🚀 go-pugleaf

In an article Lou@cup.portal.com (William Joseph Marriott) writes:

>- The fella from GE seems to have a big problem with the definition of "font"
>  and I suppose that's ok, except that before the Macintosh, anyone who used 
>  the word font took it to mean the expression of a typeface in a specified
>  style. 
>...
>  You can argue all you want about deception, but the original deciever was 
>  Apple, when it decided to bastardize the word with a "font" menu.

A couple of points:

1) No, I don't really have a big problem with the definition of
   "font".  The disagreement is not over what the correct technical
   definition of the term is, but rather what its common, colloquial
   meaning is (i.e. "typeface").  The latter meaning is the one likely to
   be known to the average Macintosh user who happens across Adobe's
   ad in MacUser.

2) It is absolutely untrue that the common misuse of the term "font"
   originated with Apple (though Apple certainly may have contributed to
   popularizing the incorrect usage).  This usage of the term dates back
   at least to the Xerox Alto and Star in the late 70's/early 80's.  It
   is also very prevalent on non-Apple computing platforms (such as the
   Sun).  The term is also commonly (mis)used in this manner outside of
   the realm of computing.  For example, I used to work as a typesetter
   for a small weekly publication back in 1980-82; we commonly used the
   word "font" in exactly that same manner that Mac users use the term
   today.  This was probably largely because "font" was easier and faster
   to say than "font family" or "typeface".

   Anyway, the issue of "who's to blame" for the incorrect usage is
   really irrelevant; the simple fact of the matter is that, for whatever
   reasons, the meaning of the word in the context of the Macintosh *has
   changed*.  "Font" to Macintosh users means "typeface".  Advertisers
   should use terminology which is consistent with the common usage of
   buyers in the marketplace.

>  There are scores of variations on Helvetica, including Helvetica Black, 
>  Helvetica Condensed, Helvetica Light. Would you want these all to be called
>  part of the Helvetica "font?" 

No, but on the other hand, if I call MacConnection and order a font,
say "Times", I automatically receive all of the "common" variations
(i.e.  roman, italic, bold, bold-italic).  I don't have to call them
and say, "I'd like to order a copy of Times Roman, a copy of Times
Italic, a copy of Times Bold, and a copy of Times Bold-Italic".  The
fonts are sold as families.

My overall point is that just because you use terminology which is
technically correct, this does not mean that you are not being
deceptive.  Especially if you know full well that the audience you are
communicating with will interpret the term differently from the
meaning you have for it.

To cite an analogous example: I once worked in a sub shop where the
owner advertised on his sign that he had "Over 120 Varieties".  In
reality, he only had about 7 or 8 different kinds of sub.  I once
asked him how he could possibly claim to have over 120 varieties.  In
response, he started to name off what he called "varieties":

        1. Cheese steak (plain).
        2. Cheese steak with onions.
        3. Cheese steak with peppers.
        4. Cheese steak with onions and peppers.
        5. Cheese steak with mushrooms.
        6. Cheese steak with mushrooms and onions.
        7. Cheese steak with mushrooms and peppers.
        8. Cheese steak with mushrooms, onions and peppers.
        9. ...
                
etc., etc.  So, while what he said was *technically* correct, it was
nevertheless quite deceptive.  Technically, he may have been perfectly
justified to define each of these as a "variety", but this is
certainly not what the term generally meant to the audience for whom
the sign was intended.

I believe that Adobe is engaging in precisely this sort of deception
when it advertises that ATM comes with "13 of the most popular fonts".
This implies that each included font is a separate, useful entity
whose popularity can be measured independently (i.e. "Times Bold
Italic" is demonstrably more popular than "Univers Oblique".)  In
reality, these fonts are sold and used as families; would anyone want
to buy just the Bold Oblique version of Helvetica?  Of course not.

>The words "typeface" and "type family" are much more appropriate.

I agree.  In fact, I think it would be great if Adobe would modify
their advertising copy so that instead of reading "13 of the most
popular fonts", it says "4 of the most popular font families".  But I
don't think that they'll do it.  Saying "13 fonts" makes it sound like
people are getting more for their money than they actually are, and
I'm sure they are fully aware of this.

Mark Vita                              vita@crd.ge.com
General Electric CRD               	..!uunet!crd.ge.com!vita
Schenectady, NY