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.

The Luc-trick – a new sketching technique for everyone

The Luc-trick allows you to transfer a copied image to another surface. In the process of photocopying (xerographic image transfer) the reflected light of the original renders a light-sensitive “master” partially statically charged. On these areas the powder (toner) is attracted and then transferred onto a sheet of paper. This sheet runs through a heating element which melts the powder together into a waterproof plastic layer.

Now the Luc-trick. Take a good copy. Preferably use a copier with precisely controllable light/dark adjustment. Use waterproof tape or adhesive plastic. The so-called “invisible” tape is perfect in every respect. Rub the tape firmly, turn the assembly over and make the paper wet, for example with coffee or spit. Rub with a folding bone across the paper so that it gets soaked more quickly. When the paper is wet enough, you can see the image shine through the paper. Now carefully remove the paper in its entirety or rolling. Related to the grain of the paper you should rub in two directions. There may remain a few fibers on the toner. The image (even very small print) is now neatly transferred onto the tape. Dry the tape (hair dryer) so it becomes sticky again and you can see if there is too much paper left on the piece that you need. You can now retouch the image if necessary.

Schæffer ink has about the same color as the toner or you can scrape off some with a knife. The image now seems relatively transparent, but when you paste it again it will mask quite well. Now you can stick the tape with the image on almost any surface. Very useful for sketching on packaging, when using colored and heavy paper and so on. For matte surfaces use matte tape, naturally; Cellux does not work, Scotch I does, II doesn’t. For glossy surfaces use Cristal Clear.

Color overlay with the Luc-trick
Take a photograph or other images, the more graphic the better e.g. with a coarse, magnified grain. Make a copy of it in one color. Luc-trick it and finish your overlay. Large areas covered with toner, for example white on black text, might leave too little free adhesive tape to paste it up well. A little spray adhesive provides a solution.

Forming an image
An additional, free invention is that the Luc-trick-ed tape is quite malleable at higher temperatures with a little skillfulness. Use fire, heater, iron or hair dryer. You can create nice image variations that are barely conceivable with computers even.

Modifying letters with the Luc-trick
Lay a grid over the letters to control the degree of distortion. Paste adhesive plastic strips on a good copy and remove the paper (Luc-trick). Now glue a strip of letters to a short comb (?) onto a solid and lined surface. Then with a hot hair dryer warming the tape, extend and affix it further. A piece of cardboard will prevent the pasted areas from getting loose again. If you want to italicize, use a diagonal grid for pasting. Make a copy of your work and adjust it, or repeat the trick.

De Luc-truc – een nieuwe schetstechniek voor iedereen

De Luc-truc maakt het mogelijk een gekopieerd beeld naar een andere ondergrond over te brengen. Bij fotokopieren (xerografische beeldoverdracht) maakt het van het origineel teruggekaatste licht een lichtgevoelige ‘master’ plaatselijk statisch geladen. Op die plaatsen trekt de master het poeder (toner) aan en zet dat vervolgens op een vel papier over. Dit vel gaat door een verhittingselement waar het poeder samensmelt tot een plastic watervast laagje.

Nu de Luc-truc. Neem een goede kopie. Gebruik bij voorkeur een kopieerapparaat met nauwkeurig regelbare licht/donkerafstelling. Gebruik watervast plakband of plakplastic. Het zogenaamde ‘onzichtbare’ plakband is in alle opzichte ideaal. Wrijf de tape stevig aan, draai het geheel om en maak het papier nat met bijvoorbeeld koffie of spuug. Wrijf met een vouwbeen over het papier, dan raakt het vlugger doorweekt. Als het papier nat genoeg is zie je het beeld door het papier heen schijnen. Verwijder nu het papier, voorzichtig in z’n geheel of rollend. In verband met de looprichting van het papier moet je in twee richtingen wrijven. Er mogen wel een paar vezeltjes aan de toner blijven zitten. Het beeld (zelfs hele kleine lettertjes) blijft nu netjes op de tape achter. Even drogen (föhn), dan wordt de lijmlaag weer klevend en zie je of er nog teveel papier is achtergebleven op het stukje dat je nodig hebt. Je kan als dat nodig is het beeld nu retoucheren.

Schæffer inkt heeft ongeveer dezelfde kleur als de toner en met een mesje kun je nog wat weg schrappen. Het beeld lijkt nu vrij transparant, maar als je het weer opplakt dekt het goed. Nu kan je de tape met beeld op bijna elke gewenste ondergrond plakken. Erg handig bij het schetsen op verpakkingen, bij het gebruik van gekleurde en zware papiersoorten, enzovoorts. Voor matte ondergronden gebruik je natuurlijk matte tape; cellux werkt niet, scotch I wel, II niet. Voor glanzende oppervlakten gebruik je cristal clear.

