It is a recurring phenomenon that we tend to sort what comes in large amounts to be able to grasp it, for quicker reference, and to find it back more easily. Once organized, you don’t have to look at everything all the time but only consult the parts of your current interest. The vast world of type is a prime case. Grouping typefaces also breaks down the process of identifying them into a less challenging task.

Any categorization covers three aspects: 1. sorting in (this is what scholars and historians do, also type manufacturers), 2. reference (educating) and 3. taking out or finding back (this is what the user usually does). The aspect of finding a typeface though is crucial to many more people, every day, than the act of classifying them. You sort your CDs once and then only look at the respective shelf when you want to listen to Jazz in particular. This is why I think a (more) useful classification is one that helps the user to find and select typefaces and which is structured accordingly.

What happened?

Assigning names to typefaces and classifying them is a rather new occurrence in our 560 years of type. In the beginning, i.e. the first 400 years of typography, typefaces didn’t even have specific names. Foundries and printers called them by their size (which actually were names like “Paragon”, “Great Primer”, “Nonparaille”, not numbers). All type looked more or less the same anyway and was suitable for more or less the same jobs – continuous text. If a printer had more than one version of a roman text face available they gave them different numbers, e.g. “Great Primer Roman No.2”.

Then the industrial revolution happened. And with it the wish for louder and more eye-catching typefaces than regular Bodoni at 24 pt. Plenty of flashy new designs were invented, numerous variations in style and jobbing type were starting to get available. With this, people saw the need to give the novel things terms to communicate about them. But which? Most typefaces weren’t based on historic models where you could derive terminology from.

So type foundries all invented their own, more or less arbitrary designations for their new styles, e.g. “Egyptian” (because everything Egypt was super en vogue after Napoleon came back from his campaign), “Gothic” or “Grotesque” (because that new alien style seemed weird) for sans serif typefaces or “Ionic”, “Doric” and “Antique” for slab serifs. Not only the designs were becoming more individual but also the terminology, resulting in the problem that names were not universally understood anymore. Terms were determined by marketing, not by style or historic roots.

Still, the actual typefaces themselves were not given individual names like today. A foundry rarely had more than two or three “French Clarendons” on offer and an easy solution was to just number them.

Until around 1900 only the slightest to no attempts where made to sort or classify typefaces. Rather it was considered “redundant, impossible or utterly inconvenient”. One of the earliest endeavors was the system proposed by Francis Thibaudeau in 1921. It is solely based on the form of the serifs (as later did Aldo Novarese in 1964), which I regard less ideal, but up until this stage in type history, it admittedly was a characteristic feature picturing the different style periods rather fittingly. [schemes for “Uppercase” and “Lowercase”]

By the mid 20th century, with new type issued weekly, it became increasingly difficult to keep put with the developments and to obtain a working knowledge of the countless variants known. For the first time classification was regarded as a problem and serious efforts were made to establish a systematic approach to sort typefaces and to come up with an international solution.

The Thibaudeau system was developed further by Maximilian Vox (born Samuel William Théodore Monod) who published his version in 1954. Continuing with the same main groups as Thibaudeau, Vox’ unique invention are terms for groups derived from the names of the most iconic printers / examples (Garalde, Didone) or techniques (Manuale).

The Vox-system was – slightly modified – taken over by the ATypI (Association Typographique Internationale) in 1960 and later internationally adopted as a standard. Adapted versions were published by the German DIN in 1964 and as a British Standard in 1967.

The limitations of those systems

An ever growing market for typefaces and countless new variants in style show that the old systems like Vox put too much emphasize on the historical order and the early seriffed typefaces. At the same time they generalize greatly when it comes to sans and slabs. This is understandable when we regard the age they were created in. The popular and influential neo-grotesques of the late 1950s like Helvetica and Univers weren’t even issued back then and the international style – and with it the surge of sans serif type – was just starting to take off.

The original idea of Vox was to enable the combination of different groups and terms, like e.g. to have a Garalde sans serif (= humanist sans). This alas was never really implemented apart from variations in the British Standard and additional explanatory text for the DIN classification. A similarly overlooked detail is that ATypI originally suggested the simple structure to be further subdivided by their members / the different countries to their liking. ATypI also did not define the terminology since this was the point especially hard to agree on. Instead they assigned numbers to each group to allow comparison and the translation of different adaptions.

Unfortunately, those ideas are largely forgotten. In fact now with a fully international market and type community we see that it is exactly the diverse terminology that became a big obstacle. Neither the terms coined by the type foundries nor the ones used in published classification systems are anywhere near being internationally compatible. For example the French call sans-serif faces Antique, the Germans Grotesk, the Americans Gothic which on the other hand is the term for blackletter in European countries.

Unambiguous terminology might now be even more important than a coherent, rational approach to sort typefaces. Because before we even attempt to achieve a classification, we have to be able to communicate about type and letterforms with all parties involved – designers, printers, compositors, students, manufacturers, scholars, engineers and perhaps even laymen.

Two (new) different ideas
There are two different approach of classification which I regard more practical.

