Recently, our very own Spokesman-Review ran an AP article on how fonts can actually save you money.

Yes, it’s true. As the article suggests, “because different fonts require different amounts of ink to print, you could be buying new printer cartridges less often if you wrote in, say, Century Gothic rather than Arial. Schools and businesses could save thousands of dollars with font changes.”

The article goes on to list the fonts that use “different volumes of ink to print”. Does this mean that even a dull, plain-vanilla font like Times New Roman actually has an advantage over say, the more classic sans serif font, Franklin Gothic Medium?

Now, no doubt the printing savings is real. But in these recessionary times, when every marketing dollar is being scrutinized—if not reduced or removed—do we designers now have to contend with clients expecting to squeeze a little more out of our font choices? Let’s hope not.

I suppose the good news is that nobody is reading newspapers these days anyway (which, coincidentally, use quite a lot of that dull, plain-vanilla font). So until then, I’ll continue to select fonts that provide the personality required, rather than less volume.

posted by: CK Anderson  |  category: the design life  |  make a comment

I took part in a presentation today, and…I wore a tie. Not exactly blog-worthy news for most folks, granted, but anyone who knows me understands that they’re far more likely to catch a glimpse of Bigfoot than they are to see me in a tie. Or a button-down shirt, for that matter.

So there were a dozen people in the room, nearly two-thirds of whom were men, and I was the only one wearing a tie.

@#$%&!

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  comments(1)

Upon winning the Pulitzer Prize for commentary, Kathleen Parker thanks her high school English teacher. Nice touch.

If I ever win the Pulitzer, Mr. Miller, you can be sure I’ll invite you to the ceremony.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: the writing life  |  make a comment

Following up on a previous post, there’s another great resource out there for writers of all stripes—even if the very mention of the word “grammar” makes your eye twitch.

Paul Brians, Emeritus Professor of English at WSU, is the author of Common Errors in English Usage, a book I turn to more often than I care to admit. He also generously maintains a companion website (which actually preceded the book).

Brians’s advice is always sensible—and sometimes quite funny. Here’s one of my favorites, taken from his website:

Feminists eager to remove references to sexuality from discussions of females and males not involving mating or reproduction revived an older meaning of “gender,” which had come to refer in modern times chiefly to language, as a synonym for “sex” in phrases such as “Our goal is to achieve gender equality.” Americans, always nervous about sex, eagerly embraced this usage, which is now standard. In some scholarly fields, “sex” is now used to label biologically determined aspects of maleness and femaleness (reproduction, etc.) while “gender” refers to their socially determined aspects (behavior, attitudes, etc.); but in ordinary speech this distinction is not always maintained. It is disingenuous to pretend that people who use “gender” in the new senses are making an error, just as it is disingenuous to maintain that “Ms.” means “manuscript” (that’s “MS”). Nevertheless, I must admit I was startled to discover that the tag on my new trousers describes not only their size and color, but their “gender.”

You can purchase the good professor’s book at Auntie’s.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: the writing life  |  make a comment

Color me dubious, but it appears that a simple font change could save your organization big bucks.

But then, if this study helps to put the final nail in the coffin of Comic Sans, I’m all for it.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  make a comment

Last night, my mom and I were discussing the relative merits of Louis L’Amour; somewhat fortuitously, today I came across a letter from Edgar Rice Burroughs to a 14-year-old kid whose teacher had some rather unkind things to say about Mr. Burroughs’s oeuvre. Here’s the money paragraph:

My stories will do you no harm. If they have helped to inculcate in you a love of books, they have done you much good. No fiction is worth reading except for entertainment. If it entertains and is clean, it is good literature, or its kind. If it forms the habit of reading, in people who might not read otherwise, it is the best literature.

Hard to disagree with that.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  make a comment

Because it’s Friday—and because I can—I bring you: Ilha de Queimada Grande!

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  comments(1)

Speaking of writing habits that chafe me, I’d like to say a word or two about the comma. As many of you know, one of its many glorious uses is to separate items in a series: “lions, tigers, and bears.” The second comma in this example is what’s called a “serial comma,” and the only thing you need to know about it is that anyone who tells you it’s unnecessary (like, say, The Associated Press Stylebook) is both a scoundrel and a villain. To wit:

Strunk & White: “In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last.”

Fowler: “The only rule that will obviate uncertainties is that after every item…the comma should be used.”

Chicago Manual of Style: “Chicago strongly recommends this widely practiced usage…since it prevents ambiguity.”

And finally, Paul Brians: “Follow the style recommended by your teacher, editor, or boss when you have to please them; but if you are on your own, I suggest you use the final comma.”

Why, you might ask, does the AP eschew the serial comma? To save space. Get rid of a couple thousand commas throughout a newspaper, and that frees up ad space—at the expense, however, of clarity.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: the writing life  |  make a comment