pas de blog: snotty repartee
Honestly! I never thought your blog would last this long. Will wonders never cease?
You’re really too kind, Sir. But certainly, you know about the logarithmic perception of time; as we grow older, it all becomes increasingly compressed.
Oh, you must have misunderstood me! I was merely expressing amazement, and I received a science lesson in return! Though my attentions to you may be unwelcome, I’ll tell you this: I’m entirely familiar with everything you have written, and I’ll have to say that I still don’t understand daidala. What are you trying to do with it, and where are you headed? Is it some sort of typographic journal? Is it a venue for your attempts at humor? Do tell!
If I’m confusing you, then I sincerely apologize. Truth be told, I just write down whatever’s on my mind. And after the workday is over, and after everyone else in the house has gone to bed, I often focus on type.
Dear me, late night trysts with a cathode ray tube! That must be hard on your poor family, slumbering without you. And on your unfortunate employer as well, having to accept the proposals, findings, and conclusions of a sleepy statistician! But plod on nonetheless, you idealistic, martyred soul. I’m curious, however – and of course, I mean no offense in the least – but why don’t you just keep a private journal? You know – your own special place for your own special thoughts – and leave serious discourse on type to the experts.
If you had truly been reading – as you claim – then you would know that daidala is, at least in part, my own attempt at a personal – albeit public – education in type, and you should also be aware that this attempt is yet in its nascent phase. But to answer you more directly, I’ve never proclaimed any authority on the topic. I do feel that I possess some knowledge that might be useful, however, and knowledge hoarded is knowledge wasted.
Ingenuous generosity itself! How endearingly diplomatic; how convincingly coy! Lest you attempt to charm the pants off of me a second time, please allow me back up a step and ask the really relevant question here, which is: With all of the other excellent, well-informed sites on typography, is there really a place for your daidala?
Fair enough, I grant you; a question I ask myself, as a matter of fact. I strongly believe that the best way to advance the discipline of typography is through dialogue – or via polylogue – if I am permitted to invent a more descriptive term...
I’m fairly certain you didn’t invent it, o wishful, wordsmithing theoretician, but go on...
Anyway, through polylogue, which I would define as simultaneous communication by many participants on several, related subjects, and with one, overarching aim. Typophile, Typographica, TYPO-L, and Speak Up allow for this – nay, provide for this, actually – by engaging participants forum-style. My site, on the other hand...
Is – I suppose you’ll tell me – a monoblog, as opposed to a polyblog, and as such, offers nothing of the kind...
As I was saying, my site is, for all intents and purposes, a monologue – yes, a monoblog, if you will – a vehicle for one-way communication. I’ve thought about pursuing a Movable Type-based weblog; more seriously, I’ve also contemplated – on more than one occasion – just calling up Stephen and inquiring very nicely whether I might somehow become a fourth wheel in his operation. But then monoblogging has its advantages, too. I can write about whatever or whomever I wish, more or less with impunity. By going solo, I’m a bit freer to learn and to make mistakes, and if I don’t want to write about type, I don’t have to.
Which is patently evident! You write about your college teachers, about selling shoes to schizophrenics, about disco music you happen to fancy; and most bothersome of all, you sometimes don’t write at all for weeks on end. A major concern of mine is, as pertains to one, particular feature of your site – your “twenty more” Textism rip-off – that you seem to have become ensnared in the trap of (1) fall in love with font, (2) proclaim your love of said font to world, and (3) make GIF of beloved font using silly excerpts from Shakespeare or Jane Austen. On one level, at least, it seems to me you’re really nothing but a type whore. In fact, you want to score with the entire FontFont catalogue, don't you!
Stop already with the terms of endearment! If I understand you correctly, it’s true – I do admire the letterforms first and foremost. But I haven’t always been a moony-eyed monomaniac. I became interested in all of this via Knuth and TeX. Several years ago, out of sheer necessity, I had to produce clean, mathematical copy, and so back then, I was more interested in typesetting than in type. But this is now, and daidala is largely concerned with typefaces and the people who make them; I haven’t settled back into typesetting, nor have I ever really examined it from a purely design-related perspective. I recall hearing a performance of La Bohéme on the radio several years ago, and one of the commentators said something like, “La Bohéme is the first opera people learn to enjoy, because it is so accessible. Then, once their palate becomes more experienced, they begin to appreciate the complexities of other operas...” Well, I can tell you for certain – and without apology – that my La Bohéme phase is still in high gear. Chapter 10 of my copy of Bringhurst is easily my most dog-eared, yet I’ve never tackled chapter eight. Moreover, I’ve tried – and failed – to read Gerrit Noordzij’s Letterletter no fewer than five times. Parenthetically, and with all due respect, would someone kindly tell me what in the hell he is saying? For the most part, I can only read any book on type if it’s got nice pictures of different letterforms on most of the pages. So you see, I haven’t really begun to think about typography – outside of mathematical typography, that is – in terms of setting type on the page in anything but a relatively rudimentary manner; someday, surely, but not yet.
