- From: Tiro TypeWorks <tiro@portal.ca>
- Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 15:23:17 -0700
- To: www-font@w3.org
An awful lot of second-guessing seems to be accompanying the current discussion of onscreen type, type embedding, etc. -- second-guessing of developing technology, second-guessing of how people might want or need to use type five years from now, or even one year from now. All this is happening while many of the people developing the new technology, designing fonts or simply dreaming up bright new ideas have little overall picture of how type is being used today. There is a tendency, of which we are all guilty, to look at type from the perspective of our own corner of the industry (or related industries), and not to fully consider what people in other areas might require of font technology. Ever since type became a digital entity, distinctions between different kinds of type, and between different kinds of people who use type, have been largely ignored. The thinking seems to have been: 'Because all type -- whether employed by graphic designers, computer programmers, secretaries, or any of the other countless groups of people who 'need' fonts -- is packed in the same software container, all type must be the same.' This is an error of thinking that has affected type design, software development, distribution systems and pricing structures. I propose (and I'll let everyone else decide who is best placed to implement such a proposal) that time should be taken to build a series of models of current font usage, detailing how fonts are purchased and used by different market groups, how fonts are likely to be used by such groups in the future, and which smaller market groups are likely to grow in response to various current technological initiatives. Of principal concern should be issues of ownership, licensing, and data protection. Obviously these issues are going to imply different things to different groups -- one thing to companies commissioning custom typefaces, for example, and another to developers of Web browsers.The point _is_ the difference, and we lack a model of these differences suitable to informing the present debate. I suspect, if such modelling were available, font technology developers would see the need to control, within the font data, the ways in which a font can be used. It is not that I am opposed in principle to outline fonts being used, in some fashion, on the Web and in electronic documents; rather, font designers, manufacturers and distributors should be able to determine which of their fonts can be used in such a fashion and which cannot. Simply rewriting licensing agreements and hoping for the best is not good enough, it is not even adequate. It is unacceptable, as a type designer, to be handed a new technology, told that it is going to be a world standard, and then told that your work is unprotectable as a result. It is equally unacceptable for a company commissioning a custom typeface to be unable to use that typeface on their website without giving up the very exclusivity in which they invested so much money. John Hudson, Type Director Tiro TypeWorks Vancouver, BC tiro@portal.ca http://www.portal.ca/~tiro
Received on Friday, 9 August 1996 18:17:38 UTC