digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Top Fonts of 2005

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

Who dugg this? Made popular Dec 29, 2005

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

40 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • 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....
  • oneSaint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2

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


  • JetwingX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2um... http://www.dafont.com/en/
    more
    better
    FREE
  • 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.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Someone will have knock-offs by the end of the month.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmm.... $650 for a font pack.

    No thanks.
  • CaptSnuffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OH GOD! LOOK AT THOSE... fonts?

    wtf?
  • jump4jay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There truly is a "top" list for everything now! Ugh!
  • phidong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i like proxima nova and ministry script.. lol
  • motionblur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah......some are good, the rest are pretty crummy.
  • 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.
  • NitroGrimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm glad I found all the ones that look just like them for free
  • l0g1cal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Someone please BitTorrent these, please!
  • tshrinivasan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0good
  • 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.
  • markos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Myriad comes free with Adobe Reader.
  • 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.
  • jjafuller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is a pretty decent list, Cezanne is definately my number one font of the year.
  • 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.
  • 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. ;-)
  • stewf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sabarsky - did you take 20 seconds to read the Cezanne blurb?
  • 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...
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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....
  • 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.
  • treblig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I would love it if someone would make these into torrents...espacially myriad.
  • inactive, 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.
  • ptknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Lisboa and Freight look nice, but I'll keep the $400 and buy something else
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Man some people here are ridiculously ignorant, some great fonts in there.
  • ronaldpoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0i don't like them
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Now why can't we have fonts on web pages? Oh yeah, html sucks.
  • inactive, 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.
  • inactive, 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.
  • abbbllooooo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0what, no WIDE LATIN?!
    Screw this!
    No digg!~
  • 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.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Bah.. crappy..

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
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.