Well, I can say I’m even more disturbed – and disappointed – than I was before we began. You’ve actually convinced me, on occasion, that you had at least a few scholarly bones in your body, but now you tell me that you essentially like looking at letters. The skeleton of a simpleton, and a calcified brain to boot! All in all, here’s how I view you and your weblog, and kindly permit me to be blunt.
You’re asking for permission only now? Gracious soul, the floor is yours!
You’re fundamentally a Pollyanna; you view the world of type and design through some very rosy glasses. One of your greatest faults is that you seem to like everyone and everything in the world you write about, and with such a perspective, you have no edge.
No edge? Okay, so I occasionally give off warm fuzzies. Is that all?
Indeed it is not! Listen carefully. You desperately need – in the forthcoming year of daidala – to take a stand on things, to develop sound arguments, even at the risk of being wholly wrong or of causing offense. You must think more clearly about fundamental and topical issues in type. If you do already, then show it. If you don’t, then start. A little more Hrant, John, Mark, and Kent. Hell, even Bill will do in a pinch!
Like, boumas with attitude?
The bouma already comes with plenty of attitude, as you are undoubtedly aware; but yes, something like. You would do very well to begin, however, with beefier brains and bigger balls.
That’s a very nice visual; thank you for that!
You’re quite welcome. Oh – one more thing: Learn some HTML, for Christ’s sake.
I’ll stick to brains and balls for now, thanks...
20-June 2003
profound reflections upon the imminent, one-year anniversary of the birth of daidala
gibber-gabber, chitter-chatter
prittle-prattle, tittle-tattle
spout off, hold forth, spin out
bibble-babble, yadda-yadda
yakkety-yak, blah-blah
gush: logomania
slush: logorrhea
flux de mots and flux de bouche
clack, cackle, clatter
blither, blather, blabber
gabble prattle nather babble
prittle gibble twaddle twattle
guff, gas, hot air, and patter
verbosity, prolixity, fecundity, redundancy
digression, discursion, circumlocution, diversion
rambling, roving
wandering, meandering
and in closing,
mock humility,
platitudinous gratuity,
and a dash of typographic superfluity
14-June 2003
talking about ff kievit with mike abbink
I have my pet theories about type, as you undoubtedly do too. Mine warp and mutate more-or-less continually, and at present, I regard myself a utility-based gestaltist. Fancy that! So what do I mean?
Well, I happen to view typefaces not in terms of a few, select characters, but as whole blocks spanning 0 to 255 (and beyond), the virgule as important as the ampersand as important as the Z. Designers who produce book faces perhaps share this perspective. If a face is thoughtfully and carefully designed, the whole is indeed much more than the sum of its parts; but if reduced effort is applied, the net result may be much less. That’s the gestalt part; it forms the metaphorical trunk of the tree. Utility, then, comprises all of the branches and leaves.
Sincere efforts at crafting book faces may assume a gestaltist perspective and do well to have utility as a central aim. I’ll define utility as the sum of three factors:
1. identifiability, or unambiguity – that is, the ease of identification of each of the letters, numbers, and other glyphs in the face; also, the canonical or archetypal nature of their forms
2. interoperability, or cohesiveness – the manner with which the different glyphs work together on the page and truly constitute a single typeface with one, unified voice
3. the inclusiveness or completeness of the face – the extent to which it has all of the necessary components for setting text well: small caps, text figures, and ligatures among them; through all of Bringhurst’s secondary level and at least part of his tertiary (v. 2.5, p54)
Only the third component of utility is somewhat quantifiable, yet certainly open to debate; the first and second are more qualitative and subjective. It’s no trivial matter to take qualitative sums, but again, for schematic purposes, utility = identifiability + interoperability + inclusiveness. For me, then, a truly good book face is one that possesses maximal utility; it must score highly on all three factors, and therefore, it occupies the upper right, rear space in this figure.
But how many typefaces actually do maximize utility? Clearly several serifed faces, but markedly fewer sans-serifs. Of the latter, however, one that springs first and foremost to mind is Mike Abbink’s FF Kievit. Admittedly, I thought it rather plain when it was first introduced two years ago. That only shows the extent to which I missed the point! Kievit is a strong and unpretentious, yet ultimately versatile sans-serif face, and that is precisely what Abbink intended to produce.
As modest and unassuming as Kievit is, its story nonetheless deserves to be told.
JC: A couple of years have passed, now, since Kievit was released. Has the way you feel about the face changed at all?
MA: Sort of; I guess it depends on how it’s used. There are times when I feel Kievit really works well and other times when I think it needs a bit more character or something more unique; but after all, it was the intent to create a very neutral typeface with no real character other than its lack of character (if that makes any sense). Kievit is meant to take on some characteristic or personality from the environment it’s used in, kind of like the Woody Allen film, Zelig. If it’s in a formal environment, then it feels somewhat bland; if it’s in a more exciting environment, then it has more life. Overall I’m pleased with Kievit and just want to focus on some other fonts I’m working on.
