Showing posts with label typography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label typography. Show all posts

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Typographic Pet Peeve #3: Inch Marks and Foot Marks and Apostrophes and Quotes (Oh My!)

Today's post (compared to post #1 and post #2 in this series) will be short and to the point. It has to do with the differences between (and the correct usage of) inch marks, foot marks, quote marks and apostrophes.

So here are the basics...
Quote marks and apostrophes are curved. Inch marks and foot marks are not.



Again, AS ALWAYS!, it comes down to the fact that the computer thinks it's smarter than you, and "smart" quotes are only as smart as the person typing.

If you leave smart quotes "on" in your software, then every time you type a measurement, it looks like this...



If you leave smart quotes "off" in your software, then every time you type a quote or apostrophy, it looks like this...



Now, I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to online things (e.g., this blog), I use the default marks (" and ') instead of the more proper marks ( “, ” and ’), because hand-adjusting the html code with the proper ascii codes is a pain in the ass. But I think people are generally forgiving of this. However, when it comes to layout, I do not tread lightly when it comes to the differences between the marks. In fact, on one proofing review of the Creature Compendium (print copies of which are now on sale for 20% off at Lulu.com), I did nothing more than check the foot marks, inch marks, quotes and apostrophes for proper formatting (yes... one entire round of proofing just to check those marks).

BE IT KNOWN THAT NOT ALL FONTS INCLUDE PROPER QUOTE MARKS AND APOSTROPHES! In these instances (usually for the title type of a book), I will try to find the visually-closest font that includes them, and just change the typesetting for those individual characters in the title type. And if I can't find anything usable, I create the type element as a standalone image (e.g., in Adobe Illustrator), then use the comma from the typeface and move it, copy it and rotate it as necessary to make the type work. That may sound like a lot of effort, but it's these little things that make the difference between "average" and "superior" graphic design (and prove how much/how little the designer cares).

So that's it. And before you start asking "How do I turn smart quotes off and on?"... here are some resources for you.



Key combo for proper (curly) quotes on mac (assuming smart quotes are off):
  • for left/open quote: Option-[
  • for right/close quote: Option-Shift-[
  • for left/open single quote: Option-]
  • for apostrophe/right single/close quote: Option-Shift-]
There is no key command for foot and inch marks on Mac. You will need to make sure smart quotes are off to type these.



Turning smart quotes off/on in Adobe InDesign >>

Turning smart quotes off/on in Adobe InDesign (Scroll down to "Use Smart Punctuation")

If you want to know how to turn smart quotes off and on in Photoshop, you won't get any help from me. Photoshop shouldn't be used for type. (Sorry. That's one of those places where I won't back down on my design snobbery.)



Changing quotation mark format in Microsoft Office Products >>


Sunday, July 10, 2016

Typographic Pet Peeve #2: Default (and/or Bad) Letterspacing/Kerning

In the first of this series of "Typographic Pet Peeves," I addressed the issues associated with leaving leading (pron. "ledding") on automatic, particularly when using connected type elements of different sizes. Today's post is concerned with the spacing among and between letters (BTW, those are 2 different things as you'll see below), particularly as related to "bad" typefaces (something I addressed way back in a post titled "Some good examples of bad type."



For the sake of today's discussion, we're going to need to make sure everybody is familiar with two different type terms, and the difference between them: 1) letterspacing and 2)kerning.
Letter-spacing (a.k.a. tracking) refers to the amount of space between a group of letters to affect the overall density and texture in a line or block of text.

Kerning, on the other hand, applies specifically to the spacing adjustment of two particular characters to correct for visually uneven spacing (i.e., a "kerning pair").


For my visual examples today, I'll be using another mockup for a non-existent retro-clone, using the title type ("Simple Fantasy") and attacking a series of issues (and insights) one-by-one. Unfortunately, a lot of the factors we'll be discussing today are not controllable in programs like MS Word (which I should remind everyone is a word processing program, NOT a layout program, regardless of what Microsoft tries to sell you). However, all the main Adobe Products (Illustrator, InDesign and Photoshop) do give you the control necessary (though Photoshop is clunky for this, since it is also NOT a layout program).