1. Classification according to form model

This is an idea based on the writing and letter-theories of Gerrit Noordzij which I first put together after learning calligraphy and typeface design in the Netherlands. It doesn’t follow Noordzij’s terminology exactly but his inspired me in the search for more “generic” terms, not connected to a certain style period, because I found that the historic ones can cause quite some confusion among beginners. What makes a brand new font an Old Style typeface and one from 1790 a Modern? Or what does Humanist, Renaissance and Garalde mean here anyway?

I expanded Noordzij’s theories into a layered system comparable to “bones, flesh and skin”. Most text typefaces can be differentiated according to a small number of basic form models. You could call these the bones or skeletons of a typeface. Those principles of form are largely determined by the former writing tools – e.g. the broad nib or pointed nib – and how the stroke contrast originally came into being.

1. dynamic, humanist form model: forms (contrast and structure) derived from writing with a broad-nib pen. Noordzij calls this type of contrast “translation”.
2. static, rational form model: forms derived from writing with a pointed pen = “expansion”
3. geometric form model: rather drawing the linear skeleton form with a round pen, like in Futura = no contrast

These three models, the underlaying structural principles, are also visible in the letter forms when you reduce the stroke contrast or remove serifs. They determine the impression and the application of a typeface to a very large extent. Of course, a beginning designer doesn’t understand terms like expansion or broad-nib pen any easier than French Renaissance. But what most of us can agree on is the general appearance of character shapes:

1. Writing with a broad-nib, held at a consistent angle, delivers an inclined course of contrast, open apertures and divers stroke width. This gives the letters a dynamic and varied general form and feel (also in the italics and caps, which follow the proportions of the Capitalis).
2. In writing with a pointed pen, the thickness of the stroke is related to the pressure put upon the nib during a downstroke, while other strokes remain thin. The axis is vertical with high but less modulated contrast and rather closed apertures. This gives the letters a more static, stiff impression. The letter forms (e.g. q, p, d, b) and the proportions of the characters are rather similar, especially the width of the caps.
3. the round nib renders linear, more “drawn” looking constructed forms (e.g. circular o) like in Futura or monoline scripts. Caps often follow the classical proportions of Capitalis.

The second level – the flesh – is about the equipment and features applied to the skeleton of a typeface. Those are serifs and stroke contrast, either strongly visible or just a slight contrast to achieve the impression of optical linearity. The actual form of the serifs – triangular, bracketed or straight – is not as determining in my mind as it was for Thibaudeau. One can incorporate these specific differences into the third “layer” of descriptives.

The third, the skin level, gives us the possibility to introduce an infinite number of finer differentiations between the main groups of typefaces to describe even the most singular feature someone could ever look for. Descriptives can address different forms of serifs, like bracketed or straight serifs in the traditional categories of rational serifs, Scotch Modern and Didone, or ornamented ones. Also decorative features like stencil, inline, shadow are possible or terms related to style or application like western, horror, comic or agate, typewriter, low-res are possible. This detailed graduation can also be seen as a collection of tags.

With this set at hand, all kind of typefaces can be easily described by combining the terms of the groups, just like Vox imagined it, too. A Tuscan typeface for example could be characterized as a face with modern skeleton, little stroke-contrast, bi-furcated serifs, western-style, chromatic, poster,decorative, shadow, display and so forth. Okay, this is probably not the unique, dedicated term most of us would like to have at their disposal for typefaces, but they describe the typeface appropriately.

The big advantage I see in this system is that the groups relate to the impression and to some extent also use of the typefaces. It is relatively easy to assign atmospheric keywords to the form models, like warm, open, friendly to the humanist model and rather regular, strict, formal to the rational form model. This helps the selection of typefaces enormously, because the impression and atmosphere you want to achieve is usually what you think of first when you start looking for a typeface. At least I do. Also, it aids combining typefaces as all fonts that stand in one vertical column here combine well and harmoniously, whereas mixing the horizontal neighbors is more tricky. If you are looking for a more contrasting combinations you can pair the typefaces diagonally. So, either stay in one form model or go for lots of difference.

This system was published in German speaking reference books and since then is relatively widely used in Germany. However, it is not flawless and sometimes difficult to adapt for real-life applications. The terminology stays my main construction site. Do people actually understand what is meant by “dynamic” and “static”? The latter was my replacement term for the initial “rational” but right now I tend to get back to this again, because I have a hard time describing a rationalized english roundhead or modern italic as “static”.

Also, one could argue that the problem of any taxonomical approach is, that a typeface can only be “one of those things” even if we think of it more like piles or fraying clusters and less of self-contained drawers. It’s not realistic to say that a typeface can only be serif or sans given the numerous semi-sans and semi-serif examples. In the same way do we know typefaces who happily live in the middle of the humanist and the rational form models. So, where to put those? I’d advocate to place them on the play-board near what determines the feel of the typeface most, even if we give up immaculate grouping for that. An alternative would be to introduce more piles or to find a way to assign a typeface to more than just one group or descriptive, like you can do in a database environment.