JC: What was your reaction upon seeing Kievit used as the main text face in the 2002 FontFont catalogue?
MA: I had no idea that it was going to be used until Erik Spiekermann told me the new catalogue was at the printer. I was very pleased of course, and I hope people respond to it well. Hopefully it will last as long as Meta and Info did. I think it’s a good place to use a typeface like Kievit. It really shows how neutral it can be, but it also shows that in the right environment it can take on a bit of personality.
JC: On the Method site, you mentioned some of your goals with Kievit: to produce a face without character...to achieve extreme legibility. I imagine that this would require a great deal of discipline and restraint. How did you manage to keep focused on the canonical forms, and were any letters/styles especially difficult?
MA: The typeface Frutiger was an inspiration for Kievit. It has the same kind of restraint that I wanted to achieve. I just wanted to add the humanist (oldstyle) characteristics and proportions to improve legibility.
A digital lifestyle magazine/newspaper called DE:BUG in Germany uses Kievit for all the text, and when I saw they used 6pt text it was still very legible. It was nice to see it in the context of something real. It was the first time I saw Kievit used in such a text heavy format. Christian Schwartz recently told me that he and Roger Black used it for headlines and text in the redesign of ADWEEK as well, so I’m looking forward to seeing how it looks/works in that setting. I think DE:BUG and ADWEEK will be good case studies for Kievit. It really shows the legible nature of the face.
While designing Kievit the focus was on the stroke of the letterforms; I just tried to keep each letter free of elements other than a somewhat even, simple stroke. I always like to think of it as having the skeleton of an old style, but the flesh of a modernist typeface (like Frutiger). I really learned a lot about drawing letters digitally because Kievit needed to be refined to achieve the goals for its modern side. The humanist side was less challenging since it was more about the basic shape and structure.
JC: The path to Kievit’s release was perhaps somewhat sinuous. Could you describe: (a) the decision to hire Font Bureau (FB) to assist in completing the face, (b) your interaction with Christian Schwartz, and (c) your eventual decision to release the face through Font Shop International (FSI)?
MA: I don’t think of it as sinuous; it was just a matter of finding help to complete the font for a client that was interested in using it as their corporate typeface. Kievit was complete in the regular weight (roman, italic, small caps, and italic small caps) and needed a black version to interpolate some other weights. The only way to get the font done for the client was to get help and FB was recommended to me by Tobias Frere-Jones. I chose FB over FSI because they were more cost effective at the time. Christian was a major help of course, and my interaction with Christian was good; I only got a little frustrated early on in the process. As you can imagine, it’s not easy to talk about the details of a letterform over the phone. Overall, it was a good experience and one I would like to continue with other fonts, but it’s probably not the kind of work Christian wants to do.
My final decision for FSI came in the end; I had worked at MetaDesign for three years and Erik Spiekermann had encouraged me to get the font finished for FSI. He had seen the progress on Kievit for years and was hoping to have it in the FSI collection. There was also a time when I thought I would release it myself and start a foundry with another friend of mine (Josh Distler), but in the end I went with FSI. I still struggle over this idea with Josh; part of me wants to have a foundry, but going with someone like FSI makes it a bit easier on the workload. I never really discussed releasing Kievit with FB although they asked what my intentions were when Kievit was done. At the time I was not sure and that’s what I told them.
JC: The shiftype site currently shows an interesting sample of some of your recent work. Could you tell us more about it?
MA: I have a font in progress that I’m calling Router. It has a long way to go, but I’m hoping I can get something out to the public next year. I’m excited about this one and I hope it turns out well. It’s based on some routed letters I’ve seen on address and name plates in the Netherlands. There will be a sans and serif version if I can ever get the time to finish it. I’m further along with a font called Milo, which should be finished in the next 6–8 months. It’s quite a utilitarian letter with short ascenders and descenders. The forms are a bit more mechanical and stiff, but with a hint of character this time.
JC: How has your the nature of your work changed since you moved to Apple, and in what ways do you interact with type there?
MA: Primarily I’ve been working on packaging for hardware and software, but have done some other typographic related things since I’ve been here; unfortunately it’s not something I can talk about in detail right now. The packaging is starting to get out there (like the new black Powerbook boxes). There is a great team here now and we’re trying to do our best to improve graphic design. You may have noticed the recent change to Myriad as the corporate font, instead of Garamond. This has led to a specific design challenge within the company as you can imagine. A sans serif is a big step for Apple!
Overall, however, I don’t think the nature of my work has changed. I just wish I had more time to focus on letterform design. I’m very anxious to finish Router and Milo and move on to an oldstyle Kievit.
Which reminds me, there is also a slab Kievit in the works and that may be out within the next year (if I’m lucky).
06-June 2003
« May
