Originally I thought that the Typography proposal was already covered by the scope of this site, but it seems clear the many following and committing to it don't think so.

From the discussion thread here: https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4986/typography-area-for-stackexchange

"design and typography communities are typically separate"

"it would be nice to have a distinct typography site where knowledgeable experts -- who would't have the patience for the GD (or UX) site as it now is -- can contribute"

"expert typographists will seldom be designers, and more likely be linguists"

..it is clear that there is at least a perceived need for a new site. Although I think it may be significant that most of the higher-voted sample questions have been answered here.

So, what (if anything) to do? I'm aware of the GD-related banner on the proposal site.

  • 1
    It honestly feels like they are determined to have their own site. That thread you mention includes all the reasons why it's most likely unnecessary and probably repetitive.
    – Yisela
    Commented Dec 4, 2012 at 20:44
  • 2
    No need to think about it once it hits 45%, which is the point at which the Community Team reviews the proposal. If they find it's completely covered by (and well-served) by this site, they may close it as a duplicate. Commented Dec 4, 2012 at 21:01
  • Yes, e100, @BrettWhite is correct. :)
    – Aarthi
    Commented Dec 4, 2012 at 21:02

2 Answers 2


The Typography proposal has been discontinued.

After reviewing the questions raised during the definition phase (and the related discussions here) we decided to discontinue the creation of a separate Typography community at this time.

I understand that there is a case being made that Typography is different from our Graphic Design site, but in reviewing the example questions and the committer roles, the case is not being made.

  • Any idea what happened to the sample questions? There were a couple more I was thinking of asking here if the project didn't launch. Commented Dec 24, 2012 at 20:21
  • 1
    Found them - area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/40151/… Also, I added a post to that announcement extending a friendly welcome to our site to people interested in typography, with a selection of tags they might want to follow and some sample questions that might be of interest. Please do flag up anything important that I missed. Commented Dec 25, 2012 at 12:48

Are we going to complain about this for every two-dimensional art-related SE? I'd love a Sequential Art SE that's separate from this one, for instance...

  • 1
    Art and graphic design are separate, if complementary and overlapping, disciplines. They share some data (color, proportion, rules of composition), but they have different purposes and wouldn't really coexist in this forum. Take a look at a few artists' self-designed websites or brochures and you'll quickly see that art != design. Commented Dec 5, 2012 at 0:54
  • That's sort of my point -- if we accept that Graphic Design is not a catch-all for all 2D art, Typography is separate enough from Graphic Design that we shouldn't we arguing about it, either. Commented Dec 5, 2012 at 20:28
  • 1
    I don't really agree, I can't imagine a single significant graphic design piece that doesn't make use of Typography, while 2D art is not necessarily a must. Might be the case of colour theory, perhaps.
    – Yisela
    Commented Dec 6, 2012 at 3:16
  • Well, ill just point out that there is a discussion on how everything in 2d art & sequential art are 51 is, as per faq of this site, on topic. Or at least something along these lines :P meta.graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/354/…
    – K.L.
    Commented Feb 22, 2013 at 14:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .