/ log / 10th Dec, 2007 /

An Ode to Old-style Numerals

Most of my bread-and-butter fonts are broken. So is my keyboard. I can still use them but they’re broken because they don’t work as they should, or as I want them to.

Between the two of them they’re breaking my user interface and interfering with my ability to communicate. Here’s why:

Modern (lining), old-style & small caps numerals

All of the core Web fonts apart from Georgia have modern numerals. They are all equal width, and the same height as capital letters. They are great for tabular data because they line up vertically in tables which is probably their raison d’etre. They work perfectly with capitals, too. After that they start to fail. Miserably.

For my purposes, I’ve use two of the core Web fonts—both excellent in their own way—that were designed by Matthew Carter as examples.

These are the modern numerals of Verdana:

Verdana 123456789

Old-style numerals have variable widths, just like regular letters. The numbers are mostly the same height as the lowercase letters with descenders and ascenders that fall and rise from that beat. They are perfect for use within text, or anywhere outside of the two examples used for modern numerals. They are beautiful, harmonious, easier to read and I want to use them, all the time.

This is Georgia:

Georgia 1234567

Small caps numerals are equally beautiful and, as the name suggests, relate to the size of the small capital. Also, small caps are not just shrunken uppercase letters, and may not fit to the lowercase x-height so numerals can be drawn separately.

There’s more detailed comparisons and great examples in John D Berry’s Creative Pro article.

The only problem I’ve come across with old-style numbers is telling the difference between a zero and a letter "o". This hit me when creating the business cards for Grow. My answer was to commit sacrilege and draw an asymmetric line through the zero in the knowledge that letterpress techniques would deboss the faux small caps heavily almost to the weight of a proper small caps font, and the line would clearly differentiate the zero from the "o".

Every typeface with upper and lowercase letters should have modern and old-face numerals.

The ClearType fonts include lining and old-style numerals by default.

They are both needed. However, I mostly type two kinds of text: prose and code. If you ignore the code for a second, I would guess that almost all of the people using an alphabet where old-style is useful are typing prose more often than not. In prose, depending on the type (technical, academic, business etc) there are rules about the use of numbers. Thirty dollars will get you access to chapter 13 of The Chicago Manual of Style or you can also see the Connecticut Community College guide to numbers and lists, and Jack Lynch’s Guide to Grammar and Style.

Whatever the house style we lean towards, old-style numerals should be available to use. Typographers and designers, please include them in every possible face. I realise that would be pointless unless everyone could use them easily with common software. Therefore, operating system and user interface designers, please give us access to them via a keystroke or two. There’s no easy way to access them right now, even if they exist (unless you edit the typeface itself to swap lining for old-style permanently.) This I can say with complete confidence:

My keyboard is busted

The number row on this shiny new Mac keyboard lists all modern numbers with symbols above them, just like yours.

Mac number keys

It’s busted in two ways:

  1. If a typeface has modern and old-style numerals I can’t type them both easily. It should be as easy as typing in uppercase or lowercase, which is exactly what it is.
  2. When writing code I use certain symbols a lot and therefore use shift a lot. In fact, with Mac keyboard the most common symbol I type after angle brackets is the hash (or pound in the States): “#”. This is accessed via pressing Alt+3. There is no hint on the key itself. When I switched to a Mac for the first time, I once spent a good amount of time on a train cursing before working it out.

An answer

I freely confess I’m opening a can of worms here, and could go into great detail about the various use-cases and modes our keyboards should have. However, that will be for another day. For now I’m offering this simple way operating systems can enable everyone to use old-style numbers without re-mapping the keys:

  1. Give my keyboard access to old-style numerals by default using the existing keystrokes. If they are not available, default to whatever numerals are available.
  2. If modern or lining numbers are also available, give me access to them in the same way that I have access to other capitals: via shift.
  3. Provide access to symbols with a different key. You decide, I don’t mind, but Alt seems obvious. Seriously, who uses ^ on a daily basis? The even less-used symbols should be moved to a double or triple action key configuration.

If this is all too much of an ask, then at least allow everyone to access old-style numerals with an obvious set of keystrokes that won’t interupt writing flow too much.

Does this solution make sense to anyone else? There may be problems I haven’t foreseen with the technical or interface aspects, and there’s much I’d like to add about code mode. However, right now I’d just love easy access to old-style numerals, both for the sake of my eyes when I’m reading and my heart when I’m writing.

Share

Browse More Articles

6 Comments

  1. 1. By Fernando Figoni on 10th Dec ’07 at 21:21pm

    I am very fond of “old style numerals” and writing a lot of prose for my job I love the aspect of a well printed page with a serif type which provides this feature.

    That said, I agree with your point and I think that the problem needs more attention by software houses regarding user needings and customization.

    In the end… it is all about control.

  2. 2. By Ian on 13th Dec ’07 at 11:46am

    When I was at college “old style numerals” were always referred to as letter numerals, while the modern style versions were known as title numerals. I've always found that a useful way of thinking about them, and reflects their appropriate usage well (like yourself, I like title numerals for tabular data).

    I try to use letter numerals wherever they're available, and it’s even been the deciding factor in font choice in the past, but I find I've had complaints from clients before that the numerals were 'broken'.

  3. 3. By dotjay on 13th Dec ’07 at 14:54pm

    Typography is not my strong point, but alt+{number} would make sense ("alternative number") for old-style numbers rather than what those keystrokes currently throw up on my MacBook.

