Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!plaid!chuq From: chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: comp.fonts Subject: Re: font flames Message-ID: <52617@sun.uucp> Date: 10 May 88 05:32:01 GMT References: <52552@sun.uucp> <12840@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Sender: news@sun.uucp Reply-To: chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) Organization: Fictional Reality Lines: 34 > What are you folks favorite faces? Times need not apply, of course... >I use ITC Garamond Light as the text for the magazine I put together. > How's this for a 'top four': > ITC Garamond > Goudy Old Style > Palatino > ITC Galliard Hmm. something's wrong. I agree with all four choices, although I'd probably put Goudy below Palatino. How can we start a flame war this way??? >I've been looking carefully at Stone (Adobe's new typeface family that >they developed in house), and I must admit that I like some pieces of >it better than others. For example, I think the serif italic is >absolutely wonderful, but the serif roman is pretty undistinguished. >Not bad, mind you, but it sort of strikes me as slightly off. Stone >Sans is running neck-and-neck with Gill Sans for my favorite sans >serif face. Stone Informal is an interesting idea, but I'm not >convinced yet. I'm with you. They used Stone for the new Adobe book, so I got a chance to see it in action. I think the Serif font is nice, but nothing to write home about. The sans-serif is a good, solid, boring serif font. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing to really draw your attention to it. I'll say right now it's much better than anything I'd be able to design. Or even dream of designing. But, except for being the first set of faces designed specifically for Postscript output (rather than an adaptation of some other face) I don't see any real advantages to using it. I might well use stone down the road for some stuff, but it isn't a face that makes me want to run down to ComputerWare and shove it on my hard disk. The family is a nice, conservative, average, useful but not noteworthy family.