The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20100504185147/http://www.aiga.org:80/content.cfm/state-department-bans-courier-new-12-except-for-treaties

From Voice ~ Topics: history, typography

State Department bans Courier New 12, except for treaties

As of February 1, 2004, the standard typeface for all official State Department correspondence is to be set in New Times Roman 14 [sic], reported the Associated Press. The previous standard font, Courier New 12 [sic], has been banned from further use as obsolete. The three exceptions to this mandate are “telegrams, treaty materials prepared by the State Department’s legal affairs office and documents drawn up for the President’s signature.”

The AP report was picked up by The New York Times which ran a small, wry squib about the event—“Retired Font Seeks New Opportunities” was the headline—on February 8th in The Week in Review section. Its author, Lawrence Downes, responding to the State Department’s contention that “New Times Roman 14” had a “crisper, cleaner, more modern look” than its predecessor, called the decision “a crushing reversal for Courier New, which itself was the essence of modernity in the early 1960s.” He claimed that “Courier New” had been created originally by “a Swiss type designer, Adrian Frutiger” for the IBM Selectric typewriter. While noting it was a “link to a vanished technology”, Downes still found it ironic that the allegedly more modern “New Times Roman” was actually an older design. According to the AP storywriter, “New Times Roman” is “based on one of England’s most celebrated typefaces, Stanley Morison’s Times Roman.”

Whenever type or typography make the news—even in an age when everyone from our children to our butcher is seemingly familiar with fonts—it is always a surprise to designers. But such surprises are rarely happy ones.

In this case, a good-faith attempt by everyone—from the anonymous memo writer at the State Department to the equally anonymous AP writer to Downes—to make a simple story richer resulted in a horrible mangling of the true nature and histories of both typefaces involved in this epochal changing of the fonts.

Courier was originally designed in 1956 by Howard Kettler for the revolutionary “golfball” typing head technology IBM was then developing for its electric typewriters. (The first typewriter to use the technology was the IBM Selectric Typewriter that debuted in 1961.) Adrian Frutiger had nothing to do with the design, though IBM hired him in the late 1960s to design a version of his Univers typeface for the Selectric. In the 1960s and 1970s Courier became a mainstay in offices. Consequently, when Apple introduced its first Macintosh computer in 1984 it anachronistically included Courier among its core fonts. In the early 1990s Microsoft, locked in a font format battle with Adobe, hired Monotype Typography to design a series of core fonts for Windows 3.1, many of which were intended to mirror those in the Apple core font group. Thus, New Courier—lighter and crisper than Courier—was born. (In alphabetized screen menus font names are often rearranged for easier access so now we have Courier New MT in which the MT stands for Monotype Typography.)

Courier’s vanquisher was Times New Roman, designed in 1931 by Stanley Morison, Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation, with the assistance of draughtsman Victor Lardent. The Times of London first used it the following year. Linotype and Intertype quickly licensed the design, changing its name for their marketing purposes to Times Roman. Times Roman became an original core font for Apple in the 1980s and Times New Roman MT became one for Windows in the 1990s. (Ironically, at the same time IBM invited Frutiger to adapt Univers for the Selectric Typewriter, they asked Morison to do the same with Times New Roman.) Whether superior to Courier or not, neither of these digital renditions of Morison’s original design is the best one available today—in the opinion of information design specialist Erik Spiekermann that honor goes to a version called Times Ten.

Both the AP and The New York Times left several aspects of the State Department’s decision unexplored. In putting Courier out to pasture in favor of the studlier Times New Roman, the State Department unobtrusively changed font sizes as well, going from 12 pt to 14 pt. This was a significant factor in their determination that the latter was more economical and “easier to read” than the former. The larger Times New Roman is as economical as the smaller New Courier because one is a regular typeface while the other is a typewriter typeface. With a few exceptions, typewriter typefaces—in order for the hammers of a typewriter to avoid jamming—have always been composed of monospaced characters (ie. every character takes up the same horizontal space). Courier, despite being designed for a golfball instead of a hammer, is still a monospaced font. In contrast, regular typefaces such as Times New Roman have always been created with differing widths of characters. (That is one of the brilliant aspects of the adjustable hand mould originally used to cast lead type.) Consequently, at the same point size, the “older” Times New Roman takes up less space than the “newer” Courier; and, at a larger size, is easier to read.

