W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-alreq-admin@w3.org > October to December 2015

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

From: Najib Tounsi <ntounsi@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:58:41 +0000
Message-ID: <56263A81.9040800@emi.ac.ma>
To: Shervin Afshar <safshar@netflix.com>
CC: public-alreq-admin@w3.org
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
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2015 11:56:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:53:30 UTC