An independent archive of typography.
Topics
Formats
Typefaces

“Machines for Life” Pitchfork cover story

Contributed by Florian Hardwig on May 14th, 2013. Artwork published in .
“Machines for Life” Pitchfork cover story 1
Source: pitchfork.com License: All Rights Reserved.

Ryan Dombal’s Daft Punk cover story for Pitchfork can be read and viewed in a special “dynamic” version. Make sure to visit the page, since the screenshots shown here can’t do justice to the browsing experience which comprises a responsive layout with animated sequences, various scrolling effects and flipping characters that are reminiscient of flap displays.

“Machines for Life” Pitchfork cover story 2
Source: pitchfork.com License: All Rights Reserved.
Other quotes are set in centered Generika Mono, a narrow monospaced typeface by Alexander Colby. The characters constantly take turns with ones and zeros, which looks like a glitch on an airport panel.
Source: pitchfork.com License: All Rights Reserved.

Other quotes are set in centered Generika Mono, a narrow monospaced typeface by Alexander Colby. The characters constantly take turns with ones and zeros, which looks like a glitch on an airport panel.

The pull quotes are set in Colfax. Like the images in the sidebar, they swing into position when scrolling.
Source: pitchfork.com License: All Rights Reserved.

The pull quotes are set in Colfax. Like the images in the sidebar, they swing into position when scrolling.

The primary typeface is FF Spinoza by Max Phillips (2011), with lead-ins in Colfax Bold. Pitchfork uses em dashes and traditional “curly” quotation marks, but a few incorrect straight apostrophes have slipped in.
Source: pitchfork.com License: All Rights Reserved.

The primary typeface is FF Spinoza by Max Phillips (2011), with lead-ins in Colfax Bold. Pitchfork uses em dashes and traditional “curly” quotation marks, but a few incorrect straight apostrophes have slipped in.

Typefaces

  • Colfax
  • FF Spinoza
  • Generika Mono

Formats

Topics

In Sets

2 Comments on ““Machines for Life” Pitchfork cover story”

  1. I know we’re speaking to fonts here—and these choices look good when the browser is big—but this Pitchfork feature shows off my least favorite aspect of editorial design: gimmickry.

    It’s hard to tell whether the site expects you to play with the page as if a game (a choppy experience) or to read the story. For example, a pull-quote slides in as you read the story, begging for attention. In print, pull-quotes serve various roles such as breaking up dense, grey pages or catching the reader’s attention as they flip through a magazine full of stories and ads. Perhaps this one (which shows up around the first story break) is only meant to stop an over-zealous scroller in their tracks. Many websites are trying static pull-quotes now, though unfortunately common is the floated div next its quoted paragraph. But a pixel-coordinated, interactive pull-quote is merely a distraction. It’s an annoying prod to Look over here! Stop reading the story! A typographer who respected the reader’s experience wouldn’t bother with such a disservice.

    Lastly, I think that “responsive layout” is too vague a term here (and in general really, as it seems to imply “good” but so often means unrealized hierarchy transformations). In this Daft Punk article, the typography merely shrinks down as the browser gets smaller, eventually becoming unreadable. At that point, who cares which fonts are in use?

  2. unrealized hierarchy transformations

    Say more about that, André.

Post a comment