One would think that an interactive system solves exactly this problem but actually the adaption for FontShop’s applications was rather tricky. My system works surprisingly well as a simple list, because it brings the chronological order of the first few groups out more clearly. It works okay in a matrix, especially because you can change the axises (form models in horizontal order or vertical) and “enter” it from different sides. But sorting over 7500 typefaces from the FontShop catalog into a customized classification I made for their iPad app was a challenging acid test. The main reason for my problems was the set-up of their database though, which only allowed typefaces to be assigned to one class. This ultimately proved me that the world of type is not as simple (anymore).

2. Micro-Classification or tagging

A possible solution to this problem and another approach I grew very fond of in the last years is the micro-classification you can call tagging. It is at first a non hierarchical approach, which makes it far more flexible and user-centred, often even user generated. You could call it a democratic take on classification. If people subjectively regard this typeface as “holiday” or “girlish”, then why not have them find the typeface with those keywords. The problem with tags added by users though, or also by marketing people, is monitoring. I did this voluntarily for MyFonts in the past extensively (besides tagging typefaces) and was just stunned at times by the silly and ridiculous tags that were occasionally added to fonts.

Tagging of course works more or less only in a (interactive) database environment. The most consequent example for it might be the MyFonts website, but also other type vendors work with a similar system more or less successfully. Here, the browsing or search interface is crucial, as you see in the example of fonts.com with its long, unstructured list of keywords. What is most confusing here – on a page they call “classification” – are keywords like “serif”, “script” or “simplified chinese” next to “scary” on the same level. In my opinion, it would be practical to offer tags in a basic hierarchical order as an entry point to all those different styles of typefaces, different “levels” of keywords. For example displaying “serif” a different level of tag than “holiday”. Speaking to type manufacturers though I got an additional view. Some told me that sales went up significantly after they added more tags, and more informal tags that is. So, what should you do when you see that people find the typefaces they want this way. Should you force educate them, force your classification on everyone if it is maybe not even helpful to them?

However, the biggest issue in an international tag-system is the language, or again, terminology. French users might want to tag or look-up sans-serif typefaces under the term “Antique” while the search brings up a list of decorated slab serifs (see ambiguities mentioned before).

Stepping back

As I am busy with this topic for 14 years now I get really desperate at times. I can understand why my predecessors did not want to continue to bother at some point and why the discussion is preferably avoided at conferences. Although I had intensive experience from teaching and earlier tests, I was hoping to find some new clues in a small research. What are the more “weighty” characteristics? How do people distinguish typefaces?

Well, to cut a long story short, it was not as fruitful as I had hoped and just brought up what I already knew or suspected.

I confronted students and friends of different level of knowledge with a pile of type samples and let them sort those into groups however they wanted. After that I asked them to assign names to their groups. To break you the most disappointing outcome first – this last task did not bring up anything at all. They had a very hard time to name the groups. Students with some knowledge used the existing terminology, blending all systems they know of, i.e. called some dynamic or static, used Vox for other groups or the traditional Anglo-American terminology. The ones who did not have any education in typography were able to describe what they saw and sorted, but couldn’t come up with a single, catchy term. Well – what did I expect. This is not surprising at all.

What was verified is that they separated script or decorated faces from text faces first. Secondly they separated serifs and sans. As a third – and actually more pronouncedly than I thought – they separated typefaces with stroke contrast from linear ones. Even to the extent that some separated fonts that are supposed to look linear, thus with just small optical adjustments, like in Univers or Bureau Grotesque. My guess is that this comes due to the lack of other criteria they had at hand, e.g. not being familiar with the idea of form models for further distinctions. The form model was – not surprisingly – the most advanced, hence most difficult thing to recognize. It is obviously a fact that distinguishing typefaces must be learned.

“Unfortunately, many researchers in type classification become so involved they forget the basic purpose of any attempt to formalize a structure: simple communication.” — Alexander S. Lawson

Conclusion and outlook

The problem with research in any field is that you dive into a subject on such specialized and detailed level that you forget that your distance to the language and knowledge of the normal people gets greater and greater. It helps to step back every now and then and ask the actual user. A classification should help them to find, select and combine typefaces, and not the scholar in the first place. Or at least this is what I find is lacking right now. The historically savvy expert has sophisticated language and methods to describe letterforms of the past and maybe even present. But I, too, sometimes forget that others don’t easily see those differences in typefaces that I can make out in seconds. I want to find a tool that also helps entry-level-users of type to recognize the differences and similarities among typefaces and find clues about their potential use.

My hope is to be able to combine all those different approach of classification into a flexible system that works on several levels of sophistication – for beginners and experts. We cannot abandon all old systems, and even less so, all the different terminology established over the years. We have to come up with a way how to integrate all this into a new scheme and explain it comprehensibly.

