simplyNoted Calculating status...
-
-
-
-
-
20,971 posts
Dec 23, 2006LOL, I got a kick out of the salesy wording on that page: "Adobe Type continues that tradition with font offerings that match our vast knowledge of typography, layout, and design with typefaces known for precision, elegance, and broad language support."
Vast indeed. As in "vast like the void of outer space".
To this day a lot of people see how well the Adobe-Clean web font works on these very pages.
Note the way italicized words seem to run into the non-italicized words following (Mac users apparently sometimes see less of this).
Screen grab of what I see of the above sentence:
-Noel
| -
-
-
20,971 posts
Dec 23, 2006IE9. I know, not a very popular browser.
Clearly the font face you're seeing is quite different than the one I'm seeing. For one thing, the italicized words are less slanted in your screen grab.
It looks for me as it looks for you in FireFox. But this just demonstrates the "vast" knowledge Adobe has in both font management and web development that something like a quarter of the world's users will be seeing this page rendered poorly.
-Noel
| -
-
-
-
-
-
20,971 posts
Dec 23, 2006station_two wrote:
Of course, what Firefox is displaying in my screen shot is not the "Adobe Clean" font at all. Just look at the lower-case 'g' in 'following'.
Right. So that's so far (by my count) THREE different ways this company of vast knowledge is displaying their own font (or not) on their own web pages, and we're not even talking about how it looks different in the editor than when it's posted.
gggggggggggggggg
-Noel
P.S., sorry for sidetracking your thread a bit, Barb. But I didn't want you to be baffled by the "brilliance" of Adobe's font knowledge.
| -
-
-
-
-
20,971 posts
Dec 23, 2006I can't recommend anyone from personal experience. My one stand-out experience with a (mass-produced) book of images was with my collaborative book of astrophotography called Star Vistas published by Springer and they kind of botched the job, making all the images come out muddy and dark (and forcing me to skip the paper review because they were late), so I wouldn't recommend them to anyone.
A photographer friend of mine not long ago sent me a high-end photo book that looked extraordinary.. Ah, here it is. But there's no info about who printed it in the book itself, just his own work.
Pages are full bleed, thick card stock and glossy, and the color is great. The thing just exudes quality, and I don't think it was cheap.
Unfortunately I've just reviewed his eMails to me, and nowhere did he mention who printed it, so I've eMailed him for the info. When he returns a response I'll pass it along here.
-Noel
| -
-
-
20,971 posts
Dec 23, 2006conroy wrote:
It's the same as gener7's FireFox result on Windows and is Adobe Clean.So Adobe, with their vast knowledge of fonts, has created a font family that changes descender shape entirely (of the 'g' at least) between the Normal and Italic styles, then chose to use that font in the online public face of their company.
Did I mention the vastness of outer space?
--
Barb, my friend Ed who created the most excellent photo book hasn't gotten back to me yet.
-Noel
| -
-
-
-
-
-
Maybe you'll like this one better (or not):
Source Sans Pro: Adobe’s first open source type family
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/2012/08/source-sans-pro.html#more- 2648
| -
-
20,971 posts
Dec 23, 2006It's not about whether I like it so much as whether it actually works. I'd probably have overlooked the gg aa inconsistencies entirely if not for the utter failure in the Typekit technology. How long have these forums been using this technology that doesn't actually work? I pointed this issue out to the forum management quite a while back.
But thanks for the link.
Open source, eh? So a reasonable designer could go in and fix problems such as letters that simply don't fit in the same family?
-Noel
|
- 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
- 5 points awarded for
-
10,000+ points
-
1,001-10,000 points
-
501-1,000 points
-
5-500 points
-
