[First question was answered in previous post.]
The word is meant to be part of the graphic unit–it is not meant to be text that search engines might find. Can that word be any typeface in the world, as part of a graphic element, or must it be a typeface found on most computers?
If the type is converted to a graphic element (just pixels, not live type), you can use any font in the world or anything you make up.
Does it matter in any way whether that graphic unit above
You have some flexibility here — but why not just create the graphic in Photoshop?
Neil
you can use any font you want as long as you own it.
If the type is converted to a graphic element (just pixels, not live type), you can use any font in the world or anything you make up
Thanks. As I thought.
There is a question about the typeface Century Gothic, which comes in but two weights (AFAIK). Is Century Gothic common to many platforms and browsers? Or is it as foreign to the average browser as Avant Garde Gothic?
That’s my main current question.
but why not just create the graphic in Photoshop?
Far more familiar in InDesign, much faster to produce ideas, visual and verbal variations, which was my main goal. Production is a separate matter and will be handled by others more familiar by Photoshop. Call it division of labor.
use any font you want as long as you own it
Thanks Buko.
See my new query re is Century Gothic to most platforms and browsers, or is it as foreign to them as say Avant Garde Gothic?
larry,
If you are taking a font — any font (you have a license for) — and converting it to a graphic, why does it have to be Century Gothic or AGG? BTW, the latter is difficult to read in pages of text. I’d limit it to heads.
Neil
If you are taking a font — any font (you have a license for) — and converting it to a graphic, why does it have to be Century Gothic or AGG?
The client’s logo which I have updated is in CG. CG is a bastard version of Futura. Larger x-height. Lost subtleties.
I preferred to change from CG to AGG. One reason is personal preference–belief that Lubalin and Carnase could do no wrong. One reason is that CG has only two weights and AGG has 4 usable weights (plus one). When the logo is reduced in print to tiny size, since it incorporates a slugline, CG Book is hard to read, whereas AGG Medium, slightly heavier, is easy to read.
CLIENT ASSUMPTION: CG is resident on many computer platforms and in many browsers, so the line of type that must also work as searchable text, must be in CG so many browsers will see it as CG.
MAIN QUESTION: Is that technically correct? (I am not discussing esthetics at this point, just the tech side.) Is CG resident/available for most who browse on the Web? Or is live text set in CG just as likely to turn into Verdana or Times or Helvetica or G-d-knows-what?
You add: >both fonts are difficult to read in pages of text. I’d limit them to heads or just short bursts of copy
I taught typography in both NYC and Atlanta so I agree with that. Actually Neil, I agree with you emphatically!!! Many "designers" today are really Mac jockeys that–well, no need to go on with that rant.
However, as I recall, decades ago the great AD Helmut Krone used AGG for text settings for the Audi Fox ad campaign. However, he used it large, perhaps 24 pt (I can probably find a sample ad if necessary but it would take an hour) and Krone was a typographic genius who rqazorbladed any letter combination that did not set as it should. As I recall it was fl/l rag/r with runarounds L and R to boot. So it can be done in rare instances.
My problem with most sans faces is the lowercase r, which is often cut short so rn often reads like m and ri often reads like n.
Anyway thanks for the break!
Y;know in the old days I did paper mechanicals and was quite proficient at it. However if I wanted to impress a client with perfect 000 crop marks and no cut marks etc., I had somebody really good, technically speaking, do the boards, tissue and flap, neat as humanly possible. This pattern follows me into the computer era. Fine designer. Good-enough technician. But not THAT good. Which is why I NEED to ask questions here.
Or is live text set in CG just as likely to turn into Verdana or Times or Helvetica or G-d-knows-what?
Yes.
Neil
But you can set up CG as the preferred font, and anyone who has it installed (and hasn’t over ridden that preference) can read your pages in that font
Is that, do you think, a common practice?
In this project for this client I did it all, one exception, in CG (despite the ugly cap S). I did the logo with attendant slugline full size (fairly large) and a much reduced version, about 25% size. In that case,reducing CG Regular made it too light so I replaced it with AGG Medium. In addition, the larger units tend to have pretty tight type. The 25% version has opened it a bit.
I still keep rubber cement thinner around in the old red conical squirt can as there is absolutely nothing better for instantly removing stick-on price and manufacturer labels from virtually any surface without leaving a mark or gummy residue
THIS IS SERIOUS!
Trader Joe’s in Charlotte sells a condiment in a six-sided jar that I want to reuse (flowers maybe). In one case I removed the label manually and ran in through the dishwasher a zillion times. In the other I just used the dishwasher. Neither gives me a clean paperfree surface. Ya think I need to reorder some Bestine to put in my BLUE conical can?
Jim, One of those links is just what I needed to show the client the error of their way.s (Discreetly.)
Thanks much for those links. At 73 I am still learning. When will it stop?
Your Web designer should include an "alt" tag that contains the same text as the graphic. The user won’t see the alt text unless his/her browser prefs are set up to show them. Including the alt tag is always a good idea anyway for handicapped users.
