Re: Font-family types and when to use each type

Precisely, those (google) fonts Kufi and Naskh are on the rise now, and 
it is not about discouraging people from using them. On the contrary, I 
find that Arabic Naskh is a good compromise for readability and size, 
and it is perfect for mixed texts.

It's just a matter of good practice as you say.

My point is that sometimes the Kufi-like or Andalous-like fonts are used 
"excessively". It might result in:
1) an accessibility problem (scrolling subtitles for example)
2) or a confusion in reading.
For example, in some cases you might confuse between the letters 
"Teh+Noun" and the letter "Sheen", in these two words  التنمية and 
اشمية, as shown in this image (word Atanmiya and Achmia, font-family: 
KacstTitle) [1]:
Atanmiya vs Achmia

There are other examples.

Best regards,

Najib

[1] http://www.w3c.org.ma/Tests/Alreq/tanmiya-vs-achmia.png




On 10/19/15 11:55 PM, Shervin Afshar wrote:
>
> I generally avoid Kufi style for body text and reserve it for display 
> usages only (e.g. titles, headings, etc.) and go with Naskh style for 
> body text. But this is mostly a matter of good practices in typography 
> rather than discouraging folks to use a specific font.
>
> Best regards,
> Shervin
>
> On Oct 19, 2015 1:47 PM, "Najib Tounsi" <ntounsi@gmail.com 
> <mailto:ntounsi@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     I have a thought about font-family types and when to use each
>     type. (Fill an issue?)
>
>     Font family can be classified by "style or decoration" between two
>     extremes, from raw type (courier/fixed-width… let's call it
>     textual) to calligraphic type, via various other types more or
>     less stylish (the latter ranging from, e.g.  Arial to Apple
>     Chancery/Lucida Calligraphy etc). There is for all tastes. (see my
>     sample [1] ....)
>
>     Precisely, should we "allow" any fonts to apply  anywhere, or
>     should there be some typographical rules? Especially in Arabic,
>     where it is very tempting to use nice letters.
>
>     I think also readability might be better in the other way round,
>     from the more stylish fonts (less readable) to the less stylish
>     (more readable). It can be considered as an accessibility issue in
>     some cases (e.g. video subtitles).
>
>     For example, to do it pretty, some  may use (and abuse of) stylish
>     fonts everywhere. An example here [2] (OK not bad). A typical case
>     also are subtitles or video scripts [3].
>
>     Anyway,  a typographical rule could be that the stylish fonts are
>     for titles banners etc ... and  normal fonts are for, say, the
>     content of paragraphs.
>
>     Here are some examples (image snapshot):
>     - Title decorative, paragraph normal (
>     http://www.w3c.org.ma/Tests/Alreq/aljazeera.png )
>     - Title decorative, paragraph decorative
>     (http://www.w3c.org.ma/Tests/Alreq/arado-deco-font4all.png)
>     - Title normal, paragraph normal
>     (http://www.w3c.org.ma/Tests/Alreq/asharq-text-font4all.png)
>
>     Any thoughts?
>
>     Najib
>
>     [1] http://www.w3c.org.ma/Tests/Alreq/Sample.pdf
>     [1] http://www.w3c.org.ma/Tests/Alreq/Sample.html
>     [2] http://www.arado.org.eg/
>     [3] http://www.w3c.org.ma/Tests/Alreq/subtitle1.jpg
>     [3] http://www.w3c.org.ma/Tests/Alreq/subtitle2.jpg
>