daidala: words on letters, august 2002

...................................................................

deja vu...all over again

daidala archives in pdf format here.
29-August 2002

...................................................................

bit behind, i am...

FontFont 2002 catalogue arrived in the mail on Friday. Um, yeah… You've had yours for half a year now. Truth is, I wrote in to request a copy of font 002 and the catalogue tagged along. This is a good thing; looking at the fonts online is nice, but seeing them on paper is a necessity. You've already formulated your thoughts; here are a few of mine.

The first thing I noticed is that the catalogue is thicker (no surprise), expanding from 144 to 192 pages. The second is that it's roomier; more white space, and some of the stock samples are now large enough to be useful.

Third, the categories – once a bit arbitrary – have been reduced in number from nine to six. Gone are Geometric, Intelligent, and Destructive, and several of the faces formerly therein have found their way into Typographic. One could still make some arguments for misidentification (Why aren't Hardcase, Maverick, Karbid, and Schulbuch typographic?), but overall, the arrangement makes sense.

Fourth, larger font families are now supplemented with matrices of weight by style, providing for a quick read on the combinations available.

Fifth, and finally, the notes are now in Mike Abbink's Kievit (2001), replacing Spiekermann and Schaefer's Info. I've developed a new appreciation for this open, unserifed face. Kievit might conjure up Myriad or Frutiger, though it is not as restrained as either. It's available in six weights and includes text figures and expert characters. It is just one of the several new faces issued semiannually by FSI that make the FontFont 2002 catalogue a necessary part of one's specimen book library and the FontFont collection the most comprehensive – and perhaps the most important – series of new types today.
19-August 2002

...................................................................

mrs eaves: 8 of 20

Of course; it's ubiquitous, after all. Plant yourself anywhere in a Barnes and Noble, swivel, and you'll spot this Baskerville revival/parody gracing a cover or two. You won't likely find it on the pages, however; it's a face that demands attention, rather than one that invites reading.

The crown jewel of the Émigré empire – and IMHO, one of the outstanding offerings of the '90's – is now available in OpenType format. Those 213 ligatures should be easier to implement than ever before.
19-August 2002

...................................................................

a whole slew of 'em

A few weeks ago, I wrote that the new Linotype Syntax, with its added weights, small caps, and text figures, was the best deal in type. A close second must be Bitstream's Cambridge Collection. For under $200US you get, among others, Bitstream Amerigo, Arrus, Charter, and Iowan Old Style, 18 weights/widths of Futura, Oranda, Serifa, and Venetian 301 (Centaur). Alas, no expert sets here; you'll have to supplement as needed. (Parenthetical double alas: Bitstream apparently no longer sells its 500 Font CD, which I obtained two years ago for a ridiculously low price.) Nonetheless, if you want to want to get your hands on a few styles of two of the most underrated typefaces in recent memory – yes, Arrus and Iowan Old Style (both recently expanded) – and then some, this is the CD (dual platform) for you.
14-August 2002

...................................................................

comparing typefaces 2: seria and scala

Template Gothic was not the face of the 1990s (see Blackwell, p 144); Scala was. Designed and expanded throughout the decade by Martin Majoor, Scala is a cohesive Joanna – a fresh, elegant slab-serif face that is deservedly well-used.

I had used Scala and its unserifed companion successfully in several text applications in the late 1990s, and so when I opened my FontFont 2000 catalog to find a new face from Majoor – called Seria – I did not hesitate to download and start setting text.

I quickly realized that Seria was a beautiful, complex typeface, yet I was unsatisfied with the printed output and didn't quite know why. And to this day – still somewhat puzzled – I have yet to find the "right" application for it. And so I am beginning to investigate...

At first glance, Scala and Seria are essentially the same face by the same artist; one might conclude initially that several of the lower case romans appear to differ only in the extent of the ascender or descender. A closer look, however, reveals that the faces are more like cousins than twins – of the same pedigree yet distinct in physiognomy. To compare the two in a sentence, Scala is a chiseled, neoclassical face with a relatively large x-height; Seria is a humanist-Renaissance hybrid with its long ascenders and descenders and its modulated stroke. And to compare them more systematically and in more detail, I have made some lists of points of differentiation and have included figures for each major component of both faces.