My proposal works well with most of the traditional groups of text faces and it follows the historical order in the serif categories. At the same time it is open to new additions to the typographic palette. One can easily incorporate different levels of descriptives: form-model, main formal features (serifs, contrast), and detailed features and associative terms. The third level could work as a user-centric tag collection. In a database environment all those level of descriptives would be assigned as tags anyway, just differently displayed in different user scenarios. Because the main illusion I/we have to give up is to think that a typeface can only be “one thing” – either sans or serif, either Old Style or Modern. Groups of typefaces shouldn’t be pre-filled buckets anymore, but rather a customized set of fonts at my disposal when I select “serif”, “rational” and maybe other key words.

The challenge now is to translate a collection of tags into a versatile visual form that can be used in teaching, talks, and publications, displaying the different levels of descriptives. Maybe the exact visualization can be different every time and adapted to the specific task. But what we need is a basic understanding and common language to know what we are talking about.

Paul Shaw

[Inoffizielle englische Übersetzung in etwa:]

“If there is only one descender and one ascender in two successive lines with little or no leading, there is a 99 percent chance that they clash.”

Additional styles of Alright Sans, Jackson Cavanaugh, Okay Type (MyFonts.com): To complement previously licensed styles and because I wanted to see it pop up on the MyFonts live-sale-map.

Amplitude Italic, Christian Schwartz, Font Bureau (email/contact Font Bureau): To complement previously licensed roman styles for the book Tanzdekade, see below.

Brioni Text, Nikola Djurek, Typotheque (typotheque.com): Because I like it and regard it versatile and a good fit one day.

Elena, Nicole Dotin, Process Type Foundry (processtypefoundry.com): Because I like it and wanted to support Nicole’s long-term efforts.

Equity, Matthew Butterick, MB Type (equityfont.com): Because I like it and find it suitable for future text heavy documents and because I beta-tested it.

Klimax, Ondrej Jób, Typotheque (typotheque.com): It’s just so cool.

Plan Grotesque, Nikola Djurek, Typotheque (typotheque.com): One of, if not the best among all those grotesques popping up everywhere lately, extensive and probably an all-around multi-talent.

Vendetta, John Downer, Emigre (Emigre.com): For our Christmas cards at school and because I always wanted it anyway.

Zamenhof, Castle Type, Castle Type (myfonts.com): I don’t know, it was on sale.

Furthermore I downloaded some free fonts and trial licenses. From Exljbris: Geotica 2012. From FontFont: FF Basic Gothic Regular, FF Sero Medium. From MyFonts: Mimix, Sintesi and Sintesi SemiSans, Cala Light, Corda Light, Erato Light, Lido STF, Novel Sans Demo, Pona Display Demo, Supria Sans Regular and Italic. From OurType: Eva Semibold and Italic, Fayon Semibold and Italic, and six styles from the Meran family. From Type Together: Bree Serif.

The (sad) statistic of usage 2011
Amplitude book, italic, bold italic and wide bold were put to use in the book Tanzdekade about The Donlon Dance Company. I set the photography book The Raw and The Cooked by Peter Bialobrzeski solely in Meran light (remember this fun discussion?). Vendetta medium and italic was featured on the holiday greetings of my school. I wrote one quote and one invoice in Elena and set most of my school notices in Alright Sans. I used none of the others and none of the free or trial-fonts.

Resolution for 2012: Use more type more.

Freitag, 21. September 2000

9:45
Da bin ich also mit meinem Klapproller im alten Konsumgebäude, abgefahren rustikal, mit Shuttelbus vom Museum aus zu erreichen. Begrüßung von Mr. Batty, der ATypI-Chefin, Erik, dem Spiekermann  und zu guter Letzt begrüßt auch SchumacherGebler die Hörerschaft bevor der Lederjackenträger Weidemann die Bühne betritt. Bisher no Inhalt, bad coffee und bereits leichter Kopfschmerz von rechts wegen des frühen Aufstehens.

Ach, ich sollte noch erwähnen, dass ich no guarantee at all für Rechtschreibefehler übernehme, auch wenn dies ein janz klassisches Schulheft ist – schnell noch eben am Bahnhof gekauft um das Protokoll der Delegierten Kupferschmid zu notieren. Oh – ich vertat mich – vor Weidemann kommt jetzt noch mal SchumacherGebler und stellt das Museum vor – Zeit um mich draußen noch etwas umzusehen, das Museum kenne ich ja nun wirklich schon gut. To be continued.

10:40
Oh je, SchuGe redet immer noch. Er findet vor lauter Liebe und Leidenschaft kaum ein Ende. Jetzt gibt es gottseidank Kaffee.

11:15
Er ist ein Deutsch sprechender Deutscher ohne Dias oder Beamer, ich muss angestrengt zu hören, Kurt spricht immer so konzentriert. Ob die armen Ausländer irgend etwas von dem verstehen?

»Wer spät bremst, fährt länger schnell. Auch mal an die Wand. Vielleicht sollte man erst Fahrstunden nehmen.« Ich glaube, ich muss ihm das Manuskript abschwätzen, das kann man kaum zusammenfassen. »Hier ist es wie auf einem Katholikentag – es gehen immer nur die hin, die es nicht nötig haben.« Naja, es war wohl nur die ersten sieben Minuten etwas erneuert, jetzt redet er doch wieder von der Typografie als Selbstzweck und dem Waschmittel, das sich selber wäscht. Wird halt doch alt.

