digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Top Fonts of 2005

typographi.com — Typographica, a journal of typography, is listing their favorite fonts of 2005 in a two part series.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Xitanto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Some of those are very beautiful, some just downright plain. However, having to pay for them probably means that you're guaranteed something original looking if you use it in a design.
  • l0g1cal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Someone please BitTorrent these, please!
  • ronaldpoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0i don't like them
  • phidong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i like proxima nova and ministry script.. lol
  • wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Holy crap, these are expensive. Nice though. I suppose if I did real desktop publishing it might be worth it. Not for me, though.
  • Geterix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Someone will have knock-offs by the end of the month.
  • BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmm.... $650 for a font pack.

    No thanks.
  • jump4jay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There truly is a "top" list for everything now! Ugh!
  • CaptSnuffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OH GOD! LOOK AT THOSE... fonts?

    wtf?
  • JetwingX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2um... http://www.dafont.com/en/
    more
    better
    FREE
  • motionblur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah......some are good, the rest are pretty crummy.
  • ApplePenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4wow...some of those really are nice...

    what some of you don't understand is that fonts aren't cheap. the ones that come with Office, Windows, the Mac OS, etc. are already licensed (for gobs of cash), or created by the software vendor themselves (like Apple's Chicago, which is now used on the iPod). If you've done any REAL desktop publishing, you understand what a high-quality font can give you, and what ***** you end up with if you try to use those crappy fonts bundled with M$ Office.

    I like seeing the indie foundries....
  • jjafuller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is a pretty decent list, Cezanne is definately my number one font of the year.
  • kola_kidd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's a pretty good list and great to see the designers getting the credit rather than the type foundries they do work for.
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great fonts. No, I won't pay a friggin' dime for a font while decent free ones are available.
  • NitroGrimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm glad I found all the ones that look just like them for free
  • sabarsky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0some of those fonts look like hack jobs of existing fonts.

    Zingha looks like a shoddy version of Matrix Script Regular.
    Garda = Trajan in various sizes
    Arrival = Myriad with slanted ascenders
    Cezanne = early 90's font, why is it in the 2005 list?
    Freight = Any bold serif font

    no digg.
  • Kiltak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Bah.. crappy..
  • tshrinivasan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0good
  • stewf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sabarsky - did you take 20 seconds to read the Cezanne blurb?
  • jchalmer85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These people talk about fonts the same way a sommelier would talk about wine. Hey, everyone has a passion in something.
  • m1t0s1s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Now why can't we have fonts on web pages? Oh yeah, html sucks.
  • vagrantradio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0As soon as I laid eyes on the Georgia / Verdana combo that site had going, I closed the damn window.
  • ikkir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm not sruprised by the responses.
    Afterall...


    I've only used Incognito a couple of times, and maybe Nerva once, I think...
    The list is good, though Lisboa looks like the only I could like.

    Vista Sans....
  • oneSaint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2

    Try making a typeface with multiple weights, and then you'll respect what a typographer does.


  • jjafuller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What I would like to know, is why W3C has not come up with a spec for embedded fonts. It seems like this should be standard technology by now. Yet, we are still forced to use such a narrow palette of fonts for web design.
  • kamizu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1lisboa, cézanne and relato. the others are just disgusting.

    lisboa is the nicest sans i've seen since lucida grande, cézanne is perfect for 'artistically' looking designs (as they said starbucks). given my hate for serif fonts, especially times, relato gives me hope that there's still a decent serif font out there other than garamond.

    btw, if you know nothing of typefaces and think i'm just being pretentious here, screw you.
  • ikkir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Relato does have a solid personality.
    It could become useful, yes, but I'm still not sold on it. :)

    My roommate like it though, he just immediately pointed it out when I showed him the page.
    Strange.


    Cézanne feels like it would grow outdated real fast, it just feels empty.


    Anyway...
  • abbbllooooo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0what, no WIDE LATIN?!
    Screw this!
    No digg!~
  • baines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Some really nice fonts, pity they aren't free.
  • Thorpe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting but not too interesting. I'll stick to my pre-installed Trebuchet MS font. ;-)
  • Geterix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0
    "Try making a typeface with multiple weights, and then you'll respect what a typographer does."

    I have. It isnt that difficult. Thats why you have MILLIONS of them for free on the web.
  • Leviathant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Thats why you have MILLIONS of them for free on the web."

    And of the millions of "free" (a lot of them are commercial, just renamed) fonts I've downloaded, I've found that about fifteen of them are ever worth using... if that.
  • Inbal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Absolutely beautiful. FF Maiola and Relato are a bit too plain to me, but I can definitely imagine all the others.
  • ptknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Lisboa and Freight look nice, but I'll keep the $400 and buy something else
  • hao2lian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Aye, I have a beef with free fonts on the Internet. They either don't size well, don't have good kernings, aren't readable at small sizes, are disgusting at large sizes. And, most importantly, most free web fonts wouldn't work for a graphically designed print job where a /typeface/ is needed for consistency as most free web fonts are just that: One font. And then there's the buttloads out there that don't have good italics or weights (or they don't have them at all and your local font renderer has to zoom in to save the day). And only a small fraction of free fonts implement OpenType, which isn't important now but, as the Typographica mentions, is going to be.

    For free web fonts, you get what you paid for.
  • Marco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Man some people here are ridiculously ignorant, some great fonts in there.
  • sabarsky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"sabarsky - did you take 20 seconds to read the Cezanne blurb?"

    i read the blurb. it's an overused old ass font. why it's on a top fonts list for 2005 is beyond me. if it was ten years ago, then it would have been more appropriate.
  • treblig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I would love it if someone would make these into torrents...espacially myriad.
  • markos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Myriad comes free with Adobe Reader.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.