Comments on: The Didot You Didn’t Know http://typographica.org/2004/on-typography/the-didot-you-didnt-know/ A journal of typography with a focus on typeface reviews. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 05:23:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Matthew Carter (Justin Howes Memorial Lecture 09) - 4type http://typographica.org/2004/on-typography/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-38295 Matthew Carter (Justin Howes Memorial Lecture 09) - 4type Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:13:00 +0000 http://new.typographica.org/archives/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-38295 [...] Justin Howes and  Jean François Porchez have developed revival typefaces, at times influenced by a desire to pro­duce a ‘strict’ inter­pret­a­tion. Howes once remarked to me, in con­trast, that cer­tain late 19th-century type reviv­als were [...] [...] Justin Howes and  Jean François Porchez have developed revival typefaces, at times influenced by a desire to pro­duce a ‘strict’ inter­pret­a­tion. Howes once remarked to me, in con­trast, that cer­tain late 19th-century type reviv­als were [...]

]]> By: Seth Urion http://typographica.org/2004/on-typography/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34611 Seth Urion Sun, 04 Apr 2004 05:54:57 +0000 http://new.typographica.org/archives/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34611 I personally enjoy the oddities of the recreation of this typeface. I notice however that in the graphic Stephen Coles posted above, the lowercase 's' does not have an arrow-like serif at the top. However, in the sample at Optimo's web page, there is an arrow-like serif on the 's' in all weights. Did the original have alternates, or has the modern recreation taken liberties in making the typeface *more* esoteric than the original? Just a question. I personally enjoy the oddities of the recreation of this typeface. I notice however that in the graphic Stephen Coles posted above, the lowercase ‘s’ does not have an arrow-like serif at the top. However, in the sample at Optimo’s web page, there is an arrow-like serif on the ‘s’ in all weights.
Did the original have alternates, or has the modern recreation taken liberties in making the typeface *more* esoteric than the original?
Just a question.

]]> By: nick shinn http://typographica.org/2004/on-typography/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34610 nick shinn Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:44:07 +0000 http://new.typographica.org/archives/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34610 I get really fucked up by the KIA logo -- I always read those upside-down Vs masquerading as As, as "L" (damn classical education), so it's the KIL car. I get really fucked up by the KIA logo — I always read those upside-down Vs masquerading as As, as “L” (damn classical education), so it’s the KIL car.

]]> By: Hrant http://typographica.org/2004/on-typography/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34609 Hrant Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:44:58 +0000 http://new.typographica.org/archives/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34609 Certainly no "U" - that would stop ISUZU from performing sado-masochistic typography! Don't you think there's something to be said for the "V" in "BVLGARI"? hhp Certainly no “U” – that would stop ISUZU from performing sado-masochistic typography! Don’t you think there’s something to be said for the “V” in “BVLGARI”?

hhp

]]> By: nick shinn http://typographica.org/2004/on-typography/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34608 nick shinn Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:31:00 +0000 http://new.typographica.org/archives/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34608 >Trajan should not have an ‘at’ sign, it just contributes to the watering down of the design. And no Js, Ws, arabic figures, or word-spaces either -- just like on the column ! -) >Trajan should not have an ‘at’ sign, it just contributes to the watering down of the design.

And no Js, Ws, arabic figures, or word-spaces either — just like on the column ! -)

]]> By: JonSel http://typographica.org/2004/on-typography/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34607 JonSel Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:42:14 +0000 http://new.typographica.org/archives/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34607 <i>The biggest example I can think of: Trajan should not have an ‘at’ sign, it just contributes to the watering down of the design. </i> I just have to disagree with this completely. You're being too literal. As JFP said, there has to be a blend of upholding the tradition of the typeface's origin and a nod to its modern application. The '@' sign fits this demand. Whether it is used correctly...that's another matter entirely. On your overall point, though, we do agree. I think that the arrows and funky 'g' give Didot Elder a distinctive flair. If one doesn't like it, they shouldn't use the face. Supplying alternates to eliminate its distinctiveness simply neuters the face. The biggest example I can think of: Trajan should not have an ‘at’ sign, it just contributes to the watering down of the design.

