What on earth sort of obscure situation would I be in that I could say "font" instead of "typeface", and the person I'm talking with not know what I mean?
The person would have to have to have some knowledge of typography. The distinction between both is one of the first anyone reading about the topic learns.
Knowing that fonts are files and typefaces are the actual letter forms is useful, but Joe Schmoe doesn't give a damn...and there are designers with their pretentious heads so far up their ass that they don't grasp they need to dumb it down for Joe Schmoe...and they think of Joe Schmoe as the only retard when they're acting autistic about the whole thing themselves.
>>270777
Nice trips and good point. The pretentious turboautism in designers is a defence mechanism to validate their expertise. They are out to prove to their client they know what they're talking about and can take care of it. While I hate it, i have sympathy because it prevents clients interfering because they become subordinate in knowledge.
>>270560
I cant imagine such a situation, the person youre talking to would have to not know or heard of a font before.
>>270777
>fonts are files
That's..incorrect. Just google yourself.
What is the difference between fonts and type faces?
>>270812
no one really knows, its just an interchangeable term that doesnt matter what you call it
>>270813
Doesnt matter anymore*
Typeface is reffering to the family/weight
I.e.
Univers,helvetica,georgia
55,65,53,63 etc etc
Roman, bold, oblique, italic, what have you.
Font is the output.
I.e. this typeface works well as a computer font(digital output/font)
This typeface works well as a wood block font(physical output/font)
Basically say font, everyone will get what you mean.
but when you speak to someone who is a type designer thats porbably the only time youll have to make an effort.
>>270816
I thought the actual distinction was this-
A typeface is the general letter shape, including family and weight.
A font is the specific size and style of that typeface, ala Times New Roman size 12.
Saying that Times New Roman is a font is technically incorrect, as you're referring to a typeface as a font.
>>270801
Whelp, this is the second time that things I have learned from one of the core design professors at my university has been called out as bullshit. :^D Thank you anon, for reaffirming my right to mock this professor all of the time.
But my statement about autistic designers who can't seem to function around design-illiterate Joe Schmoes still stands.
"Oh yeah my cousin can do that with MS paint"
>>270826
This is correct.
Times New Roman 12pt Bold is a different font to Tines New Roman 6pt Italic but they are of the same typeface.
Time New Roman 12pt Bold is a different typeface to Helvetica 12pt Bold.
The clue is in the name type-face, it is the face of the type.
Nowadays with everything being digitised I doubt it really matters.
>>270917
my ass. Not just you but to others who think there is any sort of distinction.
This isn't even really related to graphic design; this debate is more about linguistics and etymology.
>>270826
(im the guy above)
absolutely fucking not.
This doesn't even really make sense.
The words for the 'shape' of the font are classified through things like the Vox-ATypI classification.
Size is absolutely irrelevant. There are however fonts(oh god) typefaces designed to be used at larger sizes, but still, irrellevant.
Though, I suppose, font could refer to the software, but the problem is that typeface can refer to that as well.
face/font can be used interchangeably, until it is defined otherwise.
>>270934
Get out.
Adobe Garamond Premier Pro = typeface = a family of fonts with a coherent style
Adobe Garamond Premier Pro Subhead Italic = font = the single font file
if you have >70 iq you should be able to understand this
https://youtu.be/l2iNthl-RUk
