Suggested Changes for the Fonts Gallery

Mar 11, 201318 min read

Deviation Actions

Published: Mar 11, 2013

6.2K Views

Last June a new gallery strcuture was introduced to Resources & Stock Images > Fonts. You can read more about it in the R&S - Font Gallery Update!.

During the process of finding thumbs for each of the Fonts categories in that tree, it became clear to me, that some of the galleries do not even contain one proper submission. I have to admit, I did not do as much moving of deviations into right categories as I should have, but I was also searching for specific fonts and was not able to find one or god forbid two deviations of that kind. There are 24 categories and not all of them seem necessary.

Now with the official announcement of the Gallery Makeover Project it is time to reflect upon the gallery and consider changes to its structure.

I have thought about this issue for months already! Inlcuding belly aches and headaches Basically my thoughts are "mmmh maybe we were shotting over the moon with this and maybe we should make it simpler". To be honest, making the decision to go into such detail with the subcategories was not an easy one back then either. I was afraid it would be too complicated for people to find the right gallery.

In order to streamline the fonts category, make fonts easier to submit and easier to find, I would suggest to focus on the seven main categories and close all sub-categories.

If you are interested in more of the details of this suggestion, you can read on

Chirographic

Let's have a look at Chirographic fonts and do some math:
Calligraphic = 23 / Chancery = 0 / Handwritten = 45 / Other = 30 / Script = 10. That makes 108 deviations spread among 5 categories*. This seriously brings up the question to me, whether those sub-categories are really necessary.
*Of course, this math is done including miscats, so there could be chirographic fonts in other categories as well as non-chirographic fonts in this one.

So in an effort to optimise this category it would seem logical to have no sub-categories and maybe even rename it from Chirographic to Script. Even tho Chirographic is the proper term, most font foundries do not use it, but refer to this kinda fonts as Script, so I see no reason why dA should not do that.

Non-western

While I still think this category is necessary and good, it probably does not need all the sub-categories. There are ~120 deviation in this category, with Chinese, Cyrillic, Greek, Hebrew and Japanese being basically empty. And I tried to look for it, some of those don't have one deviation in the whole of dA at all. So, we could keep Arabic and Other, but that would be kinda pointless, too, if you ask me, so it would most likely be best to nuke the sub-categories.

Reminder about Non-Western: Fonts that imitate a Non-Western writing system, but do actually make the Latin Alphabet belong into Fonts > Other.

Sans Serif

There are at about 480 deviations submitted to this category. The sub-cats each host less than 100 deviations each (this is due to last year's restructuring; some deviations do not show up in the deepest level because they have not been moved there).

A quick search brought up these results:
Geometric = 23
Grotesque = 4
Humanist = 2

Um… yeah. I am impressed by the lack of obviously proper submissions

Serif

Here I can see a number of ~600 deviations. (Funnily searching the whole fonts category for serif only brings up 246. You do the math for miscats. And even those results contained non-serif fonts >_>)

Under the assumption that a font designer who creates a new Serif would know what kind it is, would even if not submitted right, at least use a keyword to indicate affiliation, I searched the fonts gallery… here are my search results:
Garalde = 0 (1 result, but that was a Sans Serif font)
Glyphic = 0
Humanist = 0 (2 sans serif fonts)
Modern = 6
Transitional = 3 (3 non serif fonts)

Those search results do in no way justify the existence of these galleries. I am sorry to say it that way, but it's the truth

The search results for Sans and Serif also make me wonder… do people even know or care about keywords or descriptions?! From the looks of it, they don't. Or they just do not create those kind fonts.
I guess it also shows that a lot of people create fonts without much knowledge about categories and styles, which is okay, but it also goes to show a lack of professionalism. I don't mean this as an insult. Everybody has to start somewhere

And that is totally fine. Nobody starts out at something as an expert, that would be absurd

Generally

The category structure in itself would remain as it is:

Resources & Stock Images

Fonts

Chirographic (Script)
Non-Western
Other
Pixel
Sans Serif
Serif
Slab Serif

I see no necessary changes being made for Blackletter, Pixel or Slab Serif.

Why this change in mind about the sub-categories?
One reason is that I am not even able to distinguish between some of that without reading up and in detail comparisons. And I don't have the time to do that, just to move it to the proper category.

Second one is that as someone looking for a font to use, I will most likely have no idea what each sub-cats stands for either, so I would have a hard time finding a font and may give up in frustration.

Third one: if the big font foundries don't go into that much detail, why should dA? I know, if your friends jump from a bridge… and stuff like that, but seriously… those places make money with fonts and they don't do it!

If you are looking for a specific font, f.e. Garalde, enter it in the search bar and browse fonts. Of course you would have to rely on the creator adding it as a keyword, but if as a creator you made a Garalde font, I am sure you would totally add it to the keywords or description, cos you want your work to be found.

Possible Cons?

One of the initial thoughts of making the categories this deep, was to appear more professional. Also in the hope it would attract more typeface designer to submit their work to dA. Of course, the R&SI gallery is aimed at free content, with a variation of licences, but easy to download and use resources.
I am personally not convinced of this idea, as I believe the quality of submissions is more likely to make more people want to join, rather than a detailed gallery structure. An easier galley structure is in my opinion more likely to attract more quality submissions into their proper place.

The introduction of the Premium Content Platform was another hope to attract more (possibly professional) typeface designers making their fonts available via dA.

On a side note: I would prefer fonts that are available for purchase/download only off dA, to be submitted as designs only to Digital Art > Typography > Font Design with links to the purchase/download site.

Personally I cannot think of a second Con to this, your input is welcome, I may just not be able to see it.

But yeah, this is what may be happening Discuss