This is random
The word random took on a new meaning in the 2000s.
Everyone I knew labelled things as random. Almost as often, my dad pointed out that what was being called “random," was not random at all. It was just slightly unexpected.
As Paul Hiebert wrote in 2011 for The Awl, the dictionary definition suggests something random is:
a) Inconsequential
b) Rare, strange, curated
c) Exciting, absurd, capricious
d) Unexpected, arbitrary, silly
e) Outcast, distasteful, unknown
f) Unlikely, unfeasible, impossible
g) Incongruous fun
The meaning of words change over time, and while I don’t have strong feelings on how “random” is used in everyday conversation, I do have an opinion when it’s used in technical documentation for fonts, like the OpenType Layout Tag Registry.
The registry defines all possible OpenType feature tags for fonts, including a rand “Randomize” feature tag. It’s intended to allow fonts to “emulate the irregularity and variety of handwritten text.”
In the same way ligatures should be enabled for fonts by default in up-to-date rendering environments for fonts, the registry suggests that the randomize feature should be enabled too. It should be available for type designers to implement, and end users shouldn’t need to know or think about it.
In practice, anyone writing about this feature notes this feature isn’t actually supported anywhere that fonts are used. For example:
—John Butler, Eccentrifuge
You can still produce a valid font file that has the rand OpenType feature code, but it simply won’t do anything for an end user of the font.
At least, that’s what I thought fairly recently. I’m not yet sure when this changed, but Chrome and Firefox now both appear to support the rand feature—and interestingly, they don’t seem to agree on the definition of the word “random” either.
I’ll show you what I mean, with a more visual example, in my next message.
Until then,
Kenneth
Kenneth Ormandy
I finally put away the holiday decorations over the weekend. When I went to pack up the artificial tree, I was again pleasantly surprised to find this diagram I’d left for myself: Years ago, the first time I had to re-pack it, I found it difficult to get it back properly into the original cardboard box. After struggling with it for a while, I eventually sorted out the arrangement. Then, I drew myself the diagram for when I inevitably encountered the same issue again. In our typographic work,...
You probably already know instinctively your type foundry site doesn’t need reviews. Likewise, if you are deciding between fonts on another foundry’s site, it’s not something you expect to see. Baymard Institute investigated this for Direct to Consumer (DTC) sites, as part of their ongoing user experience research. I think these tests are often a decent approximation for type foundry sites (albeit without a digital download focus). The outcomes suggests that DTC site don’t benefit from having...
Type foundry websites can’t follow the recommendations prescribed for all websites. Sometimes, a foundry or type specimen site will need to break “best practices,” or even do the exact opposite. For example, the site might: Load many, many, fonts A fairly obvious one. The typical recommendation is to limit the number of fonts a site uses, to improve the page load time and size. A foundry will be loading many fonts, and more as time goes on. Wait indefinitely for fonts to load There are many...