Een kleuroverlay met de Luc-truc
Neem een foto of ander beeldmateriaal. Hoe grafischer hoe beter, bij voorbeeld een uitvergrote grove korrel. Maak hiervan een kleurenkopie in een kleur. Luc-trucen en klaar is je overlay. Bij grote tonervlakken, zoals diapositieve tekst, blijft er misschien te weinig vrij plakband over om het nog goed te laten plakken. Een beetje spuitlijm biedt dan uitkomst.

Vervormen van een beeld
Een extra, gratis uitvinding is dat het ge-Luc-tructe plakband bij hogere temperaturen met een beetje handigheid flink vervormbaar is. Gebruik hiervoor vuur, verwarming, strijkbout of föhn. Je kunt leuke beeldvariaties maken die zelfs met een computer nauwelijks denkbaar zijn.

Het modificeren van letters met de Luc-truc
Zet, om de mate van vervorming te kunnen beheersen, over de letters een grid. Plak vervolgens op een mooie kopie hiervan stroken plakplastic en verwijder het papier (Luc-truc). Plak nu een strook met letters aan een korte kam vast op een stevige gelinieerde ondergrond. Dan met een hete föhn erbij al uittrekkende het plastic verder opplakken. Een stukje karton zorgt ervoor dat het opgeplakte gedeelte door de hete lucht niet weer loslaat. Als je wilt cursiveren plaats je het grid schuin, in de rekrichting. Maak een kopietje van je plaksel en werk het bij, of herhaal de truc.

Dutch text by Lucas de Groot. Translation into English by Indra Kupferschmid (please excuse any clumsiness)
From: Letters] & techniek, Werkgroep letters], KABK 1990, p. 43–45

Tinkering with the wheel alignment of a car that might turn out not to have an engine seems pointless, especially if you haven’t even decided where it is to which you wish to drive.

This actually fits all design processes. No, life in general.

“When licensing fonts do you usually buy a whole family, or just select weights? I’m thinking especially in the case of some ••• supermegadeluxx families, I just can never afford to buy the whole family, yet normally my preference is to, thus I don’t buy those huge families but smaller ones.”

I hardly ever get whole families. First because of price, yes, but also because I never need so many styles. Sometimes so vast a choice rather confuses me than helps selecting fonts. It’s also kind of a great exercise for typographers to try get by with as few styles as possible, at least that’s what I love to challenge me with. In the case of ••• it’s also super customer friendly because you get reduction in price per total number of fonts in a purchase, regardless from which family (see my blog post from last Dezember for details). So the price of a single font drops from 40 to 30 $ pretty fast.

Start with a number you can afford, carefully pick styles and see how far you get with those. You can always come back and buy additional fonts later. Also, there are so many ways to emphasize or distinguish in typography apart from changing the weight or style, plus you can combine fonts too of course. So my advice is: get some 2–4 styles of a timeless workhorse (e.g. Miller, Starling, Amplitude, Benton, Titling, Salvo) and add some spice with an occasional display style or wacky font.

Although I’m not happy with the general design and admin, I feel a great pull to revisit persitantly. To look at IbisRE, my wonderful loan from webtype. This will continue for at least 29 more days. After that I’ll have to make do with visiting FontBureau’s website every now and then, which uses Ibis for all body copy (apart from the news section) since shortly as well. Anymore sites you know of? Send them my way (or, even better, donate an obolus for the yearly webtype-fee so Ibis and me don’t have to part in the first place).

Apropos Backe: irgendwie habe ich im Moment kein rechtes Händchen fürs Schreiben über Schriftdinge, zumindest nicht auf Englisch. Das führte letztens immer nur zu Missverständnissen. Vielleicht hat es auch etwas mit grundlegenden kulturellen Unterschieden in Diskursdingen zu tun. Jedenfalls scheint mir Deutsch gerade bisschen weniger Minenfeld.

.

Okay Type:
They (Jackson and his cat) have some really super fonts in the making, but only Alright Sans is ready for licensing yet. I had kept track of this interesting amalgam of a sans for quite some time already as it gets mentioned almost every day on typophile. Not purely humanist in style and proportions it combines open forms with the regularities of a classic grotesque and daring slanted a’s and g’s as alts in the italic. Makes me think of good ol’ Syntax and the Ideal Italic again.
Due to my (meanwhile) mission to get as many different families as possible, I just boughts five single weights at MyFonts because one can only get the whole family on Okay Type’s website. (Why?)

Exljbris:
Now while I was there I did what probably everybody does at MyFonts from time to time—getting a couple of free fonts. Not many of them are suitable for professional design work, but in my opinion the typefaces by Jos Buivenga are. I got some complementary styles to the free version of Calluna, a versatile text face (and since Christmas joined by a sans to become a super-family) plus the flamboyant conceptional experiment that is Geotica—a high-contrast Didone only built up of geometric elements. The different fills, swashes and ornaments make it an exciting display venture.

