Hasta La Ideas

For graphic designers beginning to experiment in type design, a geometric or modular typeface is a natural starting point. Illustrator and other programs offer a simple collection of elements such as circles, squares, and triangles which can be combined to create a passable alphabet. This is the same route I took when dissatisfied with the limits of commercial fonts at the time. I twisted and distorted each character to fit into a few simple, incredibly strict rules of construction. Invariably this produced a wide range of exotic letterforms, some more legible that others.

The intention of creating an entire alphabet from a few shapes is a design challenge — problem solving at its purest. For those with minimalist tendencies, the temptation is to strip away all the decoration and produce a simpler form. With software such as FontStruct and Font Constructor — which allow the user to quickly assemble a font from a set of geometric elements — this approach is now easier and more accessible than ever.

Luckily for those who make a career from type design, the Latin alphabet is not simply a collection of modular elements. A purely geometric solution in a short passage of text, with a certain combination of characters, may work, but once set in several lines of text the faults are much easier to spot. A typeface composed of strict geometric rules can lose subtle details and relationships between white space and stroke widths that have developed over centuries. Quirky characters that look great in isolation can snag the eye when repeated in a block of text.

Attempting to apply exactly the same set of rules to each letter is similar to handing out the same size clothes to a random selection of adults. Some will have excess baggy sleeves, others will be skin tight, and some will barely squeeze over their heads. To solve this problem the pattern has to be adjusted for each character, without losing sight of the overall design. As you make adjustments to the new characters, these changes echo back through the letterforms already designed. For example, if you started drawing a font created from a simple set of circles and lines, this may work perfectly for ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, ‘d’, ‘e’, but then throw in a ‘v’ or ‘z’, or even an ‘s’, and you meet a dilemma. Should the letter be squeezed into the current template or adjust the template for the new letters? It’s best to start with a group frequently used within the English language such as ‘a’, ‘d’, ‘e’, ‘i’, ‘n’, ‘p’ and ‘s’, and later try diagonals such as a ‘v’ or ‘x’ to test the design.

This is not an argument against all geometric or modular typefaces, but simply some guidance on how to make them more readable, work effectively and be visually consistent.

Balance

This is an example of a typeface created some years ago, based on a very strict grid of squares and circles. Many characters look quite presentable, but these few look particularly top heavy. Both counters of the ‘8’ are identical in size, but optically the top looks bigger. The ‘5’ has a squared-off counter on the top half, which creates larger area of white space than the bottom — making it look ridiculously unstable.

Widths

By cutting and pasting modular elements it’s common to make many characters the same width, but this creates widely different white spaces inside each character. Take the ‘b’ and ‘h’ for example — the squared-off counter of the h makes it appear much larger than the ‘b’s.

The Joins

At the point where two strokes meet or cross each other, the join is liable to “clog up”. A typical example above, shows a circle attached to a vertical line to create a ‘b’. A heavy area appears where the curve tries to pull away from the straight. By trimming a little from the inside, it pushes the curve down in the right direction.

The ‘S’

The ‘S’ is a difficult character to get right, it relies on a careful balance of two open counters both horizontally and vertically. The classic “cut and shut” technique of pushing two semi-circles together leaves a tell-tale kink in the middle. This meeting point has to carefully smoothed out to give the impression of one long stroke.

Stroke Widths

The horizontal and vertical strokes should not be the same thickness. If they are, the horizontal strokes will look heavier. An example above shows how a visually monolinear typeface such as Futura, has subtle adjustments to the horizontal strokes to make them appear even.

Overshoot

Unfortunately, lining up straight and curved edges using guidelines does not work. In the above example, the circle is the same height as the two squares, but appears to be significantly smaller. To compensate for this optical illusion, the curve needs to increase in size so it seems level with the horizontal lines.

Spacing

Spacing can be a huge challenge to those new to type design, and only gets easier with practice. The example above shows rounded and straight shapes, all equally spaced apart. However, the two squares appear much closer than the two rounded shapes. By adding extra space to the straight edges and less to the curved shapes a good balance can eventually be achieved.

These examples are only an outline of the issues you will face when designing type, but will draw your attention to the most common mistakes. A strict set of rules at the beginning can produce some very interesting ideas, but they need to be flexible. This will not only to make your type work better, but will help differentiate yours from the others being churned out every day. The simplest rule to remember is: trust your eye more than the grid.