Formatting type in Illustrator: https://helpx.adobe.com/illustrator/using/formatting-type.html
Formatting type in InDesign: https://helpx.adobe.com/indesign/using/formatting-text.html



At first glance, there's nothing really glaringly bad about this title type... and that's the pitfall! Like Peeve Post #1, the issues are going to come down to the fact that the computer does a lot of things automatically for you, and takes the responsibility for how good, bad, or average, your type looks. As this post progresses, and you see all the things you CAN control, you'll see how we can take a header with "average" visual presence and "strengthen" it.

So let's review the basics of this title type:

Typeface: Goudy Text MT
Point Size: 64 pt.
Kerning: Metrics (usu. the default)
Tracking: 0 (zero)


Now that we've got the "control group" set up, let's move to our first topic...



KERNING

I have always been a huge proponent of the idea that the FIRST thing you should change in the type dialog box (for headlines OR body copy) is the kerning setting. There are a couple of exceptions:
a) connecting script fonts (if you change the setting to "optical" for these kinds of fonts, the script lines won't "connect" properly; I plan an entire Type Pet Peeve post on this topic alone)

b) types that are intentionally meant to be monospaced, and the use requires them to be such (e.g., when character count per line is important, like in writing screenplays)

In this example (#2), the kerning setting is set to "optical" (it is set to "metric" in #1). You may not see much difference because it's subtle. But it IS there. Look at the spacing around the "l" in "Simple"; you'll see how it's a little narrower in #2 than #1. Optical spacing tends to "even out" the spacing between each of the kerning pairs (every 2-letter set in the headline is a kerning pair... "Si", "im", "mp" et al.)

Now that we've taken a look at that, let's move on to kerning's cousin...



LETTER-SPACING

Again, letter-spacing is the overall amount of space "among" a group of letters. In this example (#3), I've decreased the tracking (letter-spacing) to "-30." I'm a fan of tight letter-spacing. To me, it tends to make the type feel more cohesive (i.e., more "intentional" than "accidental").

One thing that adjusting the letter-spacing tends to magnify though (especially as it is "tightened"), is that the blank spaces in many display/ornate faces is just TOO DAMN BIG!

Which brings us to something I find myself having to do on almost every single title I ever typeset for an RPG publication...



ADJUST THE BLANK SPACES!

It might surprise you to find out that in this example (#4), I've altogether taken out the blank space between "Simple" and "Fantasy." Theoretically, the title is typed as S-i-m-p-l-e-F-a-n-t-a-s-y. I did, however, have to select the "e" (alone) and change the letter-spacing to "0" (from "-30").

Depending on the typeface and program you're using, there are a number of alternate ways to adjust this issue, including:
a) change the point size of the blank space to make it smaller than the rest of the type (e.g., 10 pt. blank space with 80 pt. type)

b) change the horizontal scaling of the blank space to make it narrow (e.g., 10% instead of 100%)

And so we move on to...



INDIVIDUAL ADJUSTMENTS

In example #2 above, I changed the "type" of kerning I was using (optical over metric), but kerning is actually the space relationship between 2 individual letters. As I get close to finalizing a piece of copy like this, I always try to review the spacing and see where it could be evened out even more. Look back to #4 for a moment. Though I liked the overall tracking in that, the word "Simple" felt a little too tight, and I'm not happy with the uneven spacing around the "s" in "Fantasy."

In this example (#5), I opened up the letter-spacing (tracking) on "Simple" from "-30" to "-20", then in the word "Fantasy" I adjusted the kerning between the "a" and "s" (made it tighter) and the "s" and "y" (made it looser).

Overall, I liked where this type specimen ended up compared to where I started (#1). Compare them for a moment before we move on to my final tweak...



GIVE THE TITLE MORE PRESENCE

Now that I've taken out all that spacing that the title didn't need (but the computer gobbled automatically), I have a bit of extra space which allows me to make my type bigger and give it more presence. So I went from 64 pt. to 70 pt. And it does make a difference. My title now has more visual presence and impact... things I couldn't have given it except for the fact that I took it back from the computer that tried to eat it.



So here are #1 and #6, side-by-side for comparison.
I have now put this knowledge and power in your hands.
What are you going to do with it!?


Friday, July 8, 2016

Typographic Pet Peeve #1: Automatic Leading on Titling with Type Elements of Multiple Sizes

I'm starting a new series on the blog, in the hopes that revealing pet peeves as a practiced graphic designer will find fertile ground with OSR self-publishers who are doing their own layout and hoping to improve their skills.

