Talk:Sans-serif

message: Bizarre claim, with nil justification.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.230.229 (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Of these four categories, geometric fonts tend to be the least useful for body text

message: "Heiti (Chinese: 黑體): Literally meaning 'black type', the term probably derived from the mistranslation of Gothic as blackletter typeface, even though actual blackletter fonts have serifs."
Anyone can provide some references on this? I'm a Chinese and the term "black type" does not provoke any thought about the Blackletter from me. The Blackletter doesn't seem to have a direct translation in China.
However, after some (re)searching I found this: http://www.izhsh.com.cn/history/4/1609.html , which basically states the following ideas:
* The name of "Heiti" presumably comes from the fact that Sans-Serif were used as very bold headings. Bold is black (as is in English).
* The origin of Chinese Heiti presumably comes from western Sans-Serif fonts, and possibly indirectly via Japanese Gothic fonts.
Hope this could be used to improve the article.
--Ahyangyi (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. Perhaps if you find a moment, you could work it into the article? Finding someone else who understands enough English, Chinese, typography and Wikipedia may be difficult.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.18.206 (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation Needed

message: "sans" is the French word for "without" -- although "serif" is not a French word. And anyway, "sans" is used in English: Shakespeare "sans eyes, sans teeth, sans everything".
Good idea to get rid of the etymology, Tarquin.  I tried doing this earlier, but someone put it back in again.  Better luck this time.  -- Heron
hehe. I generally like etymological detail, but here it seems very vague. When I'm next near my Fowler I'll look up what he says on "sans". -- Tarquin
:Put in best available etymology.  Fowler's Concise English Dictionary (best written English dictionary since Dr. Johnson's) had nothing to add.  Ortolan88 16:02 Aug 3, 2002 (PDT)
:What is the point of stating that the word "sans" comes from the latin word "sine"?  Sine is not part of the word, and is completely irrelevant to the description of the font.     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.14 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as "the (well documented) knowledge " is not referenced i suggest to write in the article that there is no prove (yet). If anyone has knowledge of a good documentation on this, please let me (and Wikipedia) know about it. Fantasy 09:55 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
===Restoration of Sans-serif article===
The typeface article was overloaded with information.  I've moved the serif classification information to the serif page, and the sans-serif classification information to the sans-serif page.  This organization system makes it far easier to find relevant information without sorting through the lengthy typeface article.  Vontafeijos 04:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology removed

message: The typeface article was overloaded with information.  I've moved the serif classification information to the serif page, and the sans-serif classification information to the sans-serif page.  This organization system makes it far easier to find relevant information without sorting through the lengthy typeface article.  Vontafeijos 04:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of Sans-serif article

message: "Sans-serif fonts are typically suited for headlines but not for body text. Serifs help guide the eye along the line; the lack of serifs makes sans-serif fonts harder to read in large blocks of text."  And yet Wikipedia uses sans-serif as the default font for body text, so everyone reads these words in sans-serif.
:No, see, the rules reverse for on-screen type.  Serifs look ugly on-screen because of the pixelation, so most websites tend to use sans-serif for a cleaner look. -Vontafeijos 16:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, it's possible to change the font Wikipdia uses (through user css) if the resolution of your monitor is high enough (a modern LCD and a relatively large default font size for example) or for printing. In fact, when I click the "Print preview..." menu, I get Wikipedia in a serif font. Shinobu 00:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL @ 

message: Apparently Arial is meant to be easier to use for persons with dyslexia, can anyone shed any light on this subject?
:As I previously understood it dyslexia is a situation where (with regard to text) the brain has trouble distinguishing characters of the same shape but in different directions (though according to Dyslexia this is apparently not the case) (eg: 'u' and 'n' in this font).  I'm not sure about Arial, but I remember seeing a doco on TV some time ago on a new font that was developed with particular features that arranged for all characters to have slight variations no matter the orientation.  Apparently this was having great success with dyslexic kids  jasonk@bluedevel.com
::I doubt they were talking about Arial—because, for example d q b & p are all the same glyph flipped, as are n & u, lowercase L & uppercase i are exactly the same (Actually - 'this font' is probably Arial, if your computer has it installed)… But a huge number of fonts have slight to major variations, no matter the orientation - including one of the two most popular fonts (Times New Roman. The other most popular - Helvetica (and Arial, which is a copy of it), is the exact opposite) I don't think it matters. Most serif typefaces have major variations between all characters in all orientations (except for 'modern' serif typefaces such as Didot, which could look the same upside down or flipped), as do some humanist sans-serif typefaces. You can easily tell how different letters would look in different directions by looking at the 'o'. If it's just a circle - dpbq and u&n will look the same if flipped or rotated (in most cases). I it's thicker on the left and right sides equally - IE: it has one axis of symmetry - then d&p, b&q, and u&n could all look the same when rotated, but d&q and b&p cannot. If the o has both thick & thin areas, but they don't line up vertically, then all the characters will be different. The larger the difference between thick and thin, and the further off from vertical it is (until it becomes horizontal of course), the larger the difference. Typefaces such as Optima, Times New Roman, Bembo, Janson, & Garamond all qualify. typefaces labelled as 'old-style' or 'humanist' will generally fit this description, as will many others. Why scientists would need to make a new typeface to do this eludes me…  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.46.149 (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sans serif and dyslexia 

