: How do I acquire these exact fonts for use on Windows...? I am working on a shipping label that is incidental to a database system I am responsible for supporting. The client has very specific

@Phylliss782

Posted in: #Fonts

I am working on a shipping label that is incidental to a database system I am responsible for supporting. The client has very specific requirements, calling for Helvetica Medium Condensed and Helvetica Bold Condensed (you can see the document here, Section 5).

When I do a web search for "Helvetica Condensed Medium", I see one identical result in the Adobe store and a bunch of references to "Neue 67" variant of Helvetica, which, as I understand, is not identical.

But when I view that Adobe link, there is no apparent way to actually purchase that font. (No "add to cart" button, etc.) And, when I attempt to search the Adobe site using their built-in search, I don't see any results that directly correspond to "Medium Condensed".

Is there another "common" name for these fonts?

When I attempt to browse fonts in the Adobe store alphabetically, I also do not see any fonts that clearly correspond to Helv. Cond. Medium or Helv. Cond. Bold. (Not clearly to me, at least.) Furthermore, the ones that seem closest are all bundled into packs of multiple fonts. Assuming I could find the specific fonts I want, is there no way to buy individual fonts?

I thought I might have better results on the Linotype site but the issues (other than the bundling) are basically the same -- they don't appear to sell the exact specific font, and I'm not exactly sure what "format" I'll be getting.

... Which is a concern because ... to top it all off, I am not even certain our label printer (Zebra Z4M) is compatible with any non-TrueType fonts, other than those provided by the manufacturer, and they do not appear to offer the fonts we require. So, I think to be safest I need TTF versions of these fonts. Do they even exist?

Am I even going about this the right way? I wound up at the Adobe site first because of their apparent dominance of search results, but if there is a better alternative (i.e. more canonical, less expensive, simpler, or all of the above), I would like to hear about it.

After all this, I have my doubts that the original specification is even precisely valid. But now is the time to "do the best we can", not the time to argue that point.

Yeah, did I mention they want this operational for tomorrow? ;D

Any advice toward meeting that goal would be sincerely appreciated. I know there are several questions here, but I'm expecting that the right answers to the important ones will obviate some of the lesser ones.

Thank you!

Vote Up Vote Down

Login to post a comment!