Ultimately, as this (hopefully) series unfolds, you will find that most of my typographic pet peeves all come down to a single root problem... the computer doesn't care what your layout looks like! That's root of today's problem, and one that I see proliferating to an unbearable degree as more and more would-be designers take up the tools of the trade.



Today, I look at the use of automatic leading on titling with type elements of multiple sizes. This goes for both cover titling, as well as interior/section/chapter titling. For today's discussion, I'm using the following two examples (mockups of a non-existent retro-clone).



Please note, that on the sample to the left (the obviously inferiorly typeset version), I did NOT intentionally make the type spacing look bad. I did nothing more than choose a typeface, and set the type size for each element: 1) the name of the book, and 2) the author's by-line. I should back up for a second. While I did say "obviously inferiorly typeset version," it is quite possible that it's taking some of you a few moments to actually see the difference between the two versions, so I'll point it out... look at the spacing between "Swords &" and "Citadels," then compare the spacing between "Citadels" and the by-line.

I'm going to introduce the non-designers among you to a term few non-designers know... "chunking." This is a catchy way of saying that like typographic elements should be treated as a single visual element. For example, the title "Swords & Citadels" is on two lines, but in the left example "Swords &" and "Citadels" are treated as 2 separate chunks, where on the right they're treated as 1 graphic chunk. I'll even go so for to say on the left example, that "Citadels" and the by-line (because of the automatic leading) are accidentally chunked.

Here's the issue: When a designer leaves the leading set for "Automatic," the computer is making decisions for you based purely on mathematics, and not on aesthetics! Yes, I did bold and italicize and underline that, and then make it orange — because it's THAT important to remember.

Here's the solution (and it's VERY simple): NEVER LEAVE THE LEADING ON AUTOMATIC!!! Even in MS Word, there are ways to specifically set the leading in points (instead of variations on line-height).

In both examples, I used Adobe Illustrator and the typeface Trattatello, with the title set in 60 pt. and the by-line set in 36 pt.

In the left example, the automatic leading for type set at 60 pt. defaults to "(72 pt)" and the leading for the type set at 30 pt. defaults to "(30 pt)." I use the parenths to make a point... in Adobe products, any default leading shows up in parentheses to help remind you that the leading is set for automatic. See that! Even Adobe warns you you've left the leading on automatic! So back to those numbers for a second... based on the defaults, the space between line 2 of the title and the by-line is HALF of the space between the 1st and 2nd line of the title.

In the right example, I did nothing more than change the leading for the whole thing (all 3 lines) to 60 points... that's it! The size of the two type elements (title and byline) does the chunking all by itself. But you can change each line individually; adjust this recipe as you see fit.

So that's it. That's the basics of what happens because the computer thinks it's smarter than you, and because a lot of designers allow it to be. Be forewarned, when the computer starts making these kind of chunking adjustments on it's own, I fear we'll be nearing the point where computers overtake humanity!

Put the computer in its place! Manage your leading like the human you are!

Thursday, March 20, 2014

A Couple of Docs: Guides to Better Typography

While listening to Doug Cole's Gaming Ballistic interview with Tim Shorts of Gothridge Manor (because I tend to put these on in the background while I work, rather then actually watching), there was mention of the Formatting Guides for GURPS Fourth Edition. There was a specific reference to a guideline where authors/publishers are told to find/replace all double-spaces with single-spaces (especially after periods). Some people may see this as a very minute detail that is unimportant. But would it surprise you to find out that this has been a standard in graphic design and advertising firms since the invention of desktop publishing? Or that this is one of the first things I teach my students in my Art Direction class? Hell, even Stan Richards of the Richards Group (the largest privately-owned advertising agency in the country) says it's one of the first things they teach newly-hired writers and art directors (go to 18:48 at the video on the link).

So what's the big deal about double-spaces after periods? Well, simply put... it's a matter of finesse. Most typefaces are designed with proportionate spacing in mind, and there's actually a little extra space after the period in most typefaces by default. Double-spacing after periods is a leftover from the typewriter (and the nature of monospacing). And finesse is the difference between an "average" layout, and an "elegant" layout. Like using a "space-after-paragraph" rather than blindly double-spacing between them (hell, even Microsoft Word actually let's you adjust spacing between paragraphs).

Today, I'm sharing two documents that are part of my initial typography lecture. Really, I'm just sharing them because I think there's a lot of stuff in here that people just don't know to do, but would if they did.