message: For a sans serif font to be regarded as "commonly used" surely it has to be one that is widely used and seen in everyday life - on shop fronts, in newspapers, in books? As such, the DejaVu family can hardly be regarded as "commonly used". Dpmarshall 10:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Commonly used" 

message: Univers is called a "realist" typeface. How does that fit into the classification? Is it a synonym for neo-grotesque/transitional? – gpvos (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realist 

message: I'm not sure how Akzidenz Grotesk (Standard) can be mentioned as an exemplar of "Neo-grotesque or Transitional or Realist, modern designs" as it is fifty years older than the typefaces listed as "Grotesque, early sans-serif designs" like Helvetica and Univers. Further calling Akzidenz  an "'anonymous sans-serif' due to its relatively plain appearance" in contrast to Helvetica is an outright falsehood; Akzidenz is the more idiosyncratic, "quirkier" direct-ancestor of Helvetica. Even the wikipedia article for Akzidenz mentions this: "[Max] Miedinger [Helvetica's designer] sought to refine the typeface [Akzidenz Grotesk], making it more even and unified." Maybe Verdana should be mentioned alongside Arial as a neo-grotesque as a sample of it is displayed in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.190.196.66 (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Neo-grotesque" and Standard

message: Is Verdana a neo-grotesque or humanist typeface?  This article shows a sample for Verdana under the neo-grotesque section, however, the Verdana article (and most other websites) consider it a humanist typeface.  Which is correct? ANDROS1337 03:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I found an image for Arial, so I replaced the Verdana image in the neo-grotesque section with one of Arial. ANDROS1337 20:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verdana - Neo-grotesque or humanist? 

message: The Slab serif page says that Egyptian is another name for slab serifs, not san serifs, which is consistent with what I've read. Should we take this reference out? Sespinos (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptian? 

message: Hello all! I've been browsing posters on Wikimedia Commons and I have to say, I really want to add a gallery section now! There's all kinds of odd stuff there, especially things like modulated sans-serifs that tend to get lumped into the humanist genre, an 1848 poster with a conventional grotesque but a Garamond-style 'w', interesting early sans-serif lower-cases (and here, odd fonts clearly created as Futura competitors and things from countries like Italy and Poland (that's Gill Sans with the continental alts and some kind of Futura) that aren't well-known in the English-speaking world where most of the sans-serifs we use were developed or licensed by Monotype, Linotype or American Type Founders. It would also be a nice place to showcase sans-serif designs that aren't type but lettering or carving - though I've added an example of this from a London cemetery now. Any thoughts on all this? Blythwood (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning to create an image gallery 

message: A very interesting hour-long BBC documentary on sans serif designs of Edward Johnston and Eric Gill for London Transport by Mark Ovenden might be of interest / use for this page: available for a month on iPlayer 109.150.91.128 (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC documentary on sans serif designs of Edward Johnston and Eric Gill 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Humanist (typeface classification). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 20#Humanist (typeface classification) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Paul_012 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Humanist (typeface classification)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I reverted the addition of an about hatnote because I couldn't see the relevance. Reading the earlier discussion about gothic fonts does give it some context, but it seems to me to be the wrong solution. Or maybe the right solution in the wrong place? Gothic font redirects to Black letter. Arguably it should be a disambiguation article, because eg Century Gothic is a sans-serif font, not a blackletter. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Gothic script is already a good disambiguation article, so I will now change the target of Gothic font to that.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  About template 

message: The writer needs to understand etymology to a better degree. Poor work 82.47.65.186 (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sans- not so much French as LATIN. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Found this while reading and thought it worth sharing. It is not of great importance for the overall article, but perhaps it might be added into a "Opinions from notable people" section? Anyway, I will leave this here just in case, to save a future editor some time. 186.79.220.141 (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting point, thanks! Maybe more useful in the Roman square capitals article to discuss their use by Arts and Crafts movement artisans of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Will think about how to fit it in there. Blythwood (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible addition for future revisions?