October Condensed

Hairline
Hairline Italic
Thin
Thin Italic
ExtraLight
ExtraLight Italic
Light
Light Italic
Regular
Regular Italic
Medium
Medium Italic
Bold
Bold Italic
Heavy
Heavy Italic
Black
Black Italic
TitoloClick to Edit
Hairline 100px
FyrirsögnClick to Edit
Hairline Italic 100px
RubrikClick to Edit
Thin 100px
StichwortClick to Edit
Thin Italic 100px
HeadlineClick to Edit
ExtraLight 100px
UntertitelClick to Edit
ExtraLight Italic 100px
ÜberschriftClick to Edit
Light 100px
VeerutiitelClick to Edit
Light Italic 100px
ChodnikowiecClick to Edit
Regular 100px
NagłówekClick to Edit
Regular Italic 100px
OverskriftClick to Edit
Medium 100px
TitulekClick to Edit
Medium Italic 100px
TitreClick to Edit
Bold 100px
ÚjságcímClick to Edit
Bold Italic 100px
PrüfungsanweisungenClick to Edit
Heavy 100px
OtsikkoClick to Edit
Heavy Italic 100px
HírösszefoglalásClick to Edit
Black 100px
NadpisClick to Edit
Black Italic 100px
In spite of all the attention to type and the unprecedented conditions for type designers, the vast majority of new fonts desperately lack originality. Just as in the music industry, where cover versions and remixes are often more popular than new music, font designers seemingly prefer to exploit successful models from the past rather than strive for new solutions. Scant decades ago, new typefaces underwent a rigorous review procedure to ensure that they met the publisher’s artistic and technical criteria. Today, self-publishing has eliminated such processes, and there is little critical review, little effort to add something new to the evolution of the profession. Mediocrity abounds as quality control dwindles. Dozens of blogs (as well as the print media) simply republish press releases without distinguishing between marketing and independent reviews, praising uninspired fonts and institutionalising the average. Many design awards do the same, perpetuating a false idea of what constitutes superior quality. We don’t need new fonts like this.Click to Edit
Regular 0px