The first is a Guide to Better Typography, which details things like number of typefaces, spacing after periods, using grids, etc. These are more about suggestions for improvements.
Click here to download the Guide to Better Typography from MediaFire.

The second is my 10 Commandments of Type for Students, which really dogmatic and is not so much a list of suggestions as it is a list of Do's and Don't's. And treats things like using the typeface Papyrus what it really is... BLASPHEMOUS AND SINFUL!
Click here to download the 10 Commandments of Type for Students from MediaFire.

Please understand, while both documents appear dogmatic (particularly the second one), there's nothing to say there shouldn't be exceptions to each rule or suggestion. Nothing above is concrete; they're just ways of making you give more thought to something that most people are doing blindly. For hundreds of years, typography was in the hands of masters who apprenticed and studied to master their craft. These are just a couple of documents to help you on the path to design/layout mastery.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

+2 Bonus on Saves vs. Bad Type Combinations

Okay, so now that you've had a day or two to recuperate from being properly overwhelmed by Monday's post regarding all the various type styles within classifications, it's time to dig into today's post about type combining. BTW, if you have not ready Monday's post, I highly suggest you read it before continuing, or risk not knowing what the hell I'm talking about.

So Monday's post was really just in preparation for today's post, which was spurned by a response to Friday's post "Some good examples of bad type..." (which was, itself, prompted by a response to Thursday's post "A look at some old-school fonts..."), where in Keith Davies asked for advice on a sans serif typeface that I would pair Heuristica.

Instead of just recommending Archivo Black to Keith (which, BTW, I would pair with a great number of serif typefaces), I'm going to give you some general pointers on what does/doesn't work when it comes to combining typestyles, based mostly on the basic shapes of the typefaces (think Garanimals here) and tempered by personal experience.


TYPE HARMONY COMBO #1 - USE A "SUPERFAMILY"
A type superfamily has not only many variations in weight (and obliques and condensed/extended variations) but comes in BOTH serif and sans serif variations! Lucida/Lucida Sans and Museo/Museo Sans are a couple of examples. Unfortunately, almost nothing like this comes in a cheap, much less free, offering, especially one with an open license. So what makes this work? Simple. Both the serif and sans serif versions of a superfamily have the same underlying structure, so they work together. A piece of advice though... make sure to keep some weight contrast when combining serif/sans versions of a superfamily. If the weights and shapes are so similar that, at first glance, they appear very similar, ask yourself, "Why was I choosing a different version in the first place?" In the example below left, it's fairly obvious. In the example below right, not so much.


TYPE HARMONY COMBO #2 - CONTRAST WITHOUT CONFLICT
The goal is finding two fonts with enough difference that don't have the "too much the same" thing happening, but at the same time aren't so starkly different they just don't go together. For example, if I were typesetting a sci-fi ruleset, I might want something cool/funky for the headers. And while they would definitely contrast with a serif font, not just any serif font will do. So look for difference in appearance, with similarity in "spirit."

In the examples below, the contrast is strong in all four. In the top row, notice how the feeling of the Acknowledgement headers are works well with the Crimson body body (top left), but seems a "little out of whack" with the Open Sans (top right). By comparison, on the bottom row, notice how the feel of Orbitron works much better with Open Sans (bottom right) than it does with Crimson (lower left). This is not just structure at work, but theme/spirit as well. It's also proof that body copy doesn't have to be overly themed to support the feeling of a layout (see Richard's Tip #2, below".)


TYPE HARMONY COMBO #3 - "TRIED AND TRUE" PAIRINGS
I know this is the part you're probably really looking for... a few equations for pairing. Please understand, these are only guidelines; they are not foolproof combinations, and that doesn't mean that other pairings don't work.
Old Style Serifs + Humanist Sans Serifs
(e.g., Crimson + Open Sans)

These pair well because they generally share an underlying structure (an "even" tone, with slight variations between thick and thin, which makes them very "warm") but still have contrast (like a brother and a sister).

Transitional Serifs + Geometric Sans Serifs
(e.g., Heuristica + TxGyreAdventor)

Transitional serifs have very strong contrast between their thicks and thins, while geometric serifs are known for their almost mechanically-even thickness (a nice contrast) while they both feel more structured as a whole than many other font classifications (the "visual glue" that makes them work well together). BTW, TxGyreAdventor is an open license version of Avant Garde, the typeface used in the first wave of D&D modules.