.

The Asset:
All those typefaces hopefully complement the ones I got earlier this year:

Eames Century Gothic* Modern: I just had to order immediately, it simply is the impersonation of Erik van Blokland. One can dive deep into the individual shapes for days, the display styles make instant logos (beware, not allowed in basic license), the ornaments and numeral fonts are a playful plus. So enjoyable.

Hard to avoid the typefoundry Bold Monday this year, especially Nitty, which is surprisingly comfortable to type text in and Panno by Pieter van Rosmalen. I started out with the friendly priced sampler and got the full family of Paul van der Laan’s humanist sans Flex later.

Half way through my shopping spree Commercial Type, or rather Christian Schwartz announced the release of Neue Haas Grotesk to be near. Halleluja! Ever since working on the Helvetica Forever project I wished for that to happen. (We actually wanted to type-set the book in this newly digitized version back in 2007, but somehow either it wasn’t ready by that time or they didn’t manage to sort out the legal issues, so we ended up with Neue Helvetica.) I have no idea whether I’d ever use neue Neue Haas Grotesk, it’s just so tempting to get and be it only to show the world how Helvetica was meant to look like. But—maybe later.

Because all of a sudden the tide was turning: the notice of some unexpected debits abrupty shrunk my font-budget by almost 50% (now ~1500 €). But there was still so much left in my FontShop, A2 and MyFonts Carts :/
So these, among others, are typefaces I unfortunately had to skip (I should make a shortlist of nearly-bought fonts at some point):

Freight Micro, Text and Display I’m in love with this extensive super family by Joshua Darden/Garage Fonts for quite some time now. Especially the Micro (Italic) styles have great display qualities, too, although originally designed for extra small text.

Hercules, a quirky Modern/Scotch by František Štorm and also his
Farao, a playful take on the Clarendon genre. I like most of his typefaces although you realise some similarities after a while (the a’s e.g. are typical), but that is the case with other great type designers, too, like Gerard Unger or Fred Smeijers (his g’s and ß’s).

Lavigne got postponed as well, a dulcet text face by Ramiro Espinoza with great ampersand and complementing display styles for even more lavish demeanor.

Relato by Eduardo Manso attracted me with its distinct cursive. The rather low-contrast makes it a designated book face suitable for long-distance reading.

Iowan Old Style by John Downer, a calm, no-fuss text typeface, quite atypical for him actually.

Grot 10 from newly formed foundry A2. I especially like the true italics, which are still rather unusual for an “old-style” grotesque. There have been a lot of these kind of revivals popping up lately, like Plan by Typotheque, Fakt from Ourtype, Embarcadero by Mark van Bronkhorst or the recently expanded Founders Grotesque from Klim, to mention a few. Type expert Stephen Coles even names 2010 the year of the Helvetica replacements.

On that note, let me put you off until the third and final installment with some more shopping-occurrences, my final receipt and conclusion.

As kind of a warm-up I ordered a couple of books and studio-material — easy — followed by some software, but I figured investing in fonts would be a lot less age sensitive and a more sustainable way to spend the remaining rest of this non-recurring source of capital. But what to pick?
I have a good overview and dialog with German and neighbouring European foundries, the classic Adobe Font Folio and ancient URW collection but what was kind of missing were the more independent anglo-american contributions of the past years.

so

So I started my stroll — at Font Bureau. I love them for their varied collection of part vernacular, part sophisticated typefaces, a lot with display styles available, and webfonts of course (but better avoid the “wacky” section).
My cart filled quickly, felt a bit like the old game »Ich packe meinen Koffer und nehme mit …«:

Amplitude: Because I fell in love with the triangular opening at the base of the a. A big fat wide compressed family presumably suitable for almost everything. Not too gruff, yet not too friendly (I got a bit tired of all those numerous humanist sans recently).

Farnham Text + Display: The a again, it won me over ever since I first saw it. I’m into baroque, Baskerville-ish typefaces for quite a while now and Farnham is a very amicable interpretation of the theme. I buy my daily Frankfurter Rundschau just because of this.

Giza: Yeah! Who can resist Nine Five? Now to find the right occasion to use and not only look at it.

Ibis Text + Display: “Very small and very big” are probably the best applications for Ibis. It resembles the feel of Zapf’s Melior and other squarish, almost-slab-seriffed 1950s typefaces I like a lot. Didn’t use it up to now, but Ibis does an amazing job as a webfont, especially on windows. Bold italic!

Meno: An irresistable cursive, like a bacchanal exaggeration of Galliard. Probably tricky to typeset but I definitely want to take the challenge and spend some time with her one day.

Miller Text + Display: Hard to go wrong with Miller, one of my all-time favourites. A versatile workhorse for tons of text with crispy, sexy display styles. Yum!

