PDA

View Full Version : Equestrian Bliss


annc
02-17-2005, 01:00 PM
A few weeks ago, when we were still on CIS, I started a thread about the new logo chosen for the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI). The one with the horse image embedded in it, if you remember.

Last night I received the brand guidelines, which include the typefaces to be used. The first level typeface is Bliss (http://www.typography.net/type/bliss.htm), designed by Jeremy Tankard (http://www.typography.net/). Nice and clean, and OpenType, which is a good move.

The second level typeface to be used is Verdana. Verdana? This is what the brand guidelines have to say:
Verdana has been chosen to complement the Bliss in
internal documents such as regulations and other
publications, correspondence and digital applications.

I can see the point of using Verdana in digital publications. The Brand Guidelines themselves are set in Bliss at a very small size, which is barely readable on the screen at 150%. But for regulations, and other printed publications?

What do you think of this?

Michael Rowley
02-17-2005, 04:42 PM
Anne:

'What do you think of this?'

Perhaps FEI regulations etc. are read more often on computer monitors. Apart from that, Bliss is quite nice, but there seem to be a lot of weights, so it will be quite expensive to have the full set; Verdana, on the other hand, is free.

annc
02-17-2005, 05:03 PM
Anne:

'What do you think of this?'

Perhaps FEI regulations etc. are read more often on computer monitors. Apart from that, Bliss is quite nice, but there seem to be a lot of weights, so it will be quite expensive to have the full set; Verdana, on the other hand, is free.Bliss is very expensive. One site has it at 125 pounds sterling per weight. However, for major publications such as event schedules, we must use Bliss. I've asked the Australian National Federation to supply me with at least three weights.

The regulations are often viewed on monitors, as they are downloadable from the FEI site in Acrobat format. I never print them, because I can search them easily online.

don Arnoldy
02-17-2005, 07:32 PM
Verdana has been chosen to complement the Bliss in
internal documents such as regulations and other
publications, correspondence and digital applications.

I think that, though they can impose the new look on the graphic designers and marketing folks, the lawyers, secretaries and accountants who work for them refuse to adapt to anything that isn't pre-installed by microsoft.

annc
02-17-2005, 11:47 PM
I think that, though they can impose the new look on the graphic designers and marketing folks, the lawyers, secretaries and accountants who work for them refuse to adapt to anything that isn't pre-installed by microsoft.I think they'are actually Mac-based, at least partly. They're FileMaker Pro-friendly, and even use it with Lasso on their web site.

I was impressed that they'd chosen an OpenType face.

But I'm not sure I approve of Verdana for print stuff.

Richard Hunt
02-18-2005, 01:30 AM
Bliss is very expensive. One site has it at 125 pounds sterling per weight.

Ouch. Fine for their head office, but I bet that lots of people will just use whatever's nearest on their machine. Bet you end up with a lot of folks using Trebuchet or Tahoma.

Richard Hunt

LoisWakeman
02-18-2005, 04:24 AM
Ann,

I have been asked to make document templates for a client, and one of the variants they asked for was using Verdana for body copy. You can mitigate the worst effects in print (and on screen) by increasing the leading, but for me, it is just too dense to read comfortably. If one must use a typeface hinted for web use, Georgia would be a better choice for print, IMO. Or to hark back to my other post, a Palatino variant - much more elegant than boring old TNR!

annc
02-18-2005, 11:15 AM
Ann,

I have been asked to make document templates for a client, and one of the variants they asked for was using Verdana for body copy. You can mitigate the worst effects in print (and on screen) by increasing the leading, but for me, it is just too dense to read comfortably. If one must use a typeface hinted for web use, Georgia would be a better choice for print, IMO. Or to hark back to my other post, a Palatino variant - much more elegant than boring old TNR!I agree that if a compromise is necessary, Georgia would be better in print. But it seems that in its attempt to become more 'worldly', the FEI has decided it needs to appear very modern, and this means sans serif all round.

I'm waiting for the first document mixing Bliss and Verdana to appear. <g>

annc
02-18-2005, 11:20 AM
Ouch. Fine for their head office, but I bet that lots of people will just use whatever's nearest on their machine. Bet you end up with a lot of folks using Trebuchet or Tahoma.