Lower case roman
In this figure, the lower case romans of Scala and Seria are shown normalized to x-height. Doing so requires that Seria be multiplied by about 25%. After normalization, the strokes of Seria are 15–20% heavier, the letters are 5–15% wider, and the ascenders and descenders are around 45–55% longer.

But it is not the dimension of Seria's lower case roman that defines its character. Rather, it is a motif that is seen throughout the face – a motif that is established and repeated in the counters. Begin with c, d, e, and p; you will see that the top-center regions of the counters are relatively horizontal and straight. As you move to the left, you see that the bowl thickness sharply increases to form a counter angle of around 60–70°. A more comprehensive look will reveal this motif in the ascender of the f and the descender of the j; indeed, it is present in all letters but b, i, k, l, t, and v–z.

Another prominent difference between Scala and Seria is in the serifs. Whereas those of Scala are defined largely by 90° angles, the serifs of Seria have a concave base with a convex join to the stroke; the letter k shows this clearly, both in arm and leg.

Other notable features:
- the crossbar of the f also shows the concavity/ convexity
- the rightmost strokes of h, m, and n are not vertical; rather, they curve inward
- in contrast to Scala, the bowls of b and q completely close the counters
- the first two stems of w are joined by an extended serif

Lower case italic
"It is true that most romans are upright and most italics slope to the right – but flow, not slope, is what really differentiates the two," writes Robert Bringhurst (p 56). The italics of Seria serve as a case in point. While the italics of Scala slope at about 8°, those of Seria do so at only about 1–2°; nonetheless, there is no mistaking them for roman forms.

One similarity between the italics of the two faces is the distinctive lower case y, in which the stem of the letter lies to the left, rather than the right, and the descender is roughly centered. A notable difference between the two, however, is seen in the letter f, in which that of Seria breaks away from Scala's form by extending a straight, serifed descender below the baseline in a manner a la Jan van Krimpen's Romanee.

The form of the counters links Seria's italic to its roman; the aforementioned motif is preserved and is seen in all letters save i, k, l, s, t, and v–z.

Upper case roman
The upper case roman in Scala seems to be about right angles; indeed, stems and serifs in E, F, H, I, L, and T combine to create perpendicular forms. As expected, there is more curvature in the upper case romans of Seria. Compare the Ks; in Seria the arm and leg gracefully curve away from the stem; those of Scala shoot out linearly. And compare the Rs; the leg of the R in Seria extends, tapers, and ends well below the baseline. Finally, note that the angular-counter motif is absent in the upper case.

Also:
- the serifs are more prominent in Seria than in Scala; on letters such as B and D, they stretch relatively far to the left of the stem
- to achieve equal cap height, Seria must be enlarged by about 15%
- while the bowl of the P is open in Scala, it is closed completely in Seria

Upper case italic
In Scala, the major distinguishing feature of the italic caps is the slant; in Seria, the italic caps do not slant at all but are marked by increased curvature, and some letters approach swash form – see J, K, N, T, and Y. Note also the prominent tail in Q.

Numerals
The roman numerals in Scala and Seria are very similar; a major difference is the modulated stroke of the zero in Seria.

Comparing the italics, those of Seria have more ornate forms – notice the curl of the descenders of 5 and 7 and the open counters in 8. Compare also the numeral 1, which is bilaterally serifed in Seria and unilaterally so in Scala.

Andy Crewdson wrote about Scala and Seria several months back. I forget some of the particulars, but I do recall his praise for the new face. I also recall that, as I read, there was no hint of disappointment in Mr Crewdson's experience with it. I felt a bit stupid as a result; why hadn't I been satisfied with any of my attempts to set text in Seria?

I believe that the answer may lie in the relationship between the angular beauty of the face and the conditions under which I normally print. One of Bringhurst's principles (6.1.3, p 94) is: "Choose faces that will survive, and if possible prosper, under the final printing conditions." Twelve pt at 600 dpi – while perfectly sufficient for Scala – will simply not do for Seria.

The angular motif, the subtle tapers, and the curvature of Seria's letterforms are all there for a reason – to be seen, not smudged. And to be seen adequately requires high quality in both printer and paper; this is a typeface that deserves to be treated with the same care that the designer applied in its creation.

