This is nothing radical, but as I see it, the system (without the names we are seeking) should be

1) A single style, e.g. Garamond Premier Pro Caption Semibold Italic or Garamond Premier Pro Display Regular.

2) A weight, width, optical size, etc. These are smaller groupings that would not often be broken out as separate wholes. For example, we usually talk about Benton Sans, not Benton Sans Thin, Benton Sans Condensed, Benton Sans Italic, etc. Caveat: Interestingly, H&FJ do tend to emphasize the different widths as distinct versions (e.g. http://www.typography.com/fonts/font_overview.php?productLineID=100008), but according to what they write, that’s because in this case Gotham Condensed changes more than Gotham Narrow and Extra Narrow from the regular width. In other cases (as with HTF Didot and Requiem), they don’t.

3) A larger stylistic group that could stand alone, e.g. Fresco Serif, Fresco Sans, Fresco Informal, Fresco Script. Each of those in this group are related to the others but have significant differences beyond what could be considered tweaks or variations. If I saw Scala Sans, for example, I would not assume that there must be a Scala Serif, too. (This category is a bit harder to define precisely, since people make condensed fonts without wider versions and display fonts without text versions. Perhaps the difference is in how different one group is from the others).

4) The biggest group that comprises all other stylistic groups. In the interest of clarity, this term should not be used for groups that could fit in smaller categories. So Arno Pro, having weights, italicizations, and optical sizes, should be referred to as #3, not #4, but Vista (containing Sans and Slab varieties) should be called #4. Of course, this presents a bit of a problem when speaking to a layman, but a layman might see the Sans and Slab varieties of Vista more as separate items (and thus #3s) rather than one large group (#4).

My proposed names would be #1 = font, #2 = style, #3 = typeface, #4 = type family. But, as I said before, the meanings of these words keep the classification from seeming as rational as it could be.

Sorry for the long post, but I’d appreciate any feedback on this. The poll results should be very useful for determining the terms used, but maybe it’s necessary to first have a definite structure to apply the terms to.

As a type geek, I greatly enjoyed this poll. I’ve always been a stickler for the font/typeface distinction.

BTW, when I asked Jonathan Hoefler about where he came down on this distinction, he said that he doesn’t see it as a big deal. The bigger problem, he said, is confusion between “typographer” and “type designer,” with the former being used to encompass both designing typographic works and typefaces.

I suspect this is not traditional usage, but who cares? Clear communication is found using the terms in this manner for most people in the US in the first decade of the 21st century. I do not know if this lines up with use outside this narrow sphere of experience, but then I am relating to people all over the world and this seems understandable usage for all English speakers.

[I think the problem is that we need a single word to refer to a single style of a type design... and "font" is the popular choice. Only a very small minority of survey respondents think of "typeface" and "font" as synonyms, for whatever that's worth. I'll cut off the survey soon and publish results.... - T]

So… this leaves font. I looked it up in my dictionary on the Macbook and I quote “a set of type of one particular face and size.”

So that gives us typeface, type and font. Specific, general and collective.

I’m not a type designer but I’m well aware of the effort and care that goes into the design of a good typeface and into all the weight variations and the other bits besides the letters and numbers. I try and make my my graphics students aware of this. They think it’s just what each letters look like with not a thought to what happens when you make them into words. Hence the loads of mainly rubbish free fonts.

Of course, that’s probably not correct either (judging by the comments!) but I’ll fill in the survey based on what I’m saying right here.

Looking forward to seeing the results.