Richard HuntMy bet is that the average volunteer or office worker in a National Federation office will probably just use Times New Roman, Richard. Most people don't even notice the typeface. I recently had to drop a weekly radio schedule sent to me in Word into a job I was doing, and it was a mixture of various weights of Arial, Times New Roman, Book Antiqua, and Bookman Old Style. <g>

Richard Hunt
02-18-2005, 12:29 PM
I recently had to drop a weekly radio schedule sent to me in Word into a job I was doing, and it was a mixture of various weights of Arial, Times New Roman, Book Antiqua, and Bookman Old Style. <g>

Probably worked on by half a dozen people who each used their favourite typeface.

Richard Hunt

annc
02-18-2005, 01:03 PM
Probably worked on by half a dozen people who each used their favourite typeface.

Richard HuntOh, at least. ;-)

But it seems none of them noticed the difference, or saw anything wrong with it. Which is why the FEI has Buckley's of getting their standards adhered to.

Richard Hunt
02-18-2005, 01:17 PM
But it seems none of them noticed the difference, or saw anything wrong with it. Which is why the FEI has Buckley's of getting their standards adhered to.

Anything dependent on volunteer labour has got no chance. A few years ago, the local Scout group asked me to do some new letterheads. I got all the specs and the official logos on disk from the national HQ, got the right typefaces... and the chairman then told me not to bother, he had scanned the new logo out of Scouting magazine and it looked ok on his inkjet...

Richard Hunt

annc
02-18-2005, 02:03 PM
Anything dependent on volunteer labour has got no chance. A few years ago, the local Scout group asked me to do some new letterheads. I got all the specs and the official logos on disk from the national HQ, got the right typefaces... and the chairman then told me not to bother, he had scanned the new logo out of Scouting magazine and it looked ok on his inkjet...

Richard HuntSounds like some of the stuff I get here. But we're running international events, and have to send copies of everything we produce to the FEI, which checks everything before approving it, so we really do need to get it right.

What happens with lower-level documents could be different, of course.

ktinkel
02-18-2005, 02:04 PM
I have been asked to make document templates for a client, and one of the variants they asked for was using Verdana for body copy. You can mitigate the worst effects in print (and on screen) by increasing the leading, but for me, it is just too dense to read comfortably. If one must use a typeface hinted for web use, Georgia would be a better choice for print, IMO. Or to hark back to my other post, a Palatino variant - much more elegant than boring old TNR!Palatino is fairly lousy for screen reading, unfortunately. So is any refined-looking serif face that depends on subtle details for its style (and, often, readability).

Georgia is the austere step-sister of Miller, which is an extremely useful text face that also works on-screen (though Georgia is handier for that, as so many people have it). Both faces were designed by Matthew Carter, and both are based or inspired by Scotch Roman, an early 19th-century design that was oddly popular in the U.S. Like Georgia, it is not ultra-refined, which is why it is so useful.

But you could recommend Miller for the print work. Among other virtues, it comes in both a text and a display cut, which means it always looks right.

Michael Rowley
02-18-2005, 02:09 PM
Anne:

'My bet is that the average volunteer or office worker in a National Federation office will probably just use Times New Roman'

You have a low opinion of non-typographers. In fact, since Verdana is installed in every Office 10 (XP) or 11 (2003) computer with Windows (and presumably Office 2004 for the Mac), many of the laity will use it if there are clear instructions to that effect and don't stop with the typographers. And even if they don't, any other typeface is easily changed in Word.

But I agree that Georgia would be a better choice for printed text. Both Georgia and Verdana are OT/TT fonts.

annc
02-18-2005, 03:13 PM
Anne:

'My bet is that the average volunteer or office worker in a National Federation office will probably just use Times New Roman'

You have a low opinion of non-typographers. In fact, since Verdana is installed in every Office 10 (XP) or 11 (2003) computer with Windows (and presumably Office 2004 for the Mac), many of the laity will use it if there are clear instructions to that effect and don't stop with the typographers. And even if they don't, any other typeface is easily changed in Word.