Somewhat equipped with an answer, I'll continue to investigate, more aware of Seria's limitations, and more aware also that its limitations derive from its exquisite form.
11-August 2002

...................................................................

interview with eric olson

Eric Olson is a Minneapolis-based type designer whose studio – Process Type Foundry – specializes in fonts for custom and retail use.

I recently asked Mr Olson to discuss his philosophy and practice:

JC: What is your training in typography?
EO: While studying graphic design at the University of Minnesota, I had very little formal typographic training. In general, we studied the mechanics of the trade-page layout, color theory, print production, mark-making, etc... For better or worse, I learned much of what I know about typography and type design through independent study.

My greatest resources for learning have been specimen books, typefaces, and other designers, not to mention trial and error. It was several years after designing my first typeface that I actually released a font. Although a digital typeface can be created very rapidly, I spent those years developing a solid understanding of letterforms, spacing, kerning and font production.

JC: Your typefaces – Elderkin and Process Grotesque, in particular – draw inspiration from late 19th/early 20th century grotesques. Why this class of typefaces?
EO: I didn't consider either face on these terms. I'm a big fan of solid and straightforward typefaces with a little something extra to offer. The original grotesques have that extra something so their influence on my work is inevitable.

JC: Who do you design type for (i.e., who is your intended user or audience)?
EO: Because I was trained both academically and professionally as a graphic designer, I design what I think I would use or need. I work within the parameters of actual projects and think, would I actually use this?

I'm also interested in creating typefaces for designers who are actively shaping visual culture. The popularity of faces like Helvetica, Franklin Gothic, Akzidenz Grotesk, and Univers still amazes me. They are masterful faces, but they are also tied mechanically and conceptually to a specific era-regardless of their supposed neutrality. In turn, they have become out of place in current design because they do not reflect our time. Eventually, I hope to create typefaces for work that embodies our current environment.

JC: Why did you choose to distribute the typeface Indivisible free of charge?
EO: The face was an experiment. I wanted to see if people would actually use a free typeface regularly. I find monos really useful, especially for grading student papers and general utility so I'm curious to see if others will do the same. It's unlikely that I'll keep the face up for very long. It is something I made to amuse myself while working on larger type families.

JC: Who is your inspiration/who, among typographers or designers, do you admire most?
EO: For type designers my list includes Matthew Carter, Fred Smeijers, Adrian Frutiger, Gerard Unger, Peter Bilak, Jonathan Hoefler, Zuzana Licko, Peter Matthias Noordzij, John Downer – the list goes on and on. There are too many to name.
Many of my biggest influences, however, are within the larger field of design. I'm impressed with any well thought out, functional design object: American automobiles of the 50s, the furniture of Charles and Ray Eames, the posters of Josef Müller-Brockmann, the graphic design of Karel Martens, and the furniture and graphic design of Foundation 33, just to name a few. I am inspired by work that seizes the technology, opportunity, and atmosphere of its time, and channels it into a meaningful design solution.

JC: What are you working on now?
EO: Currently I'm finishing up a yet unnamed typeface based on the mechanical lettering of the Wrico lettering system. It will be my first publicly released family of typefaces containing a full range of weights and alternate character sets. Additionally, I'm working on a typeface proposal/commission for the Design Institute at the University of Minnesota to accompany the Twin Cities Design Celebration 2003.

JC: What tools do you use in font production?
EO: I try to keep things as simple as possible. All of my drawing is done in Adobe Illustrator 8. From there I paste directly into Fontographer 4.1.5. I use Fontographer for all of my spacing, kerning and testing. I always generate working beta versions and test them sometimes for several months. After I have everything tied up and I'm satisfied, I import the files into Fontlab 3 for hinting and final file preparation.

JC: What is your ideal type project?
EO: Something with a conceptual framework and relevance to current culture and technology. A tall order!