Ian Moore works as a full-time graphic designer and in his spare time as a type designer for The Colour Grey. This is an updated version of an article originally posted on Design Assembly. It’s been re-edited and expanded for Typographica.

Thanks to our sponsor, PsPrint.com, who has great deals on brochure printing at excellent prices.

“How do you know you should start a blog? Because people keep telling you to shut up. You just won’t shut up about a subject.” — Merlin Mann, SXSW Interactive 2009

“Obsession times voice” is what luminary bloggers Merlin Mann and John Gruber offer as a simple formula for successful writing. It’s exactly these qualities that Joshua Lurie-Terrell hurled at the burgeoning bloggernet on May 1, 2002 when he opened an account on blogspot.com and called it Typographica. I asked JLT to recount those olden days:

Back when blogs were a “new thing”, I wanted to experiment with this new mode of publishing. I didn’t have much to say about my personal life — and I still don’t — but I was interested in meeting other folks who shared my primary interests: letterpress printing, typography, and the Arts & Crafts design aesthetic. Thus, Typographica was born. Being that there was a bit of a void in the medium for the first two subjects1 — there were mailing lists and a few newsgroups, but nothing really accessible — it quickly became much more popular than I had expected, and even more quickly put me in touch with dozens of interesting people working in these fields, many of whom have become good friends.

In his carefree, gung-ho way, JLT liberally bestowed author accounts on those he respected in the realm of typography and encouraged them to post whatever they wanted on the site. News and discussion sparked quickly. Smart, opinionated folks from all corners of the type world contributed to what became an bustling throng of obsessive voices.

The site design, a judiciously modified Blogger template, was hardly touched for nearly seven years. Georgia, Verdana, blue, orange, and the rotating nameplate served the site remarkably well through many internet-wide design phases, from Web 1.5 to 2.0. In fact, Typographica trudged ahead at a steady pace for most of its lifespan, aside from a minor bump in the Canadian highway.

But sometime in 2006 site activity slowed to a cold maple syrup drip. JLT had moved on to his other ventures, most notably Hewn & Hammered. And I somehow landed in a desk at FontShop in San Francisco, where writing about type and playing with fonts became a full-time gig.

It wasn’t just that our attention was diverted — other type bloggers took the reins and did it better, more beautifully and comprehensively, with more brains, more fervor, and more expertise. And, of course, there’s really no reason to go anywhere else to discuss type with knowledgeable peers than Typophile.

This new typoblogosphere calls for a new Typographica. It’s clear that what the type world needs now is not another blog. No, what’s missing is what keeps readers coming back to the site every year, despite our relative silence: informed reviews. The accessibility of type design tools and distribution is yielding hundreds of new font releases every month. Most of them are rubbish. Some of them are good. And a select few are worthy of your money (or your client’s). Our annual Favorites are dedicated to that last group. And now, thanks to a new website facilitated by the WordPress wizardry and design dexterity of Chris Hamamoto, Typographica has a new mission as a vehicle for typeface recommendations and reviews.

The move is still underway — some of the legacy odds and ends are missing or malformed. So until we feel comfortable in our new home, the original location will remain open. But all new content will live here. We hope you enjoy the new format and welcome your comments (as long as your name isn’t Joe Clark2).

A final word from our founder:

I’m especially glad that Typographica found its real focus — the art, craft, and business of typography and type design — and that Stephen Coles was the one who was there to pick up and run with it. He has become one of my closest friends, and it would never have been as successful as it has been without him.

Thank you, JLT. We’ll do our best to stay obsessed.

Joshua Lurie-Terrell and Stephen Coles at a crossroads. Photo courtesy Adam Twardoch.

Special thanks to the brilliant Matthew Bardram and Patric King for their assistance in the early years; to Graham Hicks for crafting a beautiful blog design that never saw the light of day due to my change of plans; to Nick Sherman for his deceptively simple favicon and for tying up a lot of loose ends this week; to Chris for his countless hours and endless patience with my waffling and tweaking; and to all the contributors whose writing and camaraderie made this journey such a joy from the beginning — your accounts are still open.

1. Notable exceptions were Lines & Splines (lost to the abyss) and Typographer.org (still kickin’), but both were single-author blogs.

2. This is a joke.

Hear more about Typographica’s early history from Joshua and myself on Typeradio, recorded at TypeCon San Francisco in July 2004.