Prensa: As an admirer of Dwiggins one simply has to love Prensa (and Delicato and Enigma). Edgy, hardheaded, yet very legible and with great display qualities, too. Once again: bold italic!

Skilt Gothic: A better replica, derived from 1920s Danish signage lettering, this new release is a good alternative to DIN or when you want to say “industrial and undesigned”. Cool g and y, both one- and two-storey a’s and lots of other OT goodies (yeah, still rare but finally pro/premium OpenType arrived at Font Bureau, too).

Titling Gothic: Incredible, huge Grotesque families are FB’s specialty, so choosing a sans and picking styles from their ample palette was extra hard. I went for Titling Gothic because it somehow stands in the middle between the eccentric Bureau Grot and the more sane Benton Sans and Franklin. I would have liked Boomer Sans, too, but that sounded difficult to license.

Trilby: Well, what to do with Trilby, posters probably. It’s just so damn cool.

Whitman: I have to admit, it’s not my favourite but it seemed an expedient investment. Maybe it’s the a (again, they are my acid test), or that it is so perfectly balanced, but Whitman is a good alternative for Joanna, often described as a difficult diva. Or Scala.

Zocalo Text + Display: It definitely is the a! Freakish italics, cantilevered serifs in the caps, very readable in text, quirky at display sizes, simply a joy to look at.
so

I didn’t select all those typefaces at once. But after putting like 10 fonts in the cart I noticed a significant drop in price, even though I didn’t get the full families but only individual weights. From 40$ in the beginning the price per font decreased to 35, 30 and finally 25$ only. That’s awesome! And dangerous.
From then on I was lost. I forced myself to take a break, shopped at some other manufacturers and wholesalers and decided to fill my parked FB-cart with as many fonts as possible at the end of my trip.

so

Stop 2: Hoefler & Frere-Jones
They make very good, downright perfect typefaces, no doubt. I like them, really. But somehow everybody loves HFJ and regard them as the authority in quality fonts — it doesn’t make me want to use their typefaces so much anymore. Everybody else is using them already.

so

Stop 3: Process Type
Right on time the nasty* guys at Process Type announced a 25%-off christmas sale. Not easy to keep me from buying something with a wallet so loosely in my pocket. I got Locator, a versatile, uncluttered Sans with cool Q, J and l (a bit like in Neuzeit) and freaky Maple because I couldn’t resist the g and e, r and a are so cheerful in bigger sizes.

so

Intermezzo:
As mentioned earlier I mainly roamed through the collection of the smaller independent foundries and I have to admit “evil”* MyFonts came in really handy during my expedition. I’d rather spend my money directly on the foundry’s site but it can get quite tedious to look up all of them individually, creating an account, providing payment info etc. So I lazily filled my cart at this central market place. Besides MyFonts’ search, mark, save, rate, tag and easy-use test-facilities are just super practical (plus some foundries don’t even sell their fonts on their sites).

While browsing some “new-and-noteables” I went astray and came across an ancient all-time-favourite of mine — and simply melted away confronted with its light italic: Bitstream’s Schadow by Georg Trump, one of my favourite designers anyway. Look at the g!

so

End of day 1. To be continued with some okay type, more hands-on shopping experiences, my in- and out-takes, reciept and conclusion.

so

Typography can look like lettering (Liza Pro, fancy OpenType fonts) but it’s not the same. It can even look like writing (formal scripts or handwriting fonts like FF Mister K), where the major parts of the letter or whole words are formed out of one stroke. In the same way lettering can look like typography (rub-down letters, fine rendering) or writing and still has nothing to do with those techniques.

The key nature of typography is that it makes use of prefabricated glyphs which are set according to abstract parameters. If you send a setting instructions like the following to someone at the other end of the world, he will be able to reproduce the exact same column of text, typographically, but never with one of the other methods.

Typographic parameters are font, size, leading, alignment (justified or ragged), tracking, kerning, line length like for example in:
ITC Garamond light, 14/18 pt, flush left, no hyphenation, tracking 0, line length 140 mm, paragraphs indented by 1 em.

Not only Ruder but also reading Hochuli is very recommendable.

I think I am a scroll person.

During my first week of ipadding I found myself mostly holding it in both hands, left and right thumbs on the black margin. Easiest appropriate navigation is scrolling with one thumb during reading (focus of attention roughly in the middle of the screen), occasionally tabbing top left to go back somewhere.

What I like best so far are all kinds of navigation that don’t require my hands to leave the device. This might be different when the ipad is laying on my lap. But also then I mostly have my hands resting next to it.

Tabbing somewhere down right to get to the next page in a paginated layout is comfortable as well. But a bigger gesture like swiping with two fingers would call my hands to lift and perform a greater movement than just lazy scrolling.

Well, no unbearable demand, but the process and comfort of reading is influenced by lazyness to a very large extent.