Re: Gras/gris & gros

[Thierry Bouche <Thierry.Bouche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

« condamnable » je ne sais pas. Très largement condamné, c'est sûr !

à mon avis, il y a 2 choses distinctes
- les « étiquettes » de toutes sortes pour lesquelles la coutume
française me semble s'orienter plutôt vers les eptites capitales
(atout : le gris est préservé ; inconvénient : justement, on a du mal
à les repérer, ces étiquettes, si la page est trop homogène ! on
rajoute des espaces, des moins et toutes sortes de ponctuations pour
le voir à nouveau)
- l'emphase, et là c'est une erreur. J'imagine que cet usage remonte
aux machines à écrire qui permettaient de faire du faux gras sans
changer de boule et qui était plutôt moins pire que le souligné.

À propos de gris, voici un morceau  de l'argumentaire pour la fonte
`base monospace' de S. Licko (emigre). Je trouve ça très intéressant
(bien que j'y voie un soupçon d'ironie, de mauvaise foi et
d'opportunisme marchand ;-)

« Monospaced typefaces were originally designed to deal with the mechanical 
restrictions of composing systems such as the typewriter, which forced 
each character to have the same single set width. Thus, the narrow "i" is 
set on the same base as the wide "w," resulting in a somewhat irregular 
looking letter spacing. Base Monospace, as its name implies, belongs to 
this category of typefaces characterized by letter designs that each 
occupy a single set width, like the infamous typewriter font Courier 
(designed in 1956 by Howard Kettler). Its slightly irregular spacing 
generates an "informal" look reminiscent of typewriter text, an informal 
look often intentionally desirable in much of today's design.

For many designers, the difficulty with monospaced fonts is that they do 
not easily conform to traditional notions of good typography. 
Traditionally, when setting a text, the object is to maximize spacing and 
kerning to a point where a text appears an even "color" when viewed at 
reading distance. However, while this might be desirable visually and 
esthetically speaking, it does not automatically render the text most 
legible. In fact, perhaps, even the opposite is true. When you have 
perfectly rendered type printed on the smoothest of papers and impeccably 
kerned, a text can easily appear too stark and machine-made looking and 
might, in effect, overshoot the mark of legibility. Since an important 
element of a legible typeface is the design of individual letter shapes 
that are easily distinguishable from one another, the squeezed look of 
the "w" actually contributes to its distinctness as a "w," while the open 
space around the "i" amplifies its "i"-ness.

In this respect, monospaced typefaces might have a leg up in the 
legibility department. Since the typewriter was an affordable and easy to 
use typesetting tool, it rapidly became the standard for academic, 
business and legal writing, and for formal and informal correspondence. 
Despite its esthetic handicaps, it was able to establish a look and feel 
that became accepted as a highly functional means of communication all 
over the world. If it is true that people read best what they read most, 
then monospaced type must contain plenty of features worth considering 
when exploring legibility.

It is always the challenge of the type designer to create characters that 
together form a coherently designed alphabet, yet are different enough 
from each other to distinguish themselves. These are extremely 
challenging parameters that allow for limitless experimentation. »

   Thierry Bouche.       -----       thierry.bouche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
          http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~bouche/