User talk:James Arboghast

Welcome

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
To sign your posts (on talk pages, Votes for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
You can experiment in the test area.
You can get help at the Help Desk
Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article

Please use edit summaries. Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 14:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serif

I see that you have changed the paragraph to say "in dispute". Can you elaborate on your reasoning behind changing this wording?

As I see it, there is no real dispute on this terminology, and I have (apparently in vain) tried to explain this in Talk:Serif. However, people who know "serif" and "roman" only through computer programs may see it as in dispute because the computer-oriented terminlogy does not strictly follow the typographic terminology. Is this what you mean?

Thanks.—Gniw (Wing) 00:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC) (who is supposed to be on perpectual wikileave)[reply]

- Hi Gniw. First of all, I design typefaces and have worked with type and studied it for 15 years+ as a graphic designer and art director working in advertising. Most of my knowledge of typography comes from authoritive print sources, not from type-related software. Also, some of it comes from discussions with other typographers and type designers on Typographi.com and Typophile.

I was born in 1963, ie: I'm not new to this stuff. I won't self-promote here on Wikipedia, but if you want to know more about me as far as qualifications go, look me up on Google.

I have read the discussion on Talk:Serif. That very discussion illustrates the "dispute" I meant in the Serif article (altho I did not reference that discussion). The discussion on Talk:Serif does not support your contention that "there is no real dispute on this terminology". It seems that widespread ambiguity and confusion continue to exist regarding this area of type terminology.

The consensus view of typographers and type professionals at present is, essentially:

Serifs are serifs, and are not the equivalent of 'roman';
There are 4 or 5 main kinds of seriffed fonts classified as 
1. bracket, 2. slab, 3. latin (pointed triangular), 4. rhomboid, 5. rounded.

On that basis 'seriffed' cannot be equivalent or interchangeable with 'roman'; slab serif fonts are not considered 'roman', and text fonts with pointed triangular serifs are called 'latin'; Cooper Black has rounded serifs, and while the design is structured according to 'roman' or antiqua letter forms, Cooper is not considered a 'roman' font.

In current use, the term 'roman' has begun to take on a new meaning, refering to the 'regular' or base font in a family. Here are some examples:

http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/bitstream/humanist-521/humanist-521/ http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/bitstream/charter-bt-pro/ http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/bitstream/prima-sans/prima-sans/opentype-tt/244407/

In the case of Prima, even a sans serif font is called a 'roman'. That kind of nomenclature is confusing for lay persons who associate 'roman' with seriffed text fonts.

The emerging definition of 'roman' is: 1. A font (usually a text font) whose letter forms are based on the Aldine model (also known as 'antiqua'). 2. The regular or base font of a font family designed for text work.

Exactly how much confusion exists (both in lay circles and typographic circles) over the equivalence of 'roman' and 'serif' is hard to measure. Probably the best thing to do here is either revert my edit, or change "in dispute" to "remains controversial" (based on the discussion on the Talk:Serif page.

For relevant a perspective on the topic of serifs and seriffed type v.s sans serif, I recommend Wikipedians working on the typography articles read "The Serif is Dying" thread on Typographica: http://typographi.com/000276.php

Those who doubt the views I have presented here should visit http://www.typophile.com and consult the typographers who hang there, ie: start a thread on the genral discussions forum and you will get plenty of feedback. Typophile also has a huge archive of discussion threads you can search to glean more on this issue.