Mac Fonts

Discussion in 'Design and Graphics' started by Nekkid Fish, Jan 22, 2007.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Location:
    So Cal
    #1
    What's your favorite website for getting free fonts for your MAC?

    Thanks bunches! Jules
     
  2. macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #2
    The usual suspects are listed in here. Are there any unusual suspects you like that might be added?

    Any of the "Windows" free fonts should work just as well on your Mac, since 99.44% of the freebies are in TrueType format.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Location:
    So Cal
    #3
    Thanks for the link! I'm a new iMAC gal who loves to have a variety of fonts. :D

    HUGz! Jules
     
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    #4
    Like fonts? Welcome to the club. :D

    Here's a good read on not just using type, but using type well.

    Snark
     
  5. Guest

    shecky

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Location:
    Obviously you're not a golfer.
    #5
    i would take that article with a huge grain of salt - there is some poor and misleading information in it. i would look at the ellen lupton book thinking with type as a good way to start really understanding how type works in a book that you can actually read and enjoy (unlike the Bringhurst book, which is still the bible, but is not a great way to really see type in action.)
     
  6. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    #6
    And the parts you disagree with would be?

    Snark
     
  7. Guest

    shecky

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Location:
    Obviously you're not a golfer.
    #7
    untrue and depends greatly on the project at hand. off the top of my head look at work from David Carson (whom i do not like, but is nevertheless considered very important in terms of using typography,) his text is not easy to read, is not adhering to the "rules" of typography yet his work does get across the meaning of the piece at hand. Melle Hammer has a number of pieces that look at typography in a more expressive way than pure redability. "normal" typography should be very readable, but to make a blanket statement that all type should be normalized is facetious at best. Bordering the line between pure readability and a more abstract application of type can sometimes make the type MORE engaging and more meaningful.


    this is such a ridiculous statement that its hard to believe this guy even put it in this article. i understand he is trying to be snarky but its a bad example. many consider helvetica to be one of the most well-designed modern typefaces ever, and is used by MANY many companies including BMW, American Apparel, Target, Crate+Barrel, etc.. companies that in no way want to convey a sense of governmental red tape. i assure you nobody looks at swiss posters and says "ewww... the tax font!" even in america.

    absolutely untrue. this depends entirely on the typeface, the openness of the counters, the x-height, etc... Variances in body copy typefaces and/or weight/etc. can give hierarchy to a mass of text.


    while i generally prefer ragged text to justified, there are absolutely times where a justified block makes more sense to the design than a ragged one does. And there is almost no such thing as a "have to" in design.


    i think that what the author is trying to convey is fine in terms of intent, but i disagree with some of his statements and some are just plain silly. Some are also accurate. the one "rule" i would add is there are no rules, only tested and proven guidelines.
     

Share This Page