David Lang raises a design issue issue today on the Accordance blog – it’s one where I largely disagree with him. So first, this is David:
Every long-time Mac user knows that not everything in OS X has been an improvement. For example, OS X has some incredibly cool typographic capabilities, yet it still cannot italicize text in a font which does not have an italic version. The classic Mac OS would use the italic version of a font if it existed, but if there was no italic version, it would simply use an algorithm to slant the text. You can see this if you open an Accordance text or tool with italic text and change the font to something like Lucida Grande. The italics will seem to disappear, because Lucida Grande does not have an italic version of the font. I have no idea why Apple doesn’t just slant the text algorithmically, but they basically just pass the onus for italics back onto the font designers.
The way I view this is that OS X is protecting the user from themselves. The problem is that the algorithms that generate faux bold or faux italic often don’t do a very good job of it, and simply make (to the eye of those of us who care about these things) type look ugly.
The algorithms either slant the text or thicken it, the real italic and bold faces are designed so that the letter shapes work together with the different axis and angle of italics, or the heavier stroke of the bold. The text to the right is an example. Here’s Adobe Garamond Pro, in descending order regular, true italic, and finally faux italic according to the algorithm in Word. At one level it doesn’t make a bad job of it: it’s as good as an algorithm will get. But the difference between the true drawn italic and the faux is obvious in terms of letter fit, the way the bowls on the “e” and “b” are shaped, and most obviously perhaps the way in which the italicised letters take up less space in the line.
(For information. This illustration was done as a double screen grab in Word 2008, first with the Roman and Italic faces, then with the Italic face disabled in Font Book), no other settings were changed between the two grabs which were assembled untouched in Photoshop.)
On the whole, if you want elegant typography, you don’t want faux italics or faux bolds. While I wouldn’t complain if OS X gave a hard to get at option for allowing the person who knows what they’re doing do produce faux type weights and styles, on balance I rejoice that OS X is signed up to the Campaign for Real Type.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Doug, I knew when I wrote that post today that someone would make the argument that algorithmically-generated italic type is inferior to true italics. You get no argument from me there. But the problem with protecting the user from himself in this way is that it causes confusion. If I purchase an inexpensive font that doesn’t include an italic version (a fact I may not realize when I purchase it), I get nothing when I try to italicize text in that font. Is this a bug in my word processor? I have no idea unless I am familiar with this little known aspect of OS X typography. That’s bad interface design, even if it does protect us from mediocre typography.
Remember, the church once tried to protect people from bad theology by discouraging them from reading the Bible for themselves. In many cases, such cures are worse than the disease they are aimed at curing.
Oh, and while we’re on the subject of typography, my last name looks better with a “g” than with a “d.”
Oops, I’ve now corrected the spelling of your name. Dare I suggest that’s what happens when software tries to do things behind the scenes while keeping the user in blissful ignorance?
You say:
I think there’s at least as much Protestant legend in that as actual fact – not least it was only in England that vernacular Bibles were disallowed. But the more I hear people like Pat Robertson on Haiti or Benny Hinn on the Trinity, the more I think the church may have had the right idea.