Es klingt alles so deprimierend, aber das ist ja auch nichts neues bei Weidemann, genauso wenig neu wie GGLs Begeisterung für alle neuen spleans. Nur schlägt er heute nicht mehr auf. Carson, der ist längst vergessen, heute sind es die start-ups, die Jungunternehmer, die die nur am Kapital interessiert sind, nicht an den Kapitälchen. Am Ende des Vortrags trat plötzlich der Schluss ein.

12:00
Vor mir Christopher Burke, über die Futura sprechend, den ich Lutz Ihle im Museum [Anmerkung: das Programm verteilte sich auf zwei Schauplätze die leider einen 15 Minuten Fußweg weit auseinander lagen, oder mit dem Shuttelbus erreichbar] vorgezogen habe, aber den sehe ich ja öfter. C.B. jedenfalls spricht über die Futura, Geschichte, Zeichenanalyse und was witzig ist, ist, dass die Futura bei Deberny & Peignot »Europa« hieß. Ansonsten habe ich davon ja schon viel gelesen und die Bilder gesehen in Burkes Buch über die Futura, das 1998 (?) bei Hyphen Press erschienen ist. Es ist aber ja immer lustig, die Menschen dann live zu sehen, die man sich doch oft irgendwie anders vorgestellt hat. Er ist ein sehr streng aussehender Doktor, spricht aber sehr gut, so dass man schön zuhören kann, which I will now continue to do.

Die kursive Futura wurde z.B. von Bauer selbst als »schräge« bezeichnet. Wusste ich nicht. Oder dass die book erst 1932 dazu geschnitten wurde, weil die regular immer als etwas zu fett empfunden wurde. Das r bestand ursprünglich nur aus einem Strich und Kreis, was aber später gegen Renners Präferenz geändert wurde. Steile Futura kam erst Anfang der 50er Jahre und gehört gar nicht mehr recht dazu, viel mehr kalligrafischer Einfluss. Futura wurde auch auf dem Schild verwendet, dass man auf dem Mond aufstellte als wir dort waren (z.B. die Amis). Das hat er vom Enkel von Georg Hartmann erfahren, der die Bauer’sche Gießerei nun in Barcelona weiter betreibt. Cool.

14:07

Es gab Lunch-Plastiktüten gefüllt mit Sandwiches und Obst und Fanta und ich habe mit vor Aufregung rotem Kopf die Zeit genutzt, um Robin Kinross und Jost Hochuli wegen Abbildungen zu fragen, die ich in meinem Buch verwendet habe. Nun, wo es noch mal richtig gedruckt wird. Jetzt fehlt mir nur noch der Noordzij-Clan in persona Matthias, aber den habe ich noch nicht gesehen.

Nun sitze ich im Museum und listening to Andrew Boag, der etwas durcheinander über Monotype spricht. Ich kenne ihn ja schon aus Erzählungen und vom sehen von Fred Smeijers, da er der UK-sales agent für die TEFF-foundry ist. Aber jeder Besuch beim Monotype-Vorführmann im ersten Stock gibt mehr her als dit hier. Jürgen Siebert ist auf der Konsum-Bühne und erzählt über Fun-Fonts.

Ach, ich darf nicht vergessen, bei meinen Hochulibildern die Bildunterschrift zu ändern und ihm ein Exemplar zu schicken. Mann, ist das inzwischen langweilig geworden mit dem Andrew. Oh, eben sehe ich unseren gemeinsamen Freund Bernd, bemerkenswerte Frisur wie immer, Jutta Nachtwey habe ich aber noch nicht gesehen, die wird bestimmt bei Jürgen Siebert drüben sein.

Samstag, 22. September 2000

7:30
Huch, irgendwie habe ich den ganzen Abend unterschlagen. Der ging so: nach Andrew Boag war ich noch mal kurz im Konsum und habe nach den arabischen Schriften geschaut, aber das war eine schreckliche Präsentation. Also bin ich Weidemann hinterher gestiefelt und habe ein bisschen mit ihm geplaudert. Er konnte sich noch gut an unser Treffen in Weimar erinnern, wusste noch alle Details, was er bei uns für Kuchen gegessen hat und dass es ein ziemlich schrottiges Haus war. Oops. Ich wollte ihm noch das Manuskript seines Vortrags abluchsen, aber das hatte er schon Erik S. zum kopieren gegeben und der solle mir doch ein Exemplar mehr machen und eins für den armen Max, den ich schön grüßen soll. Seine Jacke war übrigens gar nicht aus Leder sondern schwarzem, zerkrumpeltem Papier, hat Boss gebastelt.

Dann bin ich zurück in die Nonnenstraße, wo Erik S. seine »Meisterklasse« abhielt. Es wurde zwar leider nichts gezeigt aber lebhaft über die verschiedensten Methoden des Schriftentwurfs diskutiert. Allen voran Jay. Ein Anruf hat mich da dann rausgelockt und ich bin lieber ein bisschen zu meiner Lieblingsmaschine in die Gießerei und habe mit dem Bediener über die eigenartigen Serifen oder abgeschnittenen Serifen Gotisch gesprochen [ich weiss nicht, was ich hier meine].

