W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 1996

Re: the alternative?

From: Clive Bruton <Clive@typonaut.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 96 20:55:21 +0000
To: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>, www-font@w3.org
Message-Id: <AE47BFBA@typonaut.demon.co.uk>
Chris Lilley:
>On Aug 26,  7:12pm, Clive Bruton wrote:
>
>> [I wrote]
>> >Kodak, and CocaCola respectively.
>>
>> So the world's large corporations are going to take on the role of
>> looking after  the world's type designers, I think not.
>
>Read what I wrote before replying.

I did :-)

>
>> >Having the viewer pay is one model. Having the corporation who are trying to
>> >promote a corporate identity pay is another, complementary model. This is
>> >easier, since they are accustomed to paying for this anyway in their print
>> >publications.
>>
>> Very rarely do they actually pay for new type design, why should they start
>> doing that now?
>
>If you are alledging that major corporations never or rarely purchase their
>fonts, I hope you have some documentary proof. How then do the font foundries
>stay in business?

Read what *I* wrote before replying. I said that they rarely pay for new type 
design, not that they didn't license type which isn't the same thing.

My own experience from dealing with large companies is that they will licence  
*some* of their fonts, not all. Mumping is endemic.

>> >Once HTML pages can contain references to fonts, large websites will be
>hiring
>> >type designers just like they hire graphic designers now, to give their
>siteas
>> >a particular look that stands out from the crowd.
>>
>> Like large websites hire graphic designers now? Joke right?
>
>Sure they hire designers now. If you are unaware of this, I can only conclude
>that you have incredibly limited experience of corporate website development.
>Actually, the money that some companies are willing to sink into graphics
>design for websites sometimes amazes me. [Until I see what they sink into print
>and TV advertising, when I realise this is small potatoes indeed].

That is my point, the money generated from print and TV does not compare to web 
graphics, they may pay a consultant for an overview, but designers aren't in 
there at every stage as with other media.

>
>> I think someone who should know has already discounted this theory,
>> Bill Hill of
>> Microsoft recently said here that he thought it unlikely that this
>> kind of model
>> could sustain the range and diversity of type design today.
>
>He was talking about a different type of model. Read what _he_ wrote! He was
>talking about a mmodel where a site commissions a font which is then given
>away, in fully installable form, for anyone to use on any website or in any
>software product or ... this is somewhat different from a corporation using
>their corporate image fonts on their own website, such that they are only
>usable on that website.

"Which are only usable on their website", and which embedding model in current 
use does that?

>
>> Why should we doubt the words of someone that has actually been through that
>> process and come out the other side?
>
>I have no reason to doubt his words, nor do I. Then again, I have read them ;-)

And I wouldn't be able to quote them if I hadn't, the model is clear, the Font 
Face tag is the thin end of the wedge, people are already giving away cloned 
fonts on their sites. There is currently no alternative model (aside from 
Acrobat).

Why bother with embedding when fonts are free anyway?


-- Clive
Received on Monday, 26 August 1996 16:57:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:29 UTC