But I agree that Georgia would be a better choice for printed text. Both Georgia and Verdana are OT/TT fonts.I do indeed have a low opinion of the type awareness levels of the office staff concerned. A few years ago I asked the head of the local office why she'd changed the face on the letterheads away from Souvenir (the required face at the time). She hadn't even noticed that the printer she'd chosen, apparently not having or recognising Souvenir (hard to understand, I know) had simply substituted Times New Roman.

I think most will use Times New Roman simply because it's the default in Word. Experience has shown that most people don't even notice a mixture of serif and sans serif faces in a document.

Ann

Michael Rowley
02-18-2005, 03:41 PM
Anne:

'Times New Roman simply because it's the default in Word'

Not on my copy of Word! Actually, you set the default yourself. My default is Georgia, but of course, one doesn't have to use the default for a particular document. Probably the best thing the FEI could do is issue a template for Word, with the default it wants; that might have to be two templates, one for the Mac and one for Windows (I just don't know about Macs).

Souvenir is a very quirky face to use: one can't blame the printer for not liking it, but I suppose he ought to consider that some of his customers do like it.

annc
02-18-2005, 03:57 PM
Anne:

'Times New Roman simply because it's the default in Word'

Not on my copy of Word! Actually, you set the default yourself. My default is Georgia, but of course, one doesn't have to use the default for a particular document. Probably the best thing the FEI could do is issue a template for Word, with the default it wants; that might have to be two templates, one for the Mac and one for Windows (I just don't know about Macs).

Souvenir is a very quirky face to use: one can't blame the printer for not liking it, but I suppose he ought to consider that some of his customers do like it.But out of the box Word defaults to Times New Roman, I'm sure. It does so on both my Mac and Windows versions, and as I never use it voluntarily, I'm sure I didn't set it thus. <g>

I hate Souvenir myself, but the printer was given an example of the existing letterhead, so definitely should have known enough to honour it, as these things aren't usually negotiable.

Ann

Michael Rowley
02-18-2005, 04:40 PM
Ann:

'But out of the box Word defaults to Times New Roman'

That depends on the version you're using. It has varied from Times New Roman to Arial (and back) and from 12 pt to 10 pt with versions. I just noticed that my default in the normal.dot template was Helvetica 10 pt! You change the default it by selecting a font (face and size) in Format/Font and pressing the 'Default' button. But the default font in normal.dot doesn't have to be the default in any other template, and the default in any FEI template could be Verdana if that's what the FEI wants.

Microsoft has been using templates & styles since the time when Word was a DOS program, and has been fairly vigorously preaching how to use them ever since. You have to start with some font, otherwise some people would be asking, 'What's a font?' if the program started off by saying, 'First choose a font'.

FEI should have its own template if it wants people to use the same font, that should be obvious. Perhaps one should say to the FEI what they said to cavalry officers: leave the thinking to the horses—they've got the bigger heads!

annc
02-18-2005, 05:23 PM
Ann:

'But out of the box Word defaults to Times New Roman'

That depends on the version you're using. It has varied from Times New Roman to Arial (and back) and from 12 pt to 10 pt with versions. I just noticed that my default in the normal.dot template was Helvetica 10 pt! You change the default it by selecting a font (face and size) in Format/Font and pressing the 'Default' button. But the default font in normal.dot doesn't have to be the default in any other template, and the default in any FEI template could be Verdana if that's what the FEI wants.

Microsoft has been using templates & styles since the time when Word was a DOS program, and has been fairly vigorously preaching how to use them ever since. You have to start with some font, otherwise some people would be asking, 'What's a font?' if the program started off by saying, 'First choose a font'.

FEI should have its own template if it wants people to use the same font, that should be obvious. Perhaps one should say to the FEI what they said to cavalry officers: leave the thinking to the horses—they've got the bigger heads!The branding guidelines show how to set out documents, with the typeface shown as required. The FEI wouldn't send out templates because of document dimension, software and language differences.

But all this is supposition on my part, based on experience with local branches of the National Federation and othr clients. ;-)

The documents I've seen that did come out of the FEI itself are nothing to write home about, so I'd prefer not to get templates from them.

Michael Rowley
02-19-2005, 07:52 AM
Ann:

'The branding guidelines show how to set out documents'

. . . which are probably difficult, if not impossible, to understand unless you're a typography expert, and have to be translated possibly. Templates would also have to be in various languages, but most of the styles used are prenamed ('body text', 'heading 1', and so on) by Microsoft; document dimensions follow ISO standards in most of the world (except the USA); most of the world uses Word.

If you wouldn't care to use an FEI template, then you wouldn't want to adhere to FEI document guidelines. But I think your mind's probably made up.

annc
02-19-2005, 12:21 PM
If you wouldn't care to use an FEI template, then you wouldn't want to adhere to FEI document guidelines. But I think your mind's probably made up.My usage of the FEI material will be very different from that of office staff. I'll be using InDesign for developing schedules, programs, and publicity material such as flyers and posters, as I have been doing previously. My only use for Word, ever, is to open documents supplied by other people.

Michael Rowley
02-19-2005, 03:36 PM
Ann:

'for developing schedules, programs, and publicity material such as flyers and posters'

Don't you ever get involved in writing, or at least editing, this stuff? I've only been involved in shows that were far from FEI level, and that was twenty-five years ago; the only lay-out work I could do was what could be done with a typewriter, scissors, and paste.

annc
02-19-2005, 03:40 PM
Ann:

'for developing schedules, programs, and publicity material such as flyers and posters'

Don't you ever get involved in writing, or at least editing, this stuff? I've only been involved in shows that were far from FEI level, and that was twenty-five years ago; the only lay-out work I could do was what could be done with a typewriter, scissors, and paste.Yep, but I do it in BBEdit. I find Word hinders both my thought processes and my design capabilities. ;-)

I'm currently doing a massive edit of last year's schedule as I wait for news of what the National Federation is prepared to do for me about some weights of Bliss.

Michael Rowley
02-19-2005, 05:05 PM
Ann:

'I do it in BBEdit . . . Word hinders . . . my design capabilities'

Ah! The artistic temperament! I'd never heard of BBEdit, but that's excusable, as it's only a for the Mac.

annc
02-19-2005, 06:07 PM
Ann:

'I do it in BBEdit . . . Word hinders . . . my design capabilities'

Ah! The artistic temperament! I'd never heard of BBEdit, but that's excusable, as it's only a for the Mac.Yeah, and it's a great editor. Doesn't intrude. Word is not particularly intuitive, on top of which it changes my settings, text, whatever. I spend a lot of time wandering through menus, trying to turn things off.

'tweren't always thus, however. I loved Word 1.5 on my Mac Plus in 1986.

Michael Rowley
02-20-2005, 09:01 AM
Ann:

'I loved Word 1.5 on my Mac Plus in 1986'

A pity you didn't stay around for the later versions then. I first used Word 4 (for DOS) in 1987, which was also my first introduction to computers. I didn't find it 'intuitive', but then I've never found that with any program: I think 'intuitive' means, 'I didn't look at the manual, of course, but managed more or less', and was coined by computer journalists. The Word manuals were exemplary in those days, and for six months or so I had the manual on a music stand next to the computer.

Nowadays Word is recognized and imported by any decent page layout program—out of self-defence, I imagine.

annc
02-20-2005, 12:18 PM
A pity you didn't stay around for the later versions then.Oh, but I did! I upgraded to version 3.0 as soon as it came out (there was no version 2) and was one of those badly affected by the bugs that made it infamous. In early 1987 I was writing the documentation for a database program I'd written for a client, to a tight deadline. It was Easter, I remember, and of course there was no support available (I discovered CompuServe a month or so later). That buggy software turned me off somewhat, but I persevered, and upgraded to the bug-fixing 3.1 as soon as it came out. But Microsoft lost my order, then sent my upgrade with a bad floppy, so I couldn't get the upgrade to work. Getting a replacement floppy took several weeks of long distance phone calls to Microsoft in Sydney, waiting on hold for up to half an hour each time.