Unten im Hof ist wieder ein großes Zelt aufgebaut und dort saßen Peter Matthias Noordzij, Erik van Blokland und der ganze niederländische Rest. Ich habe Matthias wegen der TEFF-Schriften in meinem Buch gefragt und das geht in Ordnung. Gerrit muss ich wegen der e-Quadrate allerdings selber fragen, leider. Naja, er hat mir die Adresse gegeben und mit einem Gruß von Hochuli sollte es klappen, meinte dieser. Ha!

Leider stellte ich nach längerem Gespräch am holländischen Stehtisch fest, dass es gar nicht mehr 15:15 war, wie auf meiner Uhr angezeigt, sondern bereits 16:45. Wie kann eine Uhr nur so erschreckend viel nachgehen plötzlich?! Das wäre mir bis zum Bahnhof wohl nie aufgefallen. Na jeden Falls war es damit höchste Zeit um in die HGB zur TDC-Ehrung zu fahren, da hatte ich mich eigentlich für 16:30 verabredet. Aber so schnell kam kein Transferbus, just bis zu dem Moment, wo wir gerade zum laufen ansetzen.

Etwas spät also kamen wir in einen bereits total vollen und stickigen Festsaal und beklatschten den Studenten der HGB für sein TDC-Stipendium und GGL für sein Lebenswerk für Berthold. Paul van der Laan, der neben mir saß erzählte mir unterdessen von dem mehr als seltsamen Ha•••y H•••, der die Reste aller Berthold Schriften gekauft hat und wie sich er arme GGL jetzt gut mit ihm stellen muss, damit er überhaupt was von seinem Lebenswerk hat. Scheisse sowas. Später habe ich auch noch mal mit Just van Rossum und Erik S. darüber gesprochen, aber da scheint nichts zu machen.

Den Rest des Abends, die Auktion, verbrachte ich weintrinkend mit den diversen Holländern im Flur. Just erinnerte mich an ein Lied, das wir in Berlin 1998 gedichtet haben: Kommunikationsfehler – a-ha. Aber das muss langsam und melodiös vorgetragen werden. Er ist als Nachfolger für Hildegard Korger an der HGB im Gespräch und wollte sie kennenlernen, also gingen wir sie suchen, aber sie war irgendwie nicht so gut drauf und ziemlich abweisend zu ihm. Mich empfing sie allerherzlichst und bat mich sogleich, in einem schwierigen Gespräch, das sie gerade mit einem Englisch-sprechenden führte, zu übersetzen. Der arme Just stand etwas begossen und ignoriert daneben. Beleidigt?

Anyway, als alle zum Abendessen aufbrachen bin ich zum Bahnhof und in Weimar noch auf eine Geburtstagsfeier. Keine gute Idee, erst um 2 Uhr schlafen zu gehen, wenn man um 6:30 aufstehen muss, aber ich sitze auf dem sicheren Weg im Zug nach Leipzig. Müde die Augen, warm das Herz.

10:40
Yvonne Schwemer-Scheddin spricht schon seit einer Stunde extrem interessant über Fraktur, absolut druckreif und ich hoffe, wir finden den Text noch mal irgendwo publiziert. Erst gab es einen geschichtlichen Überblick, der alles gut in den Kontext stellte und fast zum Schluss gab es zeitgenössische Beispiele und Missbräuche von Neonazis aber auch andere bildliche Anwendungen. Wirklich ganz beeindruckend. Nun soll eine Diskussion folgen, aber draußen scheint die Sonne und ich habe Durst.

12:00
Wir diskutieren immer noch, bzw. ein paar da vorne sprechen nacheinander und wir sitzen. Gerade ist wiedermal GGL dran, wie immer, leider das gleiche Problem wie bei Weidemann, zuviel ist irgendwann langweilig. Vielleicht sollte ich ins Museum schauen, da soll eine Diskussion über Amerikanische Magazingestaltung sein.

14:32
Man glaubt es nicht, aber jetzt erst ist Erik dran, weil die Frakturdiskussion so ewig ging und dann der Nachfolger auch noch laberte und laberte. In der Zwischenzeit gab es wieder Sandwiches in Tüten und Paul van der Laan hat mir ein bisschen seine Arbeit gezeigt.

Erik zeigt jetzt Schriftmuster, aber hinter die Message bin ich noch nicht gekommen. Jetzt ist die Message das mit den unterschiedlichen Industrienamen der Schriften. Bekanntes Problem, kann aber nicht oft genug gesagt werden. Und jetzt noch ein bisschen Eigenwerbung und schnell noch die VW-Futura von Meta zeigen.

