I gave up trying to read the article when animations started happening when I scrolled. It's annoying and I have better things to do than waste time waiting for your animations to stutter and finish moving around when I'm trying to scan the article. Good luck with whatever you're trying to do.
There's multiple different approaches with both 4-shape and 7-shape systems being common. But the point is that your color system seems largely correlated to it, and there has been research done on the shape note system.
For the body copy, I think it's a version of Rockwell. [0] It fits the time, as well as the lower case "g" always looks quirky to me in rockwell-flavours. Stubby tail + serif on top. The heft on the headings also matches Rockwell Extra Bold with a couple tiny variations. Plus, just simply... slab serifs.
Things working against that are:
- % is wrong. That really looks like a different typeface all together. Not unheard of, might be worth seeing if it matches any other monotype fonts.
- Bolded headings have some differences. Rockwell Extra Bold should still have circular tittles, but unless it's a scanning artifact, the few lowercase "i" examples I can find in those headings seem to be square.
- The Rockwell favour in the tables is tweaked, with no descenders and uses tabular digits. This is pretty common, but the digital copies of Rockwell I have laying around don't have those exact forms... doesn't really say much when we're talking about what specific hot-metal type casts did monotype sell them 90-odd years ago.
---
On the title pages (like page 13), my best guess is Memphis. [1] The R is wrong for Rockwell, but also the lower a in "Brand" is totally wrong for Memphis, and the quote is totally different. Going to take lunch, and possibly come back to this in a bit because now I'm intrigued haha.
Comment got deleted, but Gallatin isn't the title page font. That was a digital font released in 2019, which is meant to look like Memphis with a two storey a. https://fontsinuse.com/typefaces/128627/gallatin
That does mention that Linotype had a Memphis flavour with a two-storey "a" though... so maaaaaybe it is Memphis! Most likely their Rockwell typeface was also supplied from Linotype in that case, probably under a different name.
I could be wrong, but I think that Stymie is a closer match for the body than Rockwell, particularly due to the serif on the middle arm of capital E (and F). I think that Stymie also matches other details as outlined in the comparison page on Identifont (http://www.identifont.com/differences?first=stymie&second=ro...)
Ohhhhh! REALLY good catch, I think you're right. Matches all of the features!
There's some really neat uses of it on Fonts In Use. [0]
Also a new-jersey based foundry specimen book, from a few years before publishing this catalog. [1] There's a non-zero chance that these samples were originally what convinced the original designer to go with this typeface, if we believe the designer also worked in Corning New York at the pyrex office.
Agreed, the design is really strikingly beautiful.
The typography is part of this, but I suspect you may also be undervaluing how much the overall design contributes here. The layout, use of whitespace, use of different fonts and sizes to convey hierarchy. It's just really good design made with care and attention by a skilled practitioner.
It's a great font but I do not see anything that looks similar in the PDF. This comment is more like "Speaking of fonts, I like this unrelated san serif mono spaced font."
Advice: Just pick one thing and do it. (I promise I'm not being snarky.)
The stack doesn't matter. The problem itself doesn't really matter. The "sexiness" of the result doesn't matter. Just do it. Something... Anything! Working through the problem is the goal.
The result: You will learn things that you didn't know that you didn't know, and you will be able to transfer that to your next project.
Rinse and repeat. Then, all of the sudden you will have stories to tell and mistakes that you know you should avoid.
Your first project will be bad, and I mean UGLY! You will make all sorts of bad decisions. Don't use an AI agent to help you write it... you won't learn anything. Don't waste your "best" idea on your first project, either. You will forever be disappointed because you didn't do a good job on it.
If you want to bounce any ideas off us, then go ahead and post them. We could proffer ideas to you, but it really needs to be something that captures your attention. So what are you interested in? Low-level, web, graphics, games, tools, mobile, industry-specific, entertainment, edutainment... the possibilities are wide open!
I'm genuinely surprised that copyright is being used to control the use of a "scale" in science, and that the legal threat was used to take down a paper criticizing it as "no more accurate than flipping a coin".
Wouldn't science be under the umbrella of fair use, and publishing papers be under the umbrella of educational use?
It's undoubtedly a money-grab, and it reminds me of the people who extorted restaurants, etc., for singing "Happy Birthday", until the courts ruled that the song was in the Public Domain already (and had been for a very, very long time).
Maybe I'm just old, but I remember the tv advertisements for the dubious 900 numbers (remember Miss Cleo?) that you could call, but you had to pay for the time.
Is there any law that says that I can't just get one of those for use as my personal number and then give that # out as my contact info?
The content is good, but the weird dither effect is giving me a horrible headache! I'm glad you created it (it's always good to see someone bring an idea to fruition!), and I hope that you continue to create cool things. But please, please, please turn off whatever effect you're using.
You know, everyone is jumping to conclusions here about the evils of whomever their political rival is.
However, this is a website, based on code. And based on my most recent experiences with AI, I think it's more plausible that someone:
A.) Copied a file into an AI prompt (or use an AI agent).
B.) Asked the AI to do something to the file (like adjust the layout of the page, alter CSS, optimize something, or whatever.
C.) Eyeballed the response and thought it looked good.
D.) Copied the file back (or just saved it, depending on the IDE).
E.) Caused the Internet to melt down.
I've had AI chats and agents that randomly change things unrelated to what I asked it to do.
It seems that people are so quick to jump to a conclusion that supports their bias. To be clear, I did not (and never have) voted for Trump, but I'm not going to entertain conspiracy theories about orange man bad when it was probably some dev thinking, "this AI thing is cool... look at what it can do!"