Modern Serifs + Geometric Sans Serifs
(e.g., Playfair Display + TxGyreAdventor)

Modern serifs have even more contrast than transitional serifs and, therefore, also pair well with geometric serifs. Because of this stark contrast, I don't think modern serifs are easy to read as body copy so I'm not even going to bother with an example for this one.


BTW, a bold/black classic grotesque sans serif (like Archivo Black) goes with almost all old style and transitional serif fonts. It can even work with modern serifs. But if you start to get too contemporary, it doesn't work. (Below left = old style; below right=transitional.)



RICHARD'S TIPS FOR CHOOSING TYPEFACES FOR GAME PUBS

1. Choose your header font first.
While the body copy is going to do a little something to bring visual flavor to your layout, nothing does this quicker than a great header font. In fact, you don't even really need an "overtly-themed" body copy typeface if the header font is impactful both in weight and theme/spirit.

2. Choose a body copy that compliments the header font... but is still inviting/easy to read!
Nothing irks me more than an RPG rulebook where the copy typeface is so overdone thematically that reading it is a pain in the ass! (This is one of those areas where I see the typeface Papyrus used over and over. IMO, it's bad enough that font sucks has a header font; as body copy, it's unforgivable.) Just a reminder, old style serifs are the most legible serifs, some transitionals can be tough, and unless my body copy is 14 points, I stay away from modern serif body copy altogether. (Stay tuned for a post on body copy choice & size!)

3. Make sure a body copy with good variations in weight as well as obliques/italics.
You're going to need it. I actually use three different weight levels of body copy in most of my layouts. For example, in The Ogress of Anubis, the body copy is the light weight of the font, the encounter place names are the bold weights of the font, and I use the demi-bold weight (in-between the other two) to call out monster encounters and magic items. And, of course, all spells are noted in the light italic variations.
QUESTION: Guess how many variations Papyrus comes in?
ANSWER: It doesn't matter because Papyrus sucks as body copy!

Next up in this type series... a closer look at body copy.

Monday, October 28, 2013

Digging deeper... into type.
(Or wherein I look at fonts right in their face)

In response to Friday's post "Some good examples of bad type..." (which was, itself, prompted by a response to Thursday's post "A look at some old-school fonts..."), Keith Davies asked for advice on a sans serif typeface that I would pair Heuristica. Unfortunately, I won't be directly addressing that question today (but will most likely get to it tomorrow). I realized that, to address the question effectively, I would have to make sure everybody was on a level playing field when it came to some type knowledge (which I would expect very few of you to know, unless you specifically have a background in design).

Before we dig in, I want to put serif and sans serif typefaces into some historical context. When the printing press was invented by Johannes Gutenberg in 1450, being a German, Gutenberg based his first typeface (that is, THE first typeface... EVER!) on the Gothic/Romanesque forms popular in Germany in use widely in woodcuts and manuscripts (including the fancy illuminated kind). As printing spread throughout Europe, and particularly into Italy (who were second as printers only to the Germans/Austrians), new typefaces were cast based on the old Roman forms. We're still talking right around 1500 here. It's not until the late 1700s the first sans serif font was cut, and it wasn't until the late 1800s that Roman-inspired typeforms really began to lose their serifs. So serifs pre-date sans serifs by 200-300 years.

OVERVIEW OF SERIF CLASSIFICATIONS

Old Style

Old style typefaces (which date back to mid-1400s) are characterised by a diagonal stress (that is, the thinnest parts of the letters are at an angle, rather than at the tops and bottoms of the letterforms), a low line contrast (subtle, rather than pronounced, difference between thicks and thins), and a high level of readability. Additionally, the serifs are bracketed (sloping curves) and the head serifs are often angled (rather than perpindicular.) Being derifed from calligraphic forms, they are the most “humanist” of all the serif fonts, having both a “softer” and more traditional appearance than other serif forms, and provide a great legibility at small sizes (e.g., as body copy.)

Transitional (a.k.a. Baroque)

Transitional serif typefaces were the next evolution from the Old Style faces, with stroke contrast becoming more pronounced (between thick and thin) and with the serifs taking on a more tapered appearance. Additionally, the stresses on the strokes are more perpendicular than their predecessors, with the thinnest parts of the letters being at the tops and bottoms of the letters. Their balance of humanist form and high contrast tends to make them a bit austere. While they are suitable choices for body copy use, certain Transitional serif faces with a greater contrast in stroke weight can often be hard to read at smaller sizes.

