roeln / font-falsehoods Goto Github PK

Surely this should be "An .otf file contains PostScript (CFF) outlines", since OpenType doesn't specify its own outlines =)

I think this idea is fantastic, kudos.

In my common speech, I've mostly abandoned using the term typeface outside of conversations with graphic designers, because most people don't know what it means. However since this is a place to talk about falsehoods relating to fonts, the equivocation of fonts and typefaces is up there for me.

When we say, "I used the Helvetica family" we're referring to the typeface, but when we say "I used Helvetica Light" we're talking about the font. Here's my attempt at being succinct about this:

1. The terms font and typeface are completely interchangeable

I actually have no problem with people using font to mean typeface. If I did, my head would have exploded a long time ago. But the word "font" didn't mean what it does now even 50 years ago. A common misunderstanding of the term due in large part to Microsoft Word has changed the common meaning of the word.

Cheers.

https://www.fastcodesign.com/3028971/whats-the-difference-between-a-font-and-a-typeface
http://nerdplusart.com/type-terminology-smackdown/

• Fonts come in exactly four varieties: Regular, Italic, Bold, Bold Italic
• All fonts have Regular, Italic, Bold, and Bold Italic styles
• A single font file contains a single style

I've lost count of the number of times where the concept of "CSS will use whatever font you say it should use, specifically for the property values you add to your @font-face declaration" is one step beyond intuitive, leading to questions around "why isn't my font turning bold" etc.

even within typography circles, EBDT is not the most well-known table...

It's a little known fact that opentype is the font, and truetype is just one of four shape delivery methods... But it's always an excellent starting point into "so, opentype is a massive spec, and truetype/cff/svg/bitmap are just a small part of that".

I guess this is related to #6 but, specifically, I have encountered this in the wild:

A .ttf file does not contain OpenType features.

(Sometimes, the more specific GSUB/GPOS lingo from OTL, but either way it's the same idea)

"it came with my OS, everyone has it, I'm just hosting it to make sure we're all using the same version". Cool story, except you got it with your OS or bundled with very specific software, the family costs $799 on its own, and the license is pretty explicit in that you have zero distribution rights =)

(this could also be a 'version b' of "all fonts are free" - "the fonts that come with your OS are free")

Starting in word processors, we gained the ability to apply styles like bold and italic to the regular weights of typefaces. However before this, those fonts were individually designed. An entire font would be cast for the italic weight, and for the bold. These were designed separately and individually balanced themselves.

However, starting with word-processors we gained the ability to apply a style, which transformed the normal weight of a typeface to be thicker for bold or slanted for italic. We can still do this in CSS when we only include the normal font of a typeface and apply font-style to it. So I think it's a common falsehood that applying a font style to a normal font-weight is just as good as including a separate font for that weight or style. I have seen people do this a lot.

1. Styling a font is just as good as including the designed font for that style

Having trouble making this one both succinct and clear, maybe you have a better phrasing.

Please forgive my ignorance, font newb here.

But given for instance that WOFF2 is universally supported in all modern browsers, and that this is not even a requirement to support webfonts, and that most websites these days do use webfonts if supported, I do think it's safe to say that "All modern browsers support webfonts" is actually true in 2023, and that any browser that does not is disqualified from being considered as "modern".