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

Najib,

I think these are excellent topics to start "Font and Typography
Considerations" section. Are you willing to produce some text for this
section?

Additionally, we can also discuss topics related to common calligraphic
classification which extends to fonts (Kufi, Naskh, Nastaliq, Diwani,
Thulth, Rouqaa, and Magriby)[a] and good practices when it comes to
typography.

[a]: Variation of the list that Lazrek et. al have in Arabic Math document.

Best regards,
Shervin

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Najib Tounsi <ntounsi@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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]:
> [image: 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> 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
>>
>>
>