[noduerme]

This is nifty.

When I was in art school for graphic design, we were assigned a typography project to create a series of art pieces that used only "found typography", i.e. not fonts on your computer but, rather, type lifted from photographs of lettering in the wild.

As part of my designs, I incorporated Braille found in an elevator. The typography professor rejected this, leading to a 30 minute class discussion around whether or not Braille was a form of typography. In his opinion, it wasn't, and he failed me on the assignment. I still think I was right, and it's one of my favorite design pieces of my own to this day.

[latexr]

Regardless of if braille counts as a form of typography, I can see the argument that using it would be against the spirit of the assignment. Because then anyone could make a similar argument about Wingdings¹ or Teranoptia² or any other pictorial font and soon you’re seeing who can “cheat” better, which while a fun exercise does not train the intended “muscles”.

A bit like how you could make the debatable argument that code golf languages³ make the exercise boring and pointless.

Failing you might’ve been a bit much, though. Maybe you should’ve gotten a few points for originality and then from next year on the professor could explicitly forbid braille.

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingdings

² https://www.tunera.xyz/fonts/teranoptia/

³ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_golf#Dedicated_golfing_la...

[coolcoder613]

I think you did not understand the challenge. It was not any character in any font on the computer, it was any character that you can, and do, find physically, in real life.

[latexr]

Yes, I know. And pictorial fonts are used in the physical world. I was providing examples for some of those.

[squigz]

It's amusing to me that artistic gatekeeping exists even in typography. What was the class consensus on whether it counts? Also, you should share the piece

[andsoitis]

Braille is not a typeface in the same way that the alphabet is not a typeface.

[noduerme]

As a concept, neither is a typeface. But in printed form, whatever consistent lettering you use to represent an alphabet is a typeface. Why should a printed/raised lettering for Braille be considered any different from a typeface printed for any other alphabet? Or typefaces for logographic writing systems, for that matter?

[miki123211]

Braille (the concept) is not a typeface, just like the concept of representing certain sounds by pictures on paper is not a typeface.

Unified English Braille (the specification that maps dot combinations to English characters) is not a typeface, just like ASCII is not a typeface.

I Ould argue, however, that a specification like Marburg Medium[1], which specifies how Braille should be represented physically, how big the dots should be, how far apart they should be spaced etc, is a typeface.

[1] https://www.pharmabraille.com/pharmaceutical-braille/marburg...

[withinboredom]

Sometimes, I'm blown away by ignorance.

[dqh]

Is all Braille identical? No equivalent of typeface where the dots are shaped of spaced differently, but in the same Braille pattern?

[miki123211]

No, here's a nice table of the sizes used.

https://www.pharmabraille.com/pharmaceutical-braille/marburg...

[Symbiote]

When printed it would be different if the embossing pins were new or worn.

The dots could be squares. The size of the dots (boldness) can vary.

[squigz]

Sprinkle in some pedantry with the gatekeeping, and we're really set!

[freeone3000]

I am typing in the alphabet, and yet, you see a typeface