but me.
American here, but have visited England about ten times, starting in early childhood. i I always have associated Gill Sans and variants with being very English (without knowing the phrase “Gill Sans”). I suspect many Americans do.
BUT, I never thought of it as “old” or “stuffy”, but rather as continuously hip. Yes, it’s been around for a while, but: 1. When it was first being used back in the 30s, it was ahead of its time – prefigured the whole sans serif boom with Helvetica and all; 2. It’s never been OUT of fashion, from my limited perspective. It shouts “2010s England” just as much as it shouts “1960s England” or “1990s England”. To me, anyway.
I’m not any kind of a designer (occasional writer, at best), but it’s a little jarring for me. I suspect the issue isn’t just the issue of serifs, but rather having such obviously unrelated typefaces. It’s the feeling of text from a completely different label accidentally pasted over this one that’s the problem, not any particular detail of the difference. I’m sure someone could come up with an equally mismatched pair of typefaces that are both serif or sans, and that would be just as jarring. It is probably possible, also, though much harder, to come up with a pair of typefaces that do blend, even though one has serifs and the other doesn’t.
I’m a little back and forth on the layout of the new one: it’s clearer and easier to read (except the “Twinings” part. Really, you need a contrasting color and bars to make it clear this is the brand?), but there’s a lot to be said for the traditional feel of the old one.