Modern (a.k.a. Didone/Didot)

Modern serif typefaces are characterized mainly by the extreme contrast between their extremely thin horizontal lines and extraordinarily heavy vertical lines. Additionally, their serifs are almost “mechanical” in nature with little to no bracketing whatsoever. They are the most modern and progressive of the serif typefaces. While the stark nature of their contrasted forms can make for dramatic use at larger sizes (headlines, e.g.), it also makes them very poor choices for body copy and use at smaller point sizes.

Slab Serif (a.k.a. Egyptian)

Slab serif typefaces generally have uniform strokes (little to no contrast), a bold, rectangular appearance, and the serifs are often as thick as the vertical lines themselves, with little to no bracketing. The underlying character shapes are often similar to sans serif typefaces so are often described as “sans serif fonts with serifs.” While they are considered modern, they tend to have a vintage (specifically American West) personality. They the boldest, brashest and most masculine of the serif classifications.

Wedge (a.k.a. Glyphic)

Wedge serif fonts are marked by their wedge-shaped (e.i., “chiseled”) serifs. The junction between the serif and the stem are generally a diagonal rather than a bracket. Wedge typefaces with a more geometric or diagonal junction can often have a modern appearance, while Wedge typefaces with a softer slope to the serif can have a more traditional appearance (with the feeling of engraving or stonework.)

OVERVIEW OF SANS SERIF CLASSIFICATIONS

Grotesque

Grotesque typefaces were the earliest form of sans-serif designs and, therefore, bear the greatest resemblence to serif fonts in terms of their form. Generally, the rounded letters (c, e, o, p, etc.) have a gentler curve to their shape, and the strokes have a slight/minor variation in thickness between the thicker downstrokes and the thinner cross-strokes. These typefaces, originally developed during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, have a more traditional appearance than other sans serif faces.

Neo-grotesque (a.k.a. Transitional or Realist)

Neo-grotesque typefaces were the next evolution in sans serif type design. While they do have a more modern appearance than their Grotesque forerunners, they also have a relatively plain appearance, being relatively straight in appearance and having less line width variation than Humanist sans serif typefaces. Because of their plain appearance, Transitional sans serifs are sometimes referred to as “anonymous” sans serifs and are most responsible for the assumption that all sans serifs are “plain” and “boring.”

Humanist

Humanist sans serif typefaces are more calligraphic than other sans-serif typefaces, meaning they have a greater variety both in the variation of their stroke thickness, as well as the general form and angles of their strokes. Often, the curved letters will have a “boxier” appearance (less gradual slope) than Grotesque or Neo-grotesque typefaces. The more calligraphic form of these typefaces provides both a more contemporary appearance and a greater legibility in print (especially as body copy.)

Contrast

Sans serif typefaces of this classification have a significant contrast between the thicks and thins of their strokes, and often feature tapered terminals on the open curved letterforms. Contrast fonts are among the rarest sans serif forms, and tend to be slightly more elegant or formal than most other sans serif fonts. Contrast fonts are particularly popular among fashion and cosmetics brands.

Geometric

Among all the classifications, Geometric sans-serifs are the most closely based on geometric proportions (rather than the visual/aesthetic proportions of the roman letters that acted as the precursor to the earliest sans serif forms.) The width of the strokes that make up the letterforms appear even in terms of thickness, and the curved letterforms are based on perfectly circular shapes. Geometric sans serifs have the most modern appearance of all the sans serif typefaces and, depending on size and form, can be difficult to read when used as body copy.

Squared Geometric

A sub-set of the Geometric classification, Squared Geometric sans serif typefaces are distinguished by a mechanical appearance, and their curved features have been squared, which gives them a more industrial look. Like the larger Geometric classification, their strokes have an even width. While Squared Geometric typefaces are modern in appearance, this “modernity” can often appear too mechanical or “futuristic” for certain applications.

Rounded End

Another sub-set of the Geometric classification, Rounded End sans serif typefaces are distinguished by one outstanding feature, all the terminals are noticeably rounded. This has a tendency to give them a more childlike (or “less mature”) appearance.



Friday, October 25, 2013

Some good examples of bad type...

Tim Shorts made a request in regards to yesterday's typography post, asking what differences to look for between poor and professional quality fonts. Really, there are just two main issues, but I'm lumping in a third (mostly because it irks me as a type purist).