Finally, what about those three exceptions to the State Department’s new font rules? Retaining Courier for telegrams may be a case of matching vanishing technologies—or maybe using a monospaced font makes it easier to count words (and thus calculate costs). But why is a banned and obsolete font considered acceptable for the highest-level documents? Could it be that the typewriter look is so closely identified with legal and diplomatic documents that to switch to a regular typeface might make these items look fake?

The story of the State Department’s font mandate is further proof—as if any was needed—that type remains such an arcane subject that even today both our government and the nation’s newspaper of record can get the details wrong.

About the Author: Paul Shaw is a calligrapher and typographer working in New York City. In his 20 professional years as a lettering designer he has created custom lettering and logos for many leading companies, including Avon, Lord & Taylor, Rolex, Clairol and Esté Lauder. Paul has taught calligraphy & typography at New York's Parsons School of Design for over ten years and conducted workshops in New York and Italy. His work has been exhibited throughout the United States and Europe.

  1. link to this comment by Roy Hayes Wed Mar 31, 2004

    About 40 years ago, I was told by an elderly German friend that the IBM Selectric was not completely original. IBM had to license the "golfball" technology from Adler of Germany. Adler had actually used this spherical or perhaps barrel-shaped type device at the turn of the 19th-20th century. I have on my shelf a Hammond of that era, as well as a Blickensderfer (made in Samford Connecticut), both of which are cylinder typewriters. The Hammond has a large, narrow cylinder that takes a removable type overskin. The Blickensderfer (circa 1894) has a cylider about the size of a Selectric golfball. What these type faces are is anybody's guess.
    Paul's interesting article has stirred my curiosity. I'm going to get some carbon paper and press off some of the type on that Blickensderfer to see what face it actually is. (Paul, if you'd like, I'll mail a pressing to you.)
    Cheers,
    Roy

  2. link to this comment by Tom S Tue May 11, 2004

    Another impact of the switch from a mono-spaced font to regular one is that blacked out words in confidential documents can be reverse engineered. Researchers have demonstrated that it can determine what the blacked out word is be by measuring its pixel width. This pixel width can then be compared to words that would occupy that same pixel width. This of course would be impossible with a font like courier since a 7 letter would always occupy the same space.

    From CNET:
    http://tinyurl.com/3dtq6

  3. link to this comment by Paul Shaw Sun May 23, 2004

    An addendum:

    In the Business section of the New York Times for May 10, 2004 John Markoff reported that European researchers at the recent Eurocrypt security conference in Switzerland had demonstrated a computer-based technique for identifying blacked-out words and phrases in confidential documents, such as those obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. They analyzed a presidential briefing memorandum prepared by the Defense Department that was released in April to the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks. Researchers David Naccache, director of an information security laboratory for Gemplus SA, and Claire Whelen, a computer science graduate student at Dublin City University, were able to recover the word “Egyptian” which had been blacked-out in the document.

    Their technique involved a software program written by Whelan that enabled the font used in the document to be identified—in this case it was Arial. They then analyzed the number of pixels in the blacked-out word and, using a computer to determine the pixel length of words set in Arial, arrived at the most likely word given the grammatical context of the sentence. They found 7 possible words out of 1.530 and from those decided that “Egyptian” was more likely than words such as “Ukrainian” given the subject matter of the document.