Process Type currently offers five typefaces:
(1) Elderkin - based on early 20th century gothics, (2) FIG - inspired by the FIGlet application, (3) Kettler - a revisitation of and tribute to Howard Kettler's Courier, (4) Process Grotesque - an "aggressive" descendant of the Stephenson and Blake model, and (5) Indivisible - a 10 pitch monospace, which, as aforementioned, is currently available for free download.
02-August 2002


		...........................
................................................................... deja vu...all over again daidala archives in pdf format here. 29-August 2002 ................................................................... bit behind, i am... FontFont 2002 catalogue arrived in the mail on Friday. Um, yeah… You've had yours for half a year now. Truth is, I wrote in to request a copy of font 002 and the catalogue tagged along. This is a good thing; looking at the fonts online is nice, but seeing them on paper is a necessity. You've already formulated your thoughts; here are a few of mine. The first thing I noticed is that the catalogue is thicker (no surprise), expanding from 144 to 192 pages. The second is that it's roomier; more white space, and some of the stock samples are now large enough to be useful. Third, the categories – once a bit arbitrary – have been reduced in number from nine to six. Gone are Geometric, Intelligent, and Destructive, and several of the faces formerly therein have found their way into Typographic. One could still make some arguments for misidentification (Why aren't Hardcase, Maverick, Karbid, and Schulbuch typographic?), but overall, the arrangement makes sense. Fourth, larger font families are now supplemented with matrices of weight by style, providing for a quick read on the combinations available. Fifth, and finally, the notes are now in Mike Abbink's Kievit (2001), replacing Spiekermann and Schaefer's Info. I've developed a new appreciation for this open, unserifed face. Kievit might conjure up Myriad or Frutiger, though it is not as restrained as either. It's available in six weights and includes text figures and expert characters. It is just one of the several new faces issued semiannually by FSI that make the FontFont 2002 catalogue a necessary part of one's specimen book library and the FontFont collection the most comprehensive – and perhaps the most important – series of new types today. 19-August 2002 ................................................................... mrs eaves: 8 of 20 Of course; it's ubiquitous, after all. Plant yourself anywhere in a Barnes and Noble, swivel, and you'll spot this Baskerville revival/parody gracing a cover or two. You won't likely find it on the pages, however; it's a face that demands attention, rather than one that invites reading. The crown jewel of the Émigré empire – and IMHO, one of the outstanding offerings of the '90's – is now available in OpenType format. Those 213 ligatures should be easier to implement than ever before. 19-August 2002 ................................................................... a whole slew of 'em A few weeks ago, I wrote that the new Linotype Syntax, with its added weights, small caps, and text figures, was the best deal in type. A close second must be Bitstream's Cambridge Collection. For under $200US you get, among others, Bitstream Amerigo, Arrus, Charter, and Iowan Old Style, 18 weights/widths of Futura, Oranda, Serifa, and Venetian 301 (Centaur). Alas, no expert sets here; you'll have to supplement as needed. (Parenthetical double alas: Bitstream apparently no longer sells its 500 Font CD, which I obtained two years ago for a ridiculously low price.) Nonetheless, if you want to want to get your hands on a few styles of two of the most underrated typefaces in recent memory – yes, Arrus and Iowan Old Style (both recently expanded) – and then some, this is the CD (dual platform) for you. 14-August 2002 ................................................................... comparing typefaces 2: seria and scala Template Gothic was not the face of the 1990s (see Blackwell, p 144); Scala was. Designed and expanded throughout the decade by Martin Majoor, Scala is a cohesive Joanna – a fresh, elegant slab-serif face that is deservedly well-used. I had used Scala and its unserifed companion successfully in several text applications in the late 1990s, and so when I opened my FontFont 2000 catalog to find a new face from Majoor – called Seria – I did not hesitate to download and start setting text. I quickly realized that Seria was a beautiful, complex typeface, yet I was unsatisfied with the printed output and didn't quite know why. And to this day – still somewhat puzzled – I have yet to find the "right" application for it. And so I am beginning to investigate... At first glance, Scala and Seria are essentially the same face by the same artist; one might conclude initially that several of the lower case romans appear to differ only in the extent of the ascender or descender. A closer look, however, reveals that the faces are more like cousins than twins – of the same pedigree yet distinct in physiognomy. To compare the two in a sentence, Scala is a chiseled, neoclassical face with a relatively large