Schlagwort-Archive: Schriftart

23. Februar 2018

Same look, less pain:
Proportionally spaced typefaces with a monospaced appearance

106 people pressed ❤ and 18 people found it worth a retweet when Ivo Gabrowitsch wrote: “If I had one wish, I’d wish for less ‘inspired by’ and more ‘solves this problem’ typefaces.” It is hard to disagree with what he says – but it is also hard to disagree with Ksenya Samarskaya’s reply: “Best ones do both, no?” This post is about what I consider to be a successful example of doing both.

Many designers are in love with the aesthetic of monospaced typefaces (i.e., typefaces in which each character occupies the same amount of horizontal space, as opposed to proportionally spaced typefaces in which character widths are independent of one another). The appeal of these typefaces may stem from some kind of nostalgic association with typewriters or from their use in technical environments (computer terminals, programming etc.). Maybe it’s both. In any case, the fascination is there. As a consequence, monospaced (or fixed-width) typefaces are used everywhere – not least in contexts in which their defining feature (fixed spacing) is irrelevant. But this feature keeps on having an impact, mainly on the experience of the reader. In monospaced typefaces, glyphs have to be wider or narrower than in typefaces without the fixed-width constraint in order to fit everything in the space that is available while keeping the spacing optically balanced. The result is not what most designers would like to set a novel in and it’s not what most readers would like to read a novel in. Actually, anything beyond a short stretch of text is a pain to read in a monospaced typeface, however nice things may look at first blush.

Type designers have found a solution to this problem. It’s not a new solution, but it is a solution that I think deserves more attention (hence this post). Type designers have created typefaces that look like monospaced typefaces, but actually use proportional spacing. The benefit: Designers get to keep the look they love, but readers don’t have to go through the pain of a true mono. Such typefaces – some call them ‘monofaked’ or ‘fauxnospaced’ – are easier on the eyes than the ‘real thing’. It is a balancing act for type designers to keep enough elements of typical typewriter fonts in order to avoid losing the appearance, while at the same time making substantial improvements to reading ease.

The first typeface that fits this description was apparently one called Bulletin Typewriter: Released in metal as a monospaced font, it became available with proportional spacing in phototype and transfer lettering formats. The earliest in-use example of the proportionally spaced Bulletin Typewriter I am aware of is from 1973. American Typewriter was released not much later. In the following list of other typefaces in this category, I will – as usual – apply a liberal interpretation of any relevant criteria: Any typeface that vaguely looks like a console or typewriter typeface (read more about this term in an article by María Ramos) has a ‘monospaced appearance’ in my book. For a change, the sorting will be chronological rather than alphabetical to emphasise developments in this genre.

Proportionally spaced typefaces with a monospaced appearance

1973: Bulletin Typewriter by Morris Fuller Benton (Mecanorma)
(The link refers to a digital version of the metal monospaced typeface, originally released in 1933 by ATF. A proportionally spaced version was only available in phototype and transfer lettering formats. It’s in the list mainly for reference.)
1974: American Typewriter by Joel Kaden & Tony Stan (ITC)
1989: Officina Sans & Serif by Erik Spiekermann & Just van Rossum (ITC)
1996–98: Letter Gothic Text by Albert Pinggera (FontFont)
1999: TypeStar by Steffen Sauerteig (FontFont)
2000: Bs Monofaked by Mário Feliciano (Feliciano Type Foundry)
2000: New Letter Gothic by Gayaneh Bagdasaryan (Paratype)
2001: Courier Sans by James Goggin (Lineto)
2007: Newsletter by Ingo Krepinsky (Die Typonauten)
2008: Generika by Alexander Colby (Milieu Grotesque)
2008: Lacrima Senza & Serif by Alexander Colby (Milieu Grotesque)
2008–2010: Lekton by Luciano Perondi and students at ISIA Urbino (Google Fonts)
2010: Typewriter by Henrik Kubel (A2-TYPE)
2011: Hellschreiber Sans & Serif by Jörg Schmitt
2011: Relative Faux by Stephen Gill & The Entente (Colophon Foundry)
2011: Signika by Anna Giedryś (Google Fonts)
2012: Anaheim by Vernon Adams (Google Fonts)
2012: Executive by Gavillet & Rust (Optimo)
2013: Documan by Martin Vácha (Displaay Type Foundry)
2014: Input Sans & Serif by David Jonathan Ross (DJR)
2014: Queue by Tal Leming (Typesupply)
2014: Triplicate by Matthew Butterick
2015: Clone by Lasko Dzurovski (Rosetta)
2016: Millimetre by Jérémy Landes (Velvetyne Type Foundry)
2016: Operator by Andy Clymer (Hoefler & Co.)
2016: Proportional by George Triantafyllakos (Atypical)
2017: Attribute Text by Viktor Nübel (FontFont)
2017: Bitcount Prop by Petr van Blokland (TYPETR)
2017: Comspot Tec by Nils Thomsen (TypeMates)
2017: iA Writer Duospace (based on IBM Plex Mono by Mike Abbink & Bold Monday)
2017: Ultraproxi by Ray Larabie (Typodermic Fonts)
2018: Clincher Duo by Alexander Lubovenko (ParaType)
2018: Covik Sans Mono by James Edmondson (OH no Type Co)
2018: Drive Prop by Elliott Amblard & Jérémie Hornus (Black[Foundry])
2018: Tuner by Simon Renaud (Production Type)
2019: Recursive Sans by Stephen Nixon (Arrow Type)

This list started on Twitter. Thanks to Reed Reibstein, David Jonathan Ross, George Triantafyllakos, Daniel H., Dave Coleman, Anthony Masure, Martin Wenzel, Frank Adebiaye, Michael Piotrowski, Akira Yoshino, Eric Mellenbruch, Max Phillips as well as the people from Studio Het Mes, Fonts In Use and Displaay Type Foundry for suggesting typefaces. If you know of any additional typefaces that may qualify, please get in touch.

