Get to Know a Typeface! Comic Sans (with a little Helvetica mixed in)

I recently watched the documentary film “Helvetica,” which Shea reviewed back in March. The movie, predictably, features experts on typography who either hail the typeface as the solution to all of mankind’s problems or deride it as the manifestation of humanity’s worst attributes. What’s interesting about the typeface (and the movie) is the story about how and why Helvetica came to be and the function that it serves.

Regardless of how you feel about its aesthetics, you understand that Helvetica was designed with attention to detail and a strict adherence to a philosophical movement, and it fills a specific need in the design community. I found myself thinking that everything that makes Helvetica an interesting and viable typeface stands in stark contrast to everything that makes Comic Sans such a joke.

Yes, I am hard on Comic Sans, but I enjoyed the above YouTube video, where Comic Sans creator Vincent Connare explains the origins of his most famous creation. It’s humanizing to see a man who created one of the most used (and most reviled, in some circles) typfaces ever, admit to not being proud of his work.

The most important thing he says here is, “It’s often badly used,” which I think is the crux of why so many people dislike this typeface. Connare speaks directly to what makes Comic Sans inappropriate when he explains that it was designed to be used for text in speech bubbles for a cartoon dog—not, we can infer, for long passages of text or as large display type.

So to reiterate a recurring theme on this site: Don’t use Comic Sans unless the type you’re setting is in a speech bubble, preferably that of a cartoon dog.

What’s the difference between a typeface and a font?

This is one of those “Do we dare bring it up?” subjects, not only because the definitions of these terms have been muddied with common usage and changes in technology, but also because nothing makes you look like a bigger nerd than trying to explain the difference between a “font” and a “typeface.”

Changes in technology and the way these terms have been used by computer programs have caused some (mostly people who have social lives and talk about things like movies and current events) to use the terms interchangeably. These people might think they’re happy, but little do they know that there’s a difference between a font and a typeface.

To encapsulate the many arguments out there, “typeface” describes the design of a set of typographic characters. It describes the aesthetic, visual form. (“Helvetica” is a typeface.)

The term “font” is more specific and therefore leads to more impassioned discussion and angry posts on graphic design blogs. Some say that fonts are simply styles within a typeface (Helvetica bold, oblique, roman, etc. are fonts within the Helvetica typeface), while others get more specific, arguing that a font includes not only styles but point sizes (Helvetica oblique at 10 points is one font, Helvetica oblique at 12 points is yet another font).

An important, further distinction is the origin of the term “font.” It describes the technical aspect of how typefaces come to be represented. Before computers, a “font” was the set of metal characters representing a typeface in a certain style at a certain size for use on a printing press (this is why some people define a font as a style and a point size of a typeface). Since the advent of computers, a “font” is the digital file a printer uses to print Helvetica oblique (this is where the people who think of fonts as a style without specifying point size are coming from).

Unfortunately for people who like things clean cut, all of the above people (except those happy know-nothings who don’t even realize that there’s a discussion to be had) are correct. The term “typeface” is pretty easily defined, but because “font” has its origins in technology that has changed drastically over the centuries, it is harder to pin down.

Of course, we’re not the first to bring this subject up. Here is a small sampling of articles out there on the subject:

“They’re not fonts!”
http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/theyre-not-fonts

“When is it wrong to call a typeface a font?”
http://www.inspirationbit.com/when-is-it-wrong-to-call-a-typeface-font/

“Font vs. typeface”
http://www.publish.com/c/a/Graphics-Tools/Font-vs-typeface/

“Typeface != Font”
http://jontangerine.com/log/2008/08/typeface–font

“Font or Typeface?”
http://fontfeed.com/archives/font-or-typeface/