Egregious Type Transgression #1: Bad Form/Shape
Most often, this happens because some jackass with a scanner and a freeware font editor thinks he knows what he's doing. Look at the Quentin examples above. The commercial version is clean, has smooth curves, and (most importantly) has evenly spaced stroking!!! (Compare the white "inline" spaces around the outer edges.) I have no doubt that type offender of this free version below was not intending to create a "grunge" version of this typeface. But that's what you're getting if you download the freebie of this one. A great commercial version of this typeface is available for only $19.95.



Egregious Type Transgression #2: Bad Kerning Pairs
First, I want to make sure you understand the difference between tracking (a.k.a. letterspacing) and kerning. Tracking/letterspacing is the overall spacing between letters for an entire word or line of copy. Kerning, on the other hand, is the spacing between two individual letters. A good way to judge whether a word is kerned well or not (that is, the individual letter pair spacings look good or not) is to look at the spaces between letters and imagine pouring water into the space. For example, the left-hand side of a lower case a" indents a bit, it would hold "a slight bit more water," and the space should be adjusted accordingly. Two lower case l's on the other hand, would not have the same issues. In the Thalia example above, not only is the bad/freebie version guilty of Egregious Type Transgression #1, it's also a victim of bad kerning pairs. Look at the commercial example... notice how the letters are spaced to have an appearance of even spacing (even though if you mechanically measured them left-to-right from letter-bottom-to-letter-bottom they would vary slightly). Now look at the bad example on the bottom... what the hell is going on between the "a" and "l"? (And, no, I did not make it look like that; all I did was type the word in Photoshop.) Most places charge $39.95 for a good version of Thalia. I did, however, find a good commercial version of Thalia for $19.95.



Egregious Type Transgression #3: Artistic License?
I have to admit, I'm a bit of type purist and all-around type nerd. I'm also one to respect an artist's original intentions. I'm not going to go changing stuff just because I can. Let me give you an example... Claude Garamond (designer of the original Garamond typeface) spent his entire life crafting and perfecting his type. In fact, the quality of Garamond's type was so good, he is credited with the elimination of Gothic/Romanesque styles from compositors’ cases all over Europe1. So, here's a man that dedicated his entire life crafting his typeface based on historical Roman forms, but any jackleg with a computer but no typographic training can "on a whim" decide to F up a man's life work in seconds by condensing it to 50%! Messing with type on the computer is like wearing spandex... just because you can doesn't mean you should. So where am I going with this? Look at that T! Otto Eckmann crafted the type he wanted, and it didn't have that style T. Change the font if you want, but change the damn name would you!? I don't know... call it "Eck-Man" or "Eckmannn" or "Eckmon" for all I care, but don't try to pass off your uninformed decision as some other man's work! Especially if does not share the same finesse as the original. Compare the subtleties of the letterforms' curves. The commercial version (directly from Eckmann's original work) is artistic and aesthetically pleasing. The bad freebie is clunky, slightly misshapen, and most importantly, it's not Eckmann. The reason I called this transgression "artistic license?" (with a question mark) is that there is nothing artistic about this designer's license. An "officially licensed" Linotype (the 127-year-old type company) version of Eckmann Schrift is available for $29.

Quality Free Fonts
When it comes to free fonts, I generally avoid dafont (and similar sites). They are upload-driven and have no quality control whatsoever. The best resource for free fonts on the Web is Fontsquirrel. They hand-select the fonts available for the site, and have a great track record and growing collection. I suggest checking out the following fonts:
- Orotund (European, semi-Gothic, calligraphic)
- Molot (a sort of 70s/80s pulp sci-fi-ish vibe)
- Uncial Antiqua (a synthesis of Roman inscriptional capitals and Carolingian writing)
- Heuristica (great versatile serif typeface in 4 styles: regular, regular ital., bold, and bold ital.)

1. Meggs' History of Graphic Design, Philip B. Meggs and Alston W. Purvis, 5th edition, 2011.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

A look at some old-school fonts...

Let's take a step back to the late 1980s for a moment...

