Ugly websites of typeface designers

[Typogruffer]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

Hey guys,

I have been visiting the websites of some typeface designers who regularly answer here so that i can get a feel of what they do and all. But most of the websites look ghastly. They are very difficult on the eyes. I am not going to take any names here (they are very very famous in these forums) but what is the point in setting the type at 8 pt? and the colors/graphics are not really appealing. Why?

Regards
typogruffer

[hrant]

Mine sucks for a number of reasons, not least that it's over 12 years old. :-/

But -as you imply- I'm not alone... Why? Because designing type and designing a site require vastly different skills and talents (it's rare for a single individual to enjoy both) and too many of us try to do it ourselves instead of biting the bullet and hiring a bona fide site designer. This is probably generally due to a combination of saving money (type design is not highly lucrative) and a certain pride in designing things ourselves.

hhp

[aluminum]

Same reason great architects have ugly web sites.

[Nick Shinn]

That’s not a fair comment.
If you’re not prepared to name names, your sweeping generalization damns everyone by implication.
I for one can’t possibly have an ugly web site, as it’s only had one page, a brief “under construction”, for quite some time.
Mark Simonson’s site is beautifully detailed, and how can you possibly diss Berlow’s?!—Webtype.com is state of the art web legibility, and Font Bureau is squeaky clean.

I also don’t think that it’s necessary for a foundry site to have “appealing” graphics, as that can get in the way of showing the fonts. Foundry site design should be understated. Functionality is more important.

[marcox]

Perhaps you're not looking hard enough, or your standards/tastes are different than mine. Some type designers' sites are more technically ambitious than others, but there are plenty good-looking examples out there, even among one- or two-person shops: Eric Olson (Process), Kris Sowersby (Klim), Mark Simonson (MS Studio), James Montalbano (Terminal Design), Mark von Bronkhorst (MVB Fonts), Dino Dos Santos (DSType), Tomas Brousil (Suitcase Type), etc.

Nick, I'm sure your site will be worthy of mention once it's back up. :)

[chrisburton]

There are tools that do not rely on a user to know development. Such as Wordpress (.com), Squarespace, Cargo, etc. Anyway, I have to agree with Nick on this. At least give examples if you're going to criticize.

[Andreas Stötzner]

> ghastly – famous

Typogruffer, you MUST had me in mind, don’t you?
Come up.
:-)

[Typogruffer]

You website is not ghastly( i am using it in the real literal sense).
I can not understand much of your website as it is in German i guess?
But, the links like Zeitschrift SIGNA and über Signographie can use a font size of 12pt.

[Typogruffer]

.

[Charles_borges_de_oliveira]

Yeah, mine is pretty dated. I need to update if I could find the time :)

[Typogruffer]

Okay i am taking names here. And i hope this is not going to offend anyone. As i have mentioned famous people, i have Hrant here and John Hudson( two of the most knowledgeable people around here). Oldnick's website just has a plea to get him out of a tough situation(i hope he is out now) Also the foundries like emtype.net(too small font size) and some websites have just the name of the typeface designer(though set in a beautiful typeface). What i should have asked is do people get any customers from websites and if they do then they should not be put off by bad designs/small text.
UPDATE: The type foundry P22's website looks bad too. http://www.p22.com/index.html

[hrant]

The site leading to sales: a search for "Armenian fonts" (the only angle I could hope to really leverage) is hijacked by free crap, so I have to believe that the main advantage of having a bad site is in comparison to not having one at all. A business not having a site is worse than a person not having a cellphone* in terms of people thinking you're some kind of freak they shouldn't touch with a ten foot composing stick.

* Which I know because that's the case with me... Although I admit to having my eyes on the imminent Samsung Note II.

hhp

[oldnick]

I for one can’t possibly have an ugly web site…

Really? How adorable. What a maroon.

[Nick Shinn]

Nick, it might be a good idea if you stopped posting if you can’t do so in a civil manner.
I mean that sincerely, and I’m only saying it because it’s unlikely the moderators have called you to task on all the vulgar insults you’re throwing around.
I don’t think people here are interested in slanging matches, and you’re seriously lowering the tone of the place.
As all those who’ve been to your website know, you’ve had difficulties recently.
I would imagine that some people in the industry would be prepared to help you out, but it’s a small community, and you’re not making friends with your present antics.

Would you be interested in doing production work for other foundries?
It doesn’t generate passive income, but it’s cash in hand, and lots of type designers mix it with their retail development.

[hrant]

Yes, please don't be abusive for your own kicks.

hhp

[Ryan Maelhorn]

This is something I've noticed too. What synaptic connections in the brain would make one great at designing type but not good at graphic design (perhaps web design is a bit of a misnomer here)?

[Nick Shinn]

There’s no standard profile for a type designer, you can come at it from many directions.
Same thing for graphic design.

[Ryan Maelhorn]

There does seem to be some evidence here that not all type designers are blessed with as much general graphic design talent as you Nick.

Take Tankard's site for example. That old lacey wallpapery looking background? Very British and all, but damn its ugly. I feel like I'm in some old english row home, and all I wanna do is paint over the wallpaper.

Of course one shouldn't assume that all type designers have designed their own websites.

[John Hudson]

The 'old lacey wallpapery looking background' on Jeremy's site is a complex pattern that he worked out many years ago that is used in various ways throughout his print and web materials. For those people who have followed his work for a long time, it is a very strong brand association, so whether you consider it 'ugly' or not is sort of irrelevant to whether it constitutes good design.

[JamesM]

Like Nick said. People have different talents, training, experience, etc.

[JamesM]

[duplicate deleted]

[hrant]

Nick, I would say that a good type designer -who makes tools- needs [to enjoy] a form of thought that a graphic designer -who makes finished things- does not; and of course the same sort of thing (for example an appreciation of color) applies in the other direction. One person can be blessed with both sets of talents, but it's simply statistically rare. Most people can't do either very well! :-)

hhp

[Ryan Maelhorn]

The 'old lacey wallpapery looking background' on Jeremy's site is a complex pattern that he worked out many years ago that is used in various ways throughout his print and web materials. For those people who have followed his work for a long time, it is a very strong brand association, so whether you consider it 'ugly' or not is sort of irrelevant to whether it constitutes good design.

See this is what I was trying to get at when I said only the end result is important. Knowing all that information doesn't make it any less ugly to the eye.

[JamesM]

> One person can be blessed with both sets of talents,
> but it's simply statistically rare

While talent is important, I think it's more a matter of training and experience. A graphic designer who studied web design in college and designs websites every day is probably going to be much better at it than a type designer who rarely does web design. And vice versa, of course.

[chrisburton]

How is it statistically rare?