: What is the difference between a font and a typeface? Originally, the typeface is a particular design of type, while a font is a type in a particular size and weight. In short, a typeface

@Ann6370331

A typeface is an idea — an original creative thought that carries with it descriptors and traits. It can only be described, though, until you find a way to manifest it. Draw it on paper, render it in wood or metal, and nowadays, create a digital version. Now it's a font.

A typeface is the creative idea. A font is the manifestation thereof. (Same with a "song" vs. "an MP3" (or record or tape or sheet music.))

But in practice, they're the same thing. Font Family is also becoming a popular term to encompass the alternate weights and styles, but for the sake of argument, you can use them interchangeably.

Vote Up Vote Down

@Shanna688

The difference is clear

The easiest way to remember the difference between the two is by using a metaphor.

A typeface is the cookie. A type font is the cookie-cutter.

Vote Up Vote Down

@BetL875

A font is a file that generates a particular style of characters in a given typeface. The Roman (or "Regular"), Italic, Bold, Semibold, Regular Display/Subhead/Text/Caption, Extended, Condensed, etc., of a typeface are all fonts within the same typeface. "Typeface" is to type what "Hue" is to color: it's the recognizable characteristic that differentiates it and is given a name. "Bold Roman Garamond" could be considered analogous to "Dark Red". "Red" says what hue is being referred to, just as "Garamond" identifies a definite typeface.

Some classic typefaces, like Helvetica, Univers and Futura, have a huge number of variations. These variations are all properly called fonts, but they are all part of the same typeface. Some typefaces, especially novelty display faces, are only realized in one font.

Today you'll generally see these referred to as a "Font Family" by type foundries. "Font Family" is synonymous with "Typeface" today, and is possibly a more useful term now that the definitions of "font" and "typeface" have become so vague.

Vote Up Vote Down

@Samaraweera207

So, my question is: Does the difference between a 'font' and a 'typeface' subside in the language? Or are font and typeface now used interchangeably even by pros?


Well, the two are still different.

The simplest possible way of describing the difference is thus:

You use a font to generate letters in a given typeface.

By "font" we usually now mean a digital file which "generates" text (usually containing infinitely-scalable vector representation of glyphs). And by typeface, we mean the design of the letters (or glyphs). The two are linked - a font must contain instructions for generating a typeface - in the same way that a recipe must contain instructions for creating a dish.

To a lot of the population in broad contexts, the difference between the two has no relevance to the context of what they are saying, so with no reason to specifically use one over the other, they may use the terms interchangeably.

However, someone wishing to be specific, particularly someone who deals with typefaces as their job, would specifically choose one over the other based on their meaning - the terms aren't exactly the same.

Vote Up Vote Down

@Ravi4787994

There is also some value in referring to a collective typeface when referring to various optically optimized fonts. Adobe has several of these that deal with 'caption', standard, 'headline', etc. Same typeface, different fonts.

Vote Up Vote Down

@Jessie844

They’re almost interchangeable – but there’s a difference of emphasis that can be useful.

If you talk about the typeface, your focus is on the end result, some type’s appearance and aesthetics in use. It might have come from a font, or it might not: hand-painted signs, graffiti art, comic lettering, calligraphy, logos etc can all have distinctive typefaces without fonts.

If you talk about the font, your focus is more on the product, the item or package that can be bought, downloaded or stored in a box, etc. That font is usually a package for a typeface, but not always: Wingdings, Chartwell and icon fonts like Font Awesome are fonts without typefaces.

Here’s an analogy I adapted from this Fontfeed article, "Font or Typeface?":


Use "typeface" when you’d use "song" (e.g. "I love that
song/typeface …"), and "font" when you’d use "track" ("… so I’m
going to buy the track/font for it").


Most of the time, people use "font" and "typeface" interchangeably, but occasionally you need to focus on one or the other, like how sometimes musicians write great songs, but release bad recordings of those songs or never record them.

Lots of type foundries produce amazing typefaces that make for frustrating fonts because they lack important glyphs e.g. for international use or their hinting is flakey at certain sizes or their default kerning tables are inconsistent, etc etc.

People might say that Arial is a poor typeface (derivative and uninspiring), but a valuable font (huge range of glyphs, great international support, reliable at all sizes and on all devices, etc etc).

It’s a subtle difference, but often a useful one.

Vote Up Vote Down