    I too was confounded by the hash symbol when I first got a Mac. I've got used to it now, but it really did surprise me that keyboard designers saw fit to accommodate the Euro symbol on a key, but Apple don’t hold the hash symbol in the same regard – poor hash symbol! I don’t think I have once typed a Euro symbol with my keyboard, yet I need the hash daily (so to speak).

  4. 4. By Lee Anne Phillips on 17th Dec ’07 at 14:10pm

    It should be easy, but unfortunately the powers that be at the Unicode Consortium, the international standards body for alphabetic representaions, have foolishly decided that oldstyle numerals are a "presentation" alternative to "normal" lining numerals, as are small caps, italics, and boldface, leaving the details of handling the presentation to each and every individual word processor, typesetting program, web browser, and device. In practice, this makes almost impossible what ought to have been a simple task, since every such presentation model is either created on an ad hoc basis by the manufacturer or simply kludged together by the end user.

    Complain, and complain bitterly, to the Unicode Consortium and to W3C, the World Wide Web Consortium at unicode.org and w3.org respectively.

    For the Unicode Consortium, the oldstyle numerals and small caps should be defined as special presentation characters.

    For W3C, the Cascading Stylesheets specification should include "oldstyle" and "lining" as alternative values for the "font-variant" property, which currently allows only "normal" and "small-caps," although a new "numbercase" property with the preceding "oldstyle" and "lining" values would serve the same purpose without overloading "font-variant."

    Without a standard, support will be spotty at best, and these are the two bodies involved in setting standards.

  5. Jon 陳’s profile 5. By Jon 陳 on 18th Dec ’07 at 10:28am

    Interesting and useful terms Ian. “Broken” numerals made me smile. I’ve heard that before, followed some months after by an about face where people start to realise how much they’ve come to like them.

    Hi Lee Anne. I’ll be following up the Unicode Consortium and CSS suggestions and hope to include some lobbying in a project around the core Web fonts in the new year. In the CSS instance, I agree it might have to be a separate property to enable a single selector to have separate styles for numerals and text, with the default numerals being congruent with the font-variant unless otherwise defined. Thanks for the useful insight.

  6. 6. By Paul Walker on 26th Jan ’08 at 12:37pm

    I'll just mention first off, the hash is probably option+3 on your keyboards because it is Shift+3 on standard (US) Qwerty keyboards (The pound key is alt+3 on OS X, as it clearly isn’t used as much outside of the UK.) Not that this makes it intuitive! The problem with labelling all the keys with everything they do is that the keys themselves would start to become a jumbled mess, with four symbols on each key (standard, shifted, option+, Option+shift+)

    It'd make more sense to switch out a less used character like the tilde (~) or vertical bar (|) for the pound key, or to shrink the delete key and add in another button for it, than the arbitrary choice of losing the #)

    Now, onto the main point.

    I would love to see more fonts with old-style numbers (though Verdana would probably be one of the font I'd least want them for given that it’s designed for use at small sizes & old style numbers would impede that), but as far as I’m concerned, there are bigger fish to fry. (the number of fonts without true italics, for instance, astounds me.)

Post a Comment

Required sections are marked § . Please remember, debate and courtesy are mutually inclusive.

Personal Details and Authentication
Comment

Lately in the Log

  1. Typeface != Font Fri, 22nd Aug 2008 {18}

    A typeface is not a font. A font is not a typeface. It’s been said…

  2. Elastic to… Russian Elastic Thu, 21st Aug 2008 {2}

    It’s been a Russian-flavoured week so far. First came a bit of…

  3. Events & The Favour Bank Tue, 19th Aug 2008 {9}

    Have you ever heard of the Favour Bank? It’s a derivative of karma,…

  4. OSCON 2008, the Year of the Butterfly Tue, 12th Aug 2008 {1}

    Writing this is my way of remembering my first OSCON. It’s also a…

Remarks from the log

  1. By Dan in Typeface != Font:

    Fantastic! I can see myself becoming an avid typography nerd so I found this article super-interesting! Keep it up…

  2. By Pete in Events & The Favour Bank:

    Hi Jon Great to see you’re on the panel at the WDC in November, I’m looking forward to it now as it will…

  3. By Gareth in Typeface != Font:

    Really good article! I absolutely had no idea font and typeface were different! Thanks for a great read.

  4. By Jason Santa Maria in Typeface != Font:

    Great article, Jon. I see where you’re coming from, and I am just as big of curmudgeon for people calling…

  5. By Leon P in Typeface != Font:

    As with any terminology, it’s important to be precise so as to avoid confusion. Knowing the correct…

People and XFN

Friends, colleagues and authors with interesting voices:

  1. Jon Gibbins (dotjay)

  2. Alan Colville

  3. Andrei Zmievski

  4. Ben Ramsey

  5. Chris Shiflett

  6. Denna Jones

  7. Ed Finkler

  8. Elizabeth Naramore

  9. Elliot Jay Stocks

  10. John D. Boardley

  11. Kester Limb

  12. Mark Bernstien

  13. Molly E. Holzschlag

  14. Nicola Pressi

  15. Richard Rutter

  16. Terry Chay

  17. Theo Schlossnagle

  18. Thomas Pinney

Work with me via ~ Grow Collective ~ a creative consortium.