    This experiment directly bears upon the recent decision that the State Department made to replace Courier with Times New Roman as its official typeface. (See my article as well as the article in the February 8, 2004 New York Times Week in Review section). Ironically, this decision, ostensibly based on a desire for increased readability of official documents, actually makes it easier for programs such as those used by Naccache and Whelan to successfully identify blacked-out words and phrases. This is because Courier, unlike both Arial and Times New Roman, is a monospaced typeface. Thus, words set in Courier will have less distinctive pixel profiles than those set in a traditional font and will require more syntactical and grammatical guesswork to decipher from the many possibilities the computer program is able to identify.

    Perhaps what the State Department really needs is not Times New Roman, but a custom typeface that is not only readable but encryptable. This is a project for someone like Matthew Carter or Gerard Unger to tackle. Or, better yet, the State Department could dust off the idea of a random font first proposed by Just van Rossum and Erik van Blokland of Letterror in Emigre nearly fifteen years ago. Their idea of a programmable font that could disintegrate over time or morph into another font entirely may finally have found its true purpose.

  4. link to this comment by Erik Thu Jun 17, 2004

    The only advantage I can see for this move is the dramatic reduction in paper being consumed by using a typeface that takes up less page real estate and is by default included on virtually every computer known to man making it much easier to conform to, because nobody has to maintain it.

    However, there are several other fonts that are much more readable and fully cross-platform they could have chosen. I'm sure there was some multi-million dollar study done to make sure this was the best decision and every font in the book was looked at before making this decision. But when you consider that Times New Roman is the standard default font used by most applications, and is frequently considered by designers to be "the new taboo" like Helvetica is for sans serif faces, I think they could have found something a little less boring and a little fresher and able to stand the test of time.

    Overall, I give this decision a C+. Good idea, bad choice.

  5. link to this comment by Jim Forbes Fri Sep 10, 2004

    "Courier, despite being designed for a golfball instead of a hammer, is still a monospaced font"

    The Selectric is a monospace typewriter...what did you expect?

  6. link to this comment by Kelli Renken Sat Sep 11, 2004

    Regarding the following statement, "(Ironically, at the same time IBM invited Frutiger to adapt Univers for the Selectric Typewriter, they asked Morison to do the same with Times New Roman.)", do you know if or when IBM began seling Times New Roman in the Selectric?

    Members of the media say that Times New Roman has been around since 1931, and so it seems. But they never give us the critical information that could prove or disprove the authenticity of the documents in question. Was Times New Roman available to Killian?

    Thanks.

  7. link to this comment by Richard Catalano Thu Sep 16, 2004

    Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) states that IBM sold a Times New Roman Selectric based on this article. I do not think that is clear from the reference above. While they may have asked Morison to design a Times New Roman type face, did they ever sell one? The article does state "In the 1960s and 1970s Courier became a mainstay in offices". Where doesn't IBM step up and help shed some light on this controversy, they must know what they sold back in the 1970s?

  8. link to this comment by Dave Poleshuck Sun Oct 29, 2006

    The IBM selectric had a version that had proportionally space fonts. It was released in the 1960s and used for "typesetting". It had a 9 unit system. If a period was 3 units, the smallest unit, a cap M could be a maximum of 9 units.

    For more info see: http://ibmcomposer.org / a fan website for the Composer.

  9. link to this comment by Kelly Aldrett Tue May 22, 2007

    I personally agree with the change. Times New Roman does have a more classic modern appeal. I have notice even in my studies that courier is no longer acceptable in reports. For different reasons than the the State Department rest assured. Maybe it is a trend that is taking shape.

  10. link to this comment by John Savard Tue Nov 03, 2009

    It should be noted that while the IBM Selectric Composer was similar in appearance to a Selectric typewriter, and used that typewriter's design as its basis, it was still a different machine, and it was sold as a cold type composition device, not a typewriter. The font it used which was similar to Times Roman was called Press Roman, which may mean the negotiations for that font, unlike those for Univers, fell through.

Add a Comment