I just have to disagree with this completely. You’re being too literal. As JFP said, there has to be a blend of upholding the tradition of the typeface’s origin and a nod to its modern application. The ‘@’ sign fits this demand. Whether it is used correctly…that’s another matter entirely.

On your overall point, though, we do agree. I think that the arrows and funky ‘g’ give Didot Elder a distinctive flair. If one doesn’t like it, they shouldn’t use the face. Supplying alternates to eliminate its distinctiveness simply neuters the face.

]]> By: Hrant http://typographica.org/2004/on-typography/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34606 Hrant Sat, 27 Mar 2004 18:16:49 +0000 http://new.typographica.org/archives/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34606 BTW, I think an interesting parallel to the issue of excluding certain characters from certain fonts is this: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3575159.stm" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3575159.stm</a> It might seem counter-intuitive, and some people will grumble, but the bottom line is that it's good for you. hhp BTW, I think an interesting parallel to the issue of excluding certain characters from certain fonts is this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3575159.stm
It might seem counter-intuitive, and some people will grumble, but the bottom line is that it’s good for you.

hhp

]]> By: Hrant http://typographica.org/2004/on-typography/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34605 Hrant Sat, 27 Mar 2004 16:52:19 +0000 http://new.typographica.org/archives/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34605 Stephen, JF: I don't know. It's certainly a tricky balance, making a tool that different people will use differently. But there's something to be said for tightness of focus in a typeface. Nick, Gary: right on. And to me this goes beyond not providing character-diluting alternates; actual provision of characters should be considered too. The biggest example I can think of: Trajan should not have an "at" sign, it just contributes to the watering down of the design. You need a balance between versatility and focus. Isuzu uses Trajan, and that's bad for everybody (except Adobe's wallet). That said, there's a difference here between display and text fonts. hhp Stephen, JF: I don’t know. It’s certainly a tricky balance, making a tool that different people will use differently. But there’s something to be said for tightness of focus in a typeface.

Nick, Gary: right on.
And to me this goes beyond not providing character-diluting alternates; actual provision of characters should be considered too. The biggest example I can think of: Trajan should not have an “at” sign, it just contributes to the watering down of the design. You need a balance between versatility and focus. Isuzu uses Trajan, and that’s bad for everybody (except Adobe’s wallet). That said, there’s a difference here between display and text fonts.

hhp

]]> By: Gary Robbins http://typographica.org/2004/on-typography/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34604 Gary Robbins Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:18:22 +0000 http://new.typographica.org/archives/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34604 The only thing worse than a strict revival is a strict revival with modern alternates. If you are going to reproduce someone else's public domain ideas in a different medium, the least you could do is honor those ideas by not changing them to suit a time when those ideas don't make sense anyway. If you can't stand those arrow serifs, use a firminic (firminite?) didone. In all honesty, I think that funky g offends mine modern eye more than the arrows. But again, these were Pierre's ideas. And the typeface's raison d'atre The only thing worse than a strict revival is a strict revival with modern alternates. If you are going to reproduce someone else’s public domain ideas in a different medium, the least you could do is honor those ideas by not changing them to suit a time when those ideas don’t make sense anyway. If you can’t stand those arrow serifs, use a firminic (firminite?) didone. In all honesty, I think that funky g offends mine modern eye more than the arrows. But again, these were Pierre’s ideas. And the typeface’s raison d’atre

]]> By: nick shinn http://typographica.org/2004/on-typography/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34603 nick shinn Sat, 27 Mar 2004 06:46:02 +0000 http://new.typographica.org/archives/the-didot-you-didnt-know/#comment-34603 >simple things they can do to make it a better tool, It's a better tool already, because it's not a duplicate of the many excellent Didones people already have. Providing "normal" alternates waters down the personality of a face, so that it ceases to be that face, becoming a travesty. We don't have alternates for the peculiar characters in the established classics -- because that's what give the them their recognizable personality -- so why here? >simple things they can do to make it a better tool,

It’s a better tool already, because it’s not a duplicate of the many excellent Didones people already have.

Providing “normal” alternates waters down the personality of a face, so that it ceases to be that face, becoming a travesty. We don’t have alternates for the peculiar characters in the established classics — because that’s what give the them their recognizable personality — so why here?

]]>