16:15
Inzwischen sind wir so was von zu spät dran auf der Konsumbühne, dass ich nun Ruedi Baur leider nicht mehr sehen konnte und schnell zu James Mosely ins Museum bin. Er zeigt ziemlich tolle Dias von Caslon Schriften, spricht wie ein lieber Märchenonkel und erklärt die Zusammenhänge bis zur Privatpressen-Bewegung mit ihren kräftigen Serifen. Sehr interessant, für nicht-Fans etwas trocken vielleicht. Paul v.d.Laan neben mir hat mit James unterschiedliche Erfahrungen gemacht, sagt er. Ich finde seine Artikel jedenfalls gut und Frau Korger ist hin und weg. Leider versteht sie kein Englisch und hier im Museum gibt es keine Übersetzung. Also muss ich wieder ran und sie hat mich gebeten, dass ich James nach dem Manuskript und seinen Bildern frage – mmmh … Gestern habe ich ja auch die ganze Zeit für sie übersetzt.

17:00
Wir bleiben sitzen, denn Jost Hochuli geht schon nach vorne. Die HGB hat den Gutenberg-Preisträgern eine Schriftenreihe gewidmet und die erste Folge ist für Hochuli. Die haben zwar Studenten konzipiert, aber die Preisträger sollen die Bücher dann eigentlich selbst gestalten. Ist ein sehr schönes, ganz typisches Hochulibuch geworden. Nun ufert die anschließende Diskussion ein bisschen aus. Wir streiten gerade über die verschiedenen Punktsysteme. Naja, ich will lieber noch was von Hochuli hören. Das Buch gibt es bei dem Institut für Buchkunst der HGB.

19:00
Nun ist schon so spät, dass wir von Jays Vortrag im Konsum nur noch den kläglichen Rest Zuhörer sehen. Alle machen sich langsam zu Auerbachs Keller zum Galadinner auf und ich gehe mit den 20 Holländer/Amis irgendwo essen.

22:59
Zug, der letzte, müde. Das mache ich nicht noch mal, dass ich Abends immer nach Hause fahre, ich verpasse die besten Parties.

Sonntag, 23. September 2000

10:40
Mmmuahha – nach zwei superstarken Konsumkaffees kann ich den Bleistift wieder halten. Opentype war um 10, das 2. Dings ist ausgefallen und so stehe ich wieder besser draußen an den Stehtischen, gerade mit Korger und Bruno Steinert. Frau Korger ist unglücklich weil sie eine Schrift bei Adobe gefunden hat, die so ähnlich aussieht, wie ihre von 1972 für den Ostblock-Wettbewerb [Sie meint die Chaparral]. Ach, sie hat’s aber auch nicht leicht, herrje. Wir gehen jetzt zu Robofog mit Just und Erik.

Frau Korger hat nun nach fünf Minuten schon die Kraft verlassen und ist eingeschlafen. Ist aber auch sehr speziell das Thema.

12:30
Die Lunchtüten mit den Papp-Sandwiches werden wieder gebracht, uff. Ich habe Hunger, muss mich aber noch etwas gedulden da Cynthia drinnen noch schwafelt. Ich stehe wieder bei Frau Korger, diesmal mit Erhard Kaiser und sie erzählt wieder ihre Geschichte. Kaiser bietet sich äußerst höflichste an, er würde wohl gerne Frau Korgers Schriften digitalisieren. Sie jedoch ist völlig auf Just van Rossum fixiert, weil er ja an die HGB kommt und dann hat sie für ihn schon etliche Aufgaben …

FOOD, GIVE ME FOOOOOD!

14:30
Ach du je – na also die general assembly ist ja irgendwie nichts für mich, da werden die Vertreter gewählt und so weiter. Wir gehen noch mal ins Museum.

15:10
Da ist nix mehr. Zu. Ende. That was it. Schade. Stadt?

22:59
Heute Nachmittag war ich dann mit Paul bei den Markfesten in der Leipziger Innenstadt und dann noch mit Studenten essen, sehr erschöpfend. Mit einer Gruppe von 40 Leute was zum Essen zu suchen ist einfach erschöpfend. Müde. Weimar. Ausschlafen. Aber schön war’s.

Goal

The aim of a classification of typefaces – however shaped – should be to aid the selection of type and help us, the user of fonts, communicate unambiguously about them.

In the past, most classifications focussed on the history of type and made it difficult to include new developments and design features. Terms based on style periods like “Renaissance”, made up ones like “Garalde” or generalizations such as “Modern” sound strange when used for contemporary typefaces. While looking for appropriate terminology one should also consider possible future developments and additions to the typographic palette.

But the most obvious short-comings of previous systems are the singular group for all kinds of slab- and sans-serif types, regardless of structure. Putting Clarendon and a humanist slab-serif like Caecilia in the same group, or – even more weird – Helvetica and Optima isn’t helpful at all.

A classification should incorporate the obvious similarities in form model across the groups of serif, sans and slabs. This can also include scripts if you understand the origin of the difference in letterforms and and proportions.

How do we select typefaces

Perhaps we can find clues for a helpful classification by looking at the ways we select typefaces. This could not be more subjective or divers though. Type should always fit the purpose and solve a given task. So naturally the first thing to consider is what kind of company/product and what applications (print, screen, display etc.) the typeface is used for.

