{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023542600896860985, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033632286995515697, 'mean_word_length': 5.155172413793103, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Systems for Classifying Typography : A Study in Naming

Varying typeforms for the Western printing process have been concurrently designed since the invention of the printing press c1450. Even though the variation of styles have expanded in number with fairly good documentation, and even though the process has been essentially evolutionary, the design community has yet to develop a comprehensive system of classification. Many attempts have been made to standardize but no naming system has been successful to the point of its general adaption. This paper analyses 25 typeface classification systems published in the last century, ranging from typographic greats like Theodore Low De Vinne and Maximilien Vox and culminating with contemporary type and design scholars such as Ellen Lupton and Robert Bringhurst. Each system (despite its original visual organization or lack thereof) is presented through a color-coded pie chart. The color codes reference three main branches of type design: Serif, Sans Serif, and Topical (Topical is the term used by Bevington/Chong to reference a subdivision of non-text faces). In our concluding demonstration we use this term “Topical,” to replace “Display.” By examining a wide cross section of naming taxonomies, we observe those names that have prevailed, those that failed, and those that deserve renewed support in the hierarchy of typeface classes. We see the useful, and the daring, as they are removed or affixed to the typographic lexicon. Each name, from all the systems, within our wider categories of Serif, Sans Serif, and Topical are collected into a series of master diagrams. From these a final, suggested master classification—our cumulative research effort is presented. We submit this master as a suggested industry standard.