2. Februar 2018

Hands for all sizes:
Script typefaces with size-specific variants

Schreibe eine Antwort

Size matters – at least in type. With digital type, we can use any font at whatever size we desire. But more often than not, we should not. Typefaces that work well at a certain size usually do not work equally well at other sizes. A typeface with pronounced contrast, sharp details and tight spacing that looks great on a billboard will fail at typical body copy sizes. Conversely, a typeface with coarser details and sturdier proportions, optimised for small sizes, is likely to look clunky when set large.

But what if you would like to use the same typeface for headings and text? In that case, you may want to consider a typeface with ‘optical sizes’ (i.e., variants with size-specific adjustments). Many such typefaces exist (Identifont has an alphabetical list). Tim Ahrens and Shoko Mugikura have written about some of them and provide a list of all typefaces covered in their book on their website. Browsing through these lists, I noticed that few are script typefaces (i.e., typefaces based on calligraphy or other types of handwriting). That surprised me, given that handwriting is also markedly size-specific. The release of a new typeface in that category was the reason for me to compile the following list:

Weiterlesen →

19. Juli 2017

Old type in new fonts? First impressions of Fontstore

Schreibe eine Antwort

A few days ago, Fontstore launched – a new player in the market for subscription-based font services. To be accurate, Fontstore is both a foundry and a font service provider: You can buy fonts there like at any other foundry, but you can also become a subscriber. For $ 15 per month (or $ 150 per year), you get access to their entire library of desktop fonts. Having used Typekit for a few years and having reviewed the Monotype Library Subscription (MLS) last year, I was curious to see what Fontstore has to offer. The very first impression was not too favourable: Their website is slow and cluttered up with animations and effects, making it difficult to get an overview of their collection (others loved their site or also hated it). Fontstore does not excel at transparency either: The name of its founder, Satya Rajpurohit, is nowhere to be found on the website (though he has promised to remedy this). In order to access the Fontstore Library (the contents of which will be discussed below) through the subscription service, I subscribed and payed by credit card; both went without problems. Installing the app syncing the fonts on Windows was not exactly a seamless experience, though: I got a number of warnings that are typically not shown upon installing software, but just going ahead did not crash the system. Once installed, you go to the website, select the fonts you want to use, and they are available just seconds later.

Slim pickings for type designers

As I noted in my review of the MLS, low-priced font subscription services do not only raise technical questions, but ethical ones as well. Creating fonts is a time-consuming task requiring specialised skills that are gained through extensive training and practice. Few type designers create fonts just for the fun of it. Most do so to make (part of) a living – but you need a lot of subscribers before you are able to provide decent payment to all type designers. As a customer, you have to decide: Is subscribing to such a service tantamount to supporting exploitative working conditions and fuelling the downward price spiral in the font market? In the case of Fontstore, the decision may be a little easier: All typefaces were commissioned for that service with (I presume) designers knowing what they signed for. In a post on TypeDrawers, Satya Rajpurohit, the founder of Fontstore, explained that Fontstore offers different payment models to type designers, neither of them based on royalties. In any case, the business risk mainly rests with Fontstore, rather than with individual designers. That seems friendlier than royalty-based models, but $ 15 per month is still not much to go round, so time will tell if the system is sustainable. Also, even the best offer in a given situation can be a bad one: Fontstore carries fonts from quite a few young type designers, some of them releasing their first retail fonts. Many senior designers may have been reluctant to accept Fontstore’s payment models and have their fonts offered at a bargain price.

Weiterlesen →

4. Februar 2016

Monotype Library Subscription: A user’s experience

7 Antworten

MLS. That’s not the name of a tropical disease or some obscure government agency. The abbreviation stands for Monotype Library Subscription. Launched a few days ago, MLS is a subscription-based service that gives members access to “more than 9,000 fonts (2,200 font families)” (Monotype says). The price tag is at no more than €/$ 14.99 per month (or €/$ 119.99 per year). The fonts can be used in desktop applications, but – unlike the fonts on Typekit, a competing service by Adobe – not on websites.

For graphic designers, this sounds like a good deal. €/$ 14.99 per month for high-quality typefaces is next to nothing. A regular licence of most typeface families available through the MLS would cost twenty times as much or more. The choice seems ample: The library, Monotype says, features “reliable workhorses” (such as Avenir Next), “unique choices” (such as Ginkgo, Linotype’s take on the Dolly genre) and “attention grabbing” typefaces (such as Balega). Let’s be clear, though, that most of what you get is hardly at the cutting edge of contemporary type design. Innovation happens elsewhere. This may be a deal breaker for all those who are trying to produce fresh or even innovative work. In that industry, Rockwell (released in 1934 and based on earlier models) probably won’t count as ‘attention grabbing’ any more and Oranda (from the mid-80s) does not qualify as ‘unique’. That may be less of a concern for those