x-height; Seria is a humanist-Renaissance hybrid with its long ascenders and descenders and its modulated stroke. And to compare them more systematically and in more detail, I have made some lists of points of differentiation and have included figures for each major component of both faces. Lower case roman In this figure, the lower case romans of Scala and Seria are shown normalized to x-height. Doing so requires that Seria be multiplied by about 25%. After normalization, the strokes of Seria are 15–20% heavier, the letters are 5–15% wider, and the ascenders and descenders are around 45–55% longer. But it is not the dimension of Seria's lower case roman that defines its character. Rather, it is a motif that is seen throughout the face – a motif that is established and repeated in the counters. Begin with c, d, e, and p; you will see that the top-center regions of the counters are relatively horizontal and straight. As you move to the left, you see that the bowl thickness sharply increases to form a counter angle of around 60–70°. A more comprehensive look will reveal this motif in the ascender of the f and the descender of the j; indeed, it is present in all letters but b, i, k, l, t, and v–z. Another prominent difference between Scala and Seria is in the serifs. Whereas those of Scala are defined largely by 90° angles, the serifs of Seria have a concave base with a convex join to the stroke; the letter k shows this clearly, both in arm and leg. Other notable features: - the crossbar of the f also shows the concavity/ convexity - the rightmost strokes of h, m, and n are not vertical; rather, they curve inward - in contrast to Scala, the bowls of b and q completely close the counters - the first two stems of w are joined by an extended serif Lower case italic "It is true that most romans are upright and most italics slope to the right – but flow, not slope, is what really differentiates the two," writes Robert Bringhurst (p 56). The italics of Seria serve as a case in point. While the italics of Scala slope at about 8°, those of Seria do so at only about 1–2°; nonetheless, there is no mistaking them for roman forms. One similarity between the italics of the two faces is the distinctive lower case y, in which the stem of the letter lies to the left, rather than the right, and the descender is roughly centered. A notable difference between the two, however, is seen in the letter f, in which that of Seria breaks away from Scala's form by extending a straight, serifed descender below the baseline in a manner a la Jan van Krimpen's Romanee. The form of the counters links Seria's italic to its roman; the aforementioned motif is preserved and is seen in all letters save i, k, l, s, t, and v–z. Upper case roman The upper case roman in Scala seems to be about right angles; indeed, stems and serifs in E, F, H, I, L, and T combine to create perpendicular forms. As expected, there is more curvature in the upper case romans of Seria. Compare the Ks; in Seria the arm and leg gracefully curve away from the stem; those of Scala shoot out linearly. And compare the Rs; the leg of the R in Seria extends, tapers, and ends well below the baseline. Finally, note that the angular-counter motif is absent in the upper case. Also: - the serifs are more prominent in Seria than in Scala; on letters such as B and D, they stretch relatively far to the left of the stem - to achieve equal cap height, Seria must be enlarged by about 15% - while the bowl of the P is open in Scala, it is closed completely in Seria Upper case italic In Scala, the major distinguishing feature of the italic caps is the slant; in Seria, the italic caps do not slant at all but are marked by increased curvature, and some letters approach swash form – see J, K, N, T, and Y. Note also the prominent tail in Q. Numerals The roman numerals in Scala and Seria are very similar; a major difference is the modulated stroke of the zero in Seria. Comparing the italics, those of Seria have more ornate forms – notice the curl of the descenders of 5 and 7 and the open counters in 8. Compare also the numeral 1, which is bilaterally serifed in Seria and unilaterally so in Scala. Andy Crewdson wrote about Scala and Seria several months back. I forget some of the particulars, but I do recall his praise for the new face. I also recall that, as I read, there was no hint of disappointment in Mr Crewdson's experience with it. I felt a bit stupid as a result; why hadn't I been satisfied with any of my attempts to set text in Seria? I believe that the answer may lie in the relationship between the angular beauty of the face and the conditions under which I normally print. One of Bringhurst's principles (6.1.3, p 94) is: "Choose faces that will survive, and if possible prosper, under the final printing conditions." Twelve pt at 600 dpi – while perfectly sufficient for Scala – will simply not do for Seria. The angular motif, the subtle tapers, and the curvature of Seria's letterforms are all there for a reason – to be seen, not smudged. And to be seen adequately requires high quality in both printer and paper; this is a typeface that deserves to be treated with the same care that the designer applied in its creation. Somewhat