Incidentally, that buggy upgrade left the Mac magazines with egg on their faces, and MacUser promised their subscribers that they would never again write a review using beta software, but would wait for the release versions.

In the meantime, a friend introduced me to page layout software in the form of Ready,Set,Go! I never upgraded my Word to version 4.


I first used Word 4 (for DOS) in 1987, which was also my first introduction to computers. I didn't find it 'intuitive', but then I've never found that with any program: I think 'intuitive' means, 'I didn't look at the manual, of course, but managed more or less', and was coined by computer journalists. The Word manuals were exemplary in those days, and for six months or so I had the manual on a music stand next to the computer.My introduction to word processing was in 1979, with a dedicated word processor put out by ICL. It used 8 inch, single-sided floppies, but had a feature not available even today in word processing programs: you could set up templates with places in them that you could jump to via a function key (not a key combo) to enter non-standard information. We were using it to type up entries for a library catalogue developed using STATUS text retrieval software, but the secretaries were using it for standard correspondence, and legal documents.

Nowadays Word is recognized and imported by any decent page layout program—out of self-defence, I imagine.It is indeed, and you may have seen the threads in here about the bullying way its styles overwrite carefully-developed styles of the same name in the receiving documents. <g>

That's one reason why I run all Word documents through BBEdit before allowing them anywhere near my InDesign files. It strips out the styles and other nasty hidden codes, and gives me well-behaved text to style according to the document it's arriving in.

I recently spent a couple of weeks working in a Word document given to me by a client for documenting a database system I'd written for them. There are a couple of threads on the Mac Support forum where I sought help with some of the issues raised in doing this. The final document was something like 320 A4 pages.

So I can do it when I have to. I have Word on both my Mac and my PC because the world of the office uses it. I just think that Microsoft lost the plot back in 1987, and have developed an application that is trying to be too many things and doing none of them well, becoming very difficult to use well in the process.

I won't even start to tell you about the time I had to convert a heap of Microsoft Word documents (50 or more) to HTML and what happened in the process. <g>

Michael Rowley
02-20-2005, 02:30 PM
Ann:

'Oh, but I did!'

Sorry, I thought you had abandoned Word for the Mac at v. 1.5. The version numbers don't mean much to me, since the Mac versions didn't correspond with the DOS versions (1–6) or the Windows versions (1, 2, 6–11). Version 6 for Windows was an exception, being also available for the Mac (which some of the Macanatics hated, because there was only one manual available for Windows & the Mac). I was told by a former correspondent in the CompuServe Flefo forum (now dead, alas) that Word for the Mac v. 4 was super: small (at a time when size counted) and fast.

'My introduction to word processing was in 1979, with a dedicated word processor put out by ICL'

Dedicated word processors were fine until you wanted to exchange with other word processors. For that reason (I suppose), my company, BASF, did not use them very much, except for the Patentabteilung. In 1988, after I had left BASF, I translated a lot of patent applications for it, but had to deliver the work as hard copy—life became much simpler when BASF adopted Word and I could send (and often receive) the files by modem. But the dedicated w.p. had its advantages: the system used by BASF's Patent Department had facilities for drawing chemical formulae, so I had to leave spaces for the complicated formulae.

'bullying way its styles overwrite carefully-developed styles of the same name in the receiving documents'

They do not in fact overwrite even styles of the same name as long as you don't tell Word to remove all formatting not specified in the local template; and if the sender also sends the template, the styles remain the same anyway. This applies of course to any program that uses styles, as of course any self-respecting w.p. or layout program should do.

'strips out the styles and other nasty hidden codes'

The latest versions of Word will remove all styles from a Word document except 'Normal'. I've never used it, except to try it out, because my own documents rely entirely on styles. However, most of the Word documents I see are entirely in Normal style (even though the Word documention tells you not to use it), with all formatting. There are also separate separate commands for resetting paragraph styles and formatting, but I haven't explored those yet.

'the time I had to convert a heap of Microsoft Word documents'

I know that Word's export of documents to HTML wasn't very good (or even good); whether that has changed with its recent ability to export them as XML is a mystery to me, because I haven't tried it.