I was in college majoring in graphic design and, unlike today, there wasn't a Mac on every designer's desktop. In fact, I almost quit the program my Junior year because I'd been hand-lettering the type on a letterhead mockup for three hours straight, continuing to mess up and curse life because I knew if we would just get some damn computers I'd have been done in ten minutes!!! In 1987/1988 (my sophomore year), I knew that the Mac would be the wave of the future and had to take some Communications electives just to get a chance to work on the macs (I think maybe 4 hours for the entire semester). In 1989, there still weren't any Macs (or computers of any sort for that matter) in the art department. The school paper did, however, have a Mac setup (two SE's and a Macintosh II)... but the paper only had them because I (as the Art Director in cahoots with the Editor-elect) told them to get rid of the old Agfaset. Back in the old-world-ways of the art department, we were still putting copied pages from Letraset type sample books in a photo-enlarger-style Art-O-Graph projector and having to hand-letter that shit for hours at at time. Utterly ridiculous by today's standards when I think that stuff that used to take me an hour or so to hand-letter can now be accomplished in a few seconds.

Granted, the variety of fonts on the Mac at the time were rather limited. The system-standard fonts were the ones mostly named for cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Geneva, et al.) Additional postscript fonts were available, but expensive and also limited. By contrast, the Letraset catalog had all these really great fonts, though many of them were sadly out-of-date for the late 80s, but still available as rub-down transfers (the heart of Letraset's offering) and were, therefore, represented in the catalog. Nowadays, we take the landfill-sized variety of fonts for granted. In the late 80s, only those of us with access to these kinds of graphics resources (e.g., architects, designers, etc.) knew what was there. That Letraset book began my love affair with type, particularly those of the funky persuasion.

My late-80s edition of the book "died" years ago from mis-use; it was spiral bound and the pages just didn't stand much of a chance. But I do have a 1981 edition that I bought several years ago as a shelf reference; it's perfect bound and, therefore, not subject to the same issues as a well-handled spiral book. What's below are pictures from that 1981 edition of some of the fonts that I've long been in love with, but that also fit in to the old-school RPG aesthetic.

Just a warning... many freebie versions of the fonts listed below are bad/clunky conversions/copies of the originals, and suffer from both compromised forms and bad kerning pairs (kerning is the space between two individual letters, and in bad type faces, these kerning pairs are largely ignored, leaving "gaps" in words when typeset).


The cover of the 1981 edition of the Letraset catalog.

Galadriel. Designed by Alan Meeks in 1975. Named (I assume) for the LoTR character. There are freebie forms of this, but a decent version is available for about $30.


Marvin.There are bad versions available of this font, but if a decent commercial is available, it's possibly got a different name.

Arnold Böcklin. This baby goes back to 1904; the Art Nouveau influence should be obvious. Corel draw came with a version named Arabia so people assumed an Easter/Oriental influence, though it's very "French." And, yes... it is the typeface White Dwarf magazine used during its early days.


Tip Top. The original version of this font was released by a German type foundry in Leipzig. Again, this is an Art Nouveau era font, but I think 60s pulp fantasy when I see this one.

Hunter. This is another one I've seen used in the past on books, but can't seem to find a digital version at all, much less a bad one.


Quentin. We should all recognize this one. However, it is a victim of poor conversions and the freebies really suck. However, a decent version is available for only $20.

Souvenir. This is the BX typeface, and the font family I've adopted as the house typeface for my Oe/BX/1e compatible stuff (Old School Adventures). Luckily, this is one of the first digital typefaces I ever owned. It's never really gone out of style, but was still pretty commonly used in the early 90s when I started building my Postscript type collection.


Futura Display. A great 60s pulp sci-fi feel. Or if you want to see uses of this one that are more general, check out this link.

Company. The problem with finding a copy of this one is the name. I guarantee that putting the word "company" in a Google search doesn't do a damn thing for finding this face.


Thalia. This is the DragonQuest typefaces. And it's probably the best example of being the most poorly converted (even worse than Quentin).

Pretorian (aka Pretoria). I've really been looking for an occasion to use this one. In fact, I want to use it so bad, I would consider naming and designing an adventure just to fit the personality of this typeface. (Hey, I'm sure we've all created adventures around far smaller kernels of an idea than that.)


Eckmann Schrift. Designed in 1900 by German Otto Eckmann to reflect Japanese calligraphy (Japanisme ran rampant during the Art Nouveau era).

Serif Gothic. This was designed by typography mastermind Herb Lubalin in 1974. The typeface Lubalin is best known for is probably Avant Garde (the typeface used by TSR on the first wave of adventure modules).