equipped with an answer, I'll continue to investigate, more aware of Seria's limitations, and more aware also that its limitations derive from its exquisite form. 11-August 2002 ................................................................... interview with eric olson Eric Olson is a Minneapolis-based type designer whose studio – Process Type Foundry – specializes in fonts for custom and retail use. I recently asked Mr Olson to discuss his philosophy and practice: JC: What is your training in typography? EO: While studying graphic design at the University of Minnesota, I had very little formal typographic training. In general, we studied the mechanics of the trade-page layout, color theory, print production, mark-making, etc... For better or worse, I learned much of what I know about typography and type design through independent study. My greatest resources for learning have been specimen books, typefaces, and other designers, not to mention trial and error. It was several years after designing my first typeface that I actually released a font. Although a digital typeface can be created very rapidly, I spent those years developing a solid understanding of letterforms, spacing, kerning and font production. JC: Your typefaces – Elderkin and Process Grotesque, in particular – draw inspiration from late 19th/early 20th century grotesques. Why this class of typefaces? EO: I didn't consider either face on these terms. I'm a big fan of solid and straightforward typefaces with a little something extra to offer. The original grotesques have that extra something so their influence on my work is inevitable. JC: Who do you design type for (i.e., who is your intended user or audience)? EO: Because I was trained both academically and professionally as a graphic designer, I design what I think I would use or need. I work within the parameters of actual projects and think, would I actually use this? I'm also interested in creating typefaces for designers who are actively shaping visual culture. The popularity of faces like Helvetica, Franklin Gothic, Akzidenz Grotesk, and Univers still amazes me. They are masterful faces, but they are also tied mechanically and conceptually to a specific era-regardless of their supposed neutrality. In turn, they have become out of place in current design because they do not reflect our time. Eventually, I hope to create typefaces for work that embodies our current environment. JC: Why did you choose to distribute the typeface Indivisible free of charge? EO: The face was an experiment. I wanted to see if people would actually use a free typeface regularly. I find monos really useful, especially for grading student papers and general utility so I'm curious to see if others will do the same. It's unlikely that I'll keep the face up for very long. It is something I made to amuse myself while working on larger type families. JC: Who is your inspiration/who, among typographers or designers, do you admire most? EO: For type designers my list includes Matthew Carter, Fred Smeijers, Adrian Frutiger, Gerard Unger, Peter Bilak, Jonathan Hoefler, Zuzana Licko, Peter Matthias Noordzij, John Downer – the list goes on and on. There are too many to name. Many of my biggest influences, however, are within the larger field of design. I'm impressed with any well thought out, functional design object: American automobiles of the 50s, the furniture of Charles and Ray Eames, the posters of Josef Müller-Brockmann, the graphic design of Karel Martens, and the furniture and graphic design of Foundation 33, just to name a few. I am inspired by work that seizes the technology, opportunity, and atmosphere of its time, and channels it into a meaningful design solution. JC: What are you working on now? EO: Currently I'm finishing up a yet unnamed typeface based on the mechanical lettering of the Wrico lettering system. It will be my first publicly released family of typefaces containing a full range of weights and alternate character sets. Additionally, I'm working on a typeface proposal/commission for the Design Institute at the University of Minnesota to accompany the Twin Cities Design Celebration 2003. JC: What tools do you use in font production? EO: I try to keep things as simple as possible. All of my drawing is done in Adobe Illustrator 8. From there I paste directly into Fontographer 4.1.5. I use Fontographer for all of my spacing, kerning and testing. I always generate working beta versions and test them sometimes for several months. After I have everything tied up and I'm satisfied, I import the files into Fontlab 3 for hinting and final file preparation. JC: What is your ideal type project? EO: Something with a conceptual framework and relevance to current culture and technology. A tall order! Process Type currently offers five typefaces: (1) Elderkin - based on early 20th century gothics, (2) FIG - inspired by the FIGlet application, (3) Kettler - a revisitation of and tribute to Howard Kettler's Courier, (4) Process Grotesque - an "aggressive" descendant of the Stephenson and Blake model, and (5) Indivisible - a 10 pitch monospace, which, as aforementioned, is currently available for free download. 02-August 2002		...........................