I usually start by imagining a certain feel that would fit the assignment. Do I want a friendly, approachable and varied impression or rather a more official, regulated, reputable one? The notion we sense by looking at a typeface before or even without actually reading it is mostly determined by the form module, the skeleton of a typeface – whether the aperture is open or closed, the axis of stroke-contrast (if any) is vertical or oblique, the proportions (of the caps) are regular or differing.

At the same time there are implications one has to consider determined by the application and production such as printing process, output device, size, required glyphs, material, environmental conditions.

Designating typefaces according to their – admittedly rather subjective – impression (form model), structure (serifs, stroke-contrast) and other features (numerals, glyphs, alternates) seems the most helpful to me.

How do typefaces differ

Laymen would name the obvious contenders: Serifs and stroke contrast. But when we compare different serif fonts we see, that there seem to be different kind of contrasts

A: one which is modulated between the thin and thick parts, mostly in a way that you could draw an angular line through the thinnest points.

And B: one with rather high, more abruptly changing contrast with a vertical axis. Those two types of contrast have their roots in writing with different kinds of pens, the broad-nib pen and the flexible, split pointed pen.

This results in differences in character shapes that are also visible in typefaces without stroke contrast such as sans and slabs.

How can one incorporate this into a sorting of typefaces

My approach of characterizing typefaces is a bone—flesh—skin approach. Based on the writing and letter-theories of Gerrit Noordzij, one could describe the bones or skeleton of a typeface as what determines the basic shapes and also the feel of a typeface to a very large extend. These general principles of form were initially determined by the writing tool and how the stroke thickness and accompanying contrast came about. But they were also carried over to later “inventions” which are not directly rooted in calligraphy such as slab-serifs and sans-serif typefaces.

The second level – flesh – is about the structural features applied to the skeleton of a typeface such as serifs and stroke contrast.

With these two descriptives you can easily pile up some clusters to differentiate between the most obvious features of a typeface. But one could argue that the problem of a taxonomical approach like this is, that a typeface can only be “one of those things” even if we think of it more like piles or fraying clusters and less of self-contained drawers. It’s not realistic to say that a typeface can only be serif or sans given the numerous semi-sans and semi-serif examples. In the same way do we know typefaces who happily live in the middle of old-style and modern form models. So, where to put those?

I’d advocate to place them on the playboard near what determines the feel of the typeface most, even if we give up immaculate grouping for that. An alternative would be to introduce more piles. I spare this up for the third “layer”.

The skin level gives us the possibility to introduce an infinite number of finer differentiations between the main groups of typefaces to describe even the most singular feature someone could ever look for. Surface features or decor like stencil, inline, shadow; forms of serifs, like bi-furcated, tri-furcated, or the possibly soon to be designed quatro-furcated ones. Also style or application related terms like western, horror, comic or agate, typewriter, low-res are possible. This graduation can also be seen as a collection of tags.

Following this approach a Tuscan typeface for example could be characterized as modern skeleton, with serifs, little stroke-contrast or linear (aka slab), bi-furcated, western, chromatic, poster, decorative, shadow, display and so forth. Um…

What changes must be made to existing systems?

Describing and classifying typefaces according to form model and features does not collide with previous approaches such as Vox, DIN or BS as much as one would assume. Instead I think it is a possibility to unify a lot of existing systems. Most of us can agree on the different kind of “flavours” or features recognizable among typefaces and for many of those there have been groups and terms for a long time and in many different languages. The main problem though is <em>how to call them</em> so we all understand what the other is talking about? We agree on the groups but not on the terminology.

1. Bones – form model

• Humanist/Dynamic, or Old Style, Old Face, Garalde, Renaissance, Chancery, Cancellaresca
In my opinion the differentiation between Venetian and French renaissance is too sublte to justify a seperate “bone”-group, instead they can be distinguished accordingly on the “tag”-level.

• Rational/Static, or Modern, Didone, Classicist, Realist, Rationalist; Egyptienne, Egyptian, Clarendon; Gothic, Grotesque, Grotesk, round hand

•  Geometric, or constructed, circular, rectrangular, squarish, modernist

• Decorative, for playful display fonts too individual for text sizes and typefaces that don’t follow any traditional form model.

Transitional serif typefaces can be attached to the cluster that suite them most – Jenson more to the humanist, Baskerville to the rational; Eurostile and DIN to the rational or geometric. Alternatively one could add another form model between humanist and rational for transitional and American gothic sans-serifs, eg. names Realist.

2. Flesh – structural features

• serif/sans-serif

• stroke-contrast/linear (or little contrast)

• cursive (script)

3. Skin – individual, qualitative features (tags)

Finer descriptives of characteristics and details, like.

• monospaced

• venetian

• spurless

• median decoration

• neo-grotesque …

Read short definitions of the groups in a following post.

Specimen for Helvetica Compressed by Mergenthaler Linotype

Monotype Newsletter 92 on the occasion of Helvetica being licensed for Monotype’s hot-metal and photo composition machines, 1972