Talk:Impact (typeface)

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft: Windows Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (assessed as Low-importance).

Typography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Sans-serif for body text

As sans-serif fonts are generally not suitable for body text,

This is not only POV, it's thoroughly incorrect. There have been whole books published in sans-serif fonts; as a matter of fact, the Wikipedia itself is entirely in sans-serif fonts! 161.11.130.249 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rules switch for on-screen fonts because serifs make letters look cluttered when displayed in pixel form. No one said that no one could ever use sans serif fonts for body text, but people generally acknowledge that serif fonts are more legible in print. Check any typography book. -Vontafeijos 23:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this may be the wrong place to ask this question, but does anyone know the keystroke for a musical notes (♫) on a mac? I know it works in impact font, but right now I only know how to copy and past the symbol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.129.16 (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Stephenson Blake is no longer in the type-foundry business, I would suggest adding something like the following language: "When Stephenson Blake exited the type foundry business in the 1990s, Impact was acquired by The Monotype Corporation." Also, for references, we could cite to the Stephenson Blake Wikipedia article, the Stephenson & Blake website (www.stephensonandblake.com), and fonts.com. --StackLaw (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed

There aren't any references listed for this article, so it needs more than just the couple of citations that I've asked for, but we might as well start with:

if it's very common on TV, surely a citation can be found;
who says it's easily readable, and compared to what?

...and who says it's more interesting, for that matter? I'm sure that there's been some critical writing about a font designed so long ago, so it shouldn't be too hard for an interested party to come up with some references. —Eric S. Smith (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters section depends on Impact being installed

The characters section of this article depends on Impact being installed on the user's computer. This is a good assumption on Windows XP and later computers, but is it true for Macintosh? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Poster Usage

I have found that this was used on the Saving Private Ryan poster as the "saving' part of the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starkinator (talk • contribs) 15:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Impact (typeface). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://typophile.com/node/7921

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

of the "Fantasy" generic font family

It seems to me that this font belongs to the "Fantasy" generic font family of the CSS1 specification. --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anton is not Impact

That’s it really. They are not the same font. The remark about Google Slides should be edited or deleted. Walkingmelways (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]