elfs: (Default)
[personal profile] elfs
In all of the on-line guides to "improve your blogging and increase your audience," there is the "list of kinds of blog entries." This list says that there are X kinds of entries, and using them will help drive traffic to your site: The Leading Question, The Scare Tactic, The "I will make your rich/sexy/healthy" Entry, The How-To, and finally The List.

Yes, the list recommends itself.

And normally, I like lists. Since I do web development and design, lists are good for me: "15 sexy footers," "10 trends in graphic design for 2009," "12 javascript techniques every developer should know," "6 CMS frameworks that real web developers use."

You know what lists I hate? There are two kinds:

"3000 Fonts Every Designer Should Own!"

Okay, that's just obviously stupid. A designer should have a stable of maybe 300 fonts he or she really likes, and suitcases of styles for specific genres, but 3000 fonts is more than anyone can be asked to carry around in his or her head. There's no point to that kind of list: either we already have the font sets we enjoy, or we don't have time to filter through 3000 fonts to pick out ones we need for any immanent projects.

But even more blazingly stupid, in a similar way, is this one:

"95 resources to make you more efficient and productive!"

That's the height of ridiculous: reading 95 separate articles just to find the three or four techniques that might appeal to you to make you more productive is a waste of your productive hours. A thoughtful blogger would have pared this down to "Four techniques for maintaining your productive day," and under each technique, "Three tools for maintaining this technique," with commentary for each. A blind list, especially of 95 different articles, tells me that the writer probably hasn't read them all and is just trying to drive traffic.

I can consume 10 to 20 graphical examples, and when it comes to development techniques a well-written headline will help me filter through 15 or so to find the two I don't know yet. But lists are supposed to help reader acheive some goal, and these super-long, super-fat lists without descriptions or guidance from the writer are just a waste of time.

Date: 2009-05-11 03:22 pm (UTC)
blaisepascal: (Default)
From: [personal profile] blaisepascal
Helvetica, Comic Sans, and Courier. Who needs more?

(Out of the 35 standard PostScript fonts, I have a fondness for New Century Schoolbook, personally.)

Date: 2009-05-11 03:34 pm (UTC)
solarbird: (fascist sons o bitches)
From: [personal profile] solarbird
Oh no. Leave Helvetica out of this. Helvetica may have been overused beyond the point of rational analysis popular tolerance, but despite this, but it's a clean, well-designed font, and does not belong in this list.

Date: 2009-05-11 03:42 pm (UTC)
blaisepascal: (Default)
From: [personal profile] blaisepascal
OK, how about Times New Roman?

I was trying to come up with old, overused, or ugly serif, sans serif, and monospace fonts, and my mind blanked on a serif font for the collection.

Date: 2009-05-11 04:13 pm (UTC)
solarbird: (Default)
From: [personal profile] solarbird
Times New Roman is overused, but is also a reasonably-well-designed face. It's not my favourite (it's no Garamond Antiqua, for example) but it's competent at print resolution.

Bad idea for the web, tho'.

Date: 2009-05-11 05:07 pm (UTC)
maellenkleth: (consultant)
From: [personal profile] maellenkleth
Book Antiqua, Century Schoolbook -- both seem to work okay on the Web. But Papyrus on the other hand? Staggeringly overused to the point of emesis.

Date: 2009-05-14 05:04 pm (UTC)
lovingboth: (Default)
From: [personal profile] lovingboth
Everyone has their favourites, but New Century Schoolbook screams 'American, not very good' to me. I've seen far, far too many American publications use it, looking as if they were designed decades ago.

But hey, I still like Avant Garde Gothic and Palatino a lot.

Some day I will get around to doing a 'Free the PostScript 35!' t-shirt.

Date: 2009-05-14 05:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elfs.livejournal.com
I use Palatino in all my PDFs and Lulu documents.

Date: 2009-05-11 03:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] shunra.livejournal.com
Three hundred fonts seem excessive, unless your designer supplies ransom-note writers. Perhaps build up to that many after many years of practice, but I'd hate for a beginning designer to look at that statement and think she needs to start with that number.

Date: 2009-05-11 03:39 pm (UTC)
solarbird: (Default)
From: [personal profile] solarbird
The type specialists I know say that it 300 is far too many - a typography article I was reading a few years ago even picked 300 as the laughable number - and that to be really, really good with a face, you have to understand it in ways that only come from using it regularly and that your really understood fonts list will be eight to ten, tops.

Typography designer geeks are a little weird. (I should know, I came close to being one. I've even built a few complete typefaces. They weren't good, but the process was highly illuminating.)

appropriate lulz

Date: 2009-05-11 04:12 pm (UTC)
solarbird: (asumanga-yay)
From: [personal profile] solarbird
Today's PvP:

From: [identity profile] shunra.livejournal.com
...if the multilingual menu doesn't meet with their approval, they go elsewhere.

You can get real hungry, real fast that way.
solarbird: (Default)
From: [personal profile] solarbird
I actually got into a big argument with one of my graphic design professors at UW over Copperplate. I think I won. ^_^

Re: appropriate lulz

Date: 2009-05-11 05:09 pm (UTC)
maellenkleth: (Default)
From: [personal profile] maellenkleth
o_O I see that was covered-off already. Glad that I am not completely out in left field.

Profile

elfs: (Default)
Elf Sternberg

May 2025

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
111213141516 17
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 13th, 2025 01:56 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios