Comments on: Ain’t What ITC Used to Be

By: Mark Simonson

Mark Simonson — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:50:15 +0000

Yes.

By: Z� Pequeno

Z� Pequeno — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:06:54 +0000

Is it the font used in the Travis logo?

By: Si

Si — Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:23:33 +0000

>It�s too bad, because I�m sure if Avant Garde were another foundry�s hands, this OTF release would not have been treated so sloppily.

I don’t think there’s any evidence to suggest this is true. Adobe defined the meaning of the ‘Pro’ designation and I think this release meets the relatively low bar that they defined for a re-issue of a display face. But if you can think of re-issues that go above and beyond I’d love to be proved wrong.

By: Jesse B.

Jesse B. — Sun, 16 Oct 2005 05:09:50 +0000

Well, that’s a shame. Ever since Open Type fonts were available for purchase, I’ve been wondering if ITC would ever get on the ball and release Pro versions of Avant Garde with all the ligatures and alternates, and it’s seemed like they’ve taken forever. I reasoned that maybe they were taking the extra care to polishing up the whole family of type and preparing for a major release of a legendary typeface, but it looks like they just phoned it in. It’s too bad, because I’m sure if Avant Garde were another foundry’s hands, this OTF release would not have been treated so sloppily.

By: Si

Si — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:04:26 +0000

Also a great set of images linked to the parallel thread going on over here.. http://www.slanted.de/573#comments

By: Nick Shinn

Nick Shinn — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:20:57 +0000

The great thing about the Avant Garde typeface with all its alternates was the scope it gave to art directors and graphic designers to play around, enriching their involvement with the process of typography, making it fun to set type. That will be possible with the new OT version, I expect (haven’t had the opportunity to try it), by selectively applying different features in the OT palette, or working with the Glyph palette. Nice.

However, OT won’t do all the work for a layout like this, some snipping splicing still required.

By: Allan Haley

Allan Haley — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:05:27 +0000

If you are referencing the type �industry,� you are probably correct; ITC does not provide its new designs to the traditional type foundries. I would have to argue, however, that the type industry is really more of a type �community.�

If you mean the �industry� of graphic communicators, then ITC clearly has the same goals it did in the 70s and 80s. ITC worked with foundries and manufactures in the 70s and 80s to get its typefaces in the hands of graphic designers. They were the ultimate users of ITC’s typefaces. Providing the typefaces to foundries and manufactures was a means to an end. The more graphic communicators that used and wanted ITC typefaces, the more typehouses bought fonts containing ITC typefaces – which provided a revenue stream to ITC. It’s doing the same thing today; it’s just that the graphic designers now have the fonts.

By: Norbert Florendo

Norbert Florendo — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:53:15 +0000

> I do think that the typographic community, as it exists today, owes a great deal to organizations like ITC, who paved the way for all of us.

I feel that’s why so many of us take issue with the decision.

Remember, originally ITC developed and marketed typeface designs, licensed and provided font manufacturers with analog art work. It was individual font manufacturers that created film fonts and later digitized versions of ITC typefaces. That is why there had been subtle to grotesque variations of output from vendors fonts.

ITC and the type industry in general are no longer in the same game as it was played during the early 1970s to 1999.

ITC is now in the business of selling fonts and have a completely different market focus. They are no longer an organization that servers the entire industry.

By: Hrant

Hrant — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:15:03 +0000

Team 77: the single good thing about the 70s.

hhp

By: Mark Simonson

Mark Simonson — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:07:41 +0000

You bring up a good point about Bitstream, George. But take a look at this:

They made the tail of the g lower, but otherwise it’s quite close. Here’s what ITC had to say about it in 1977:

It looks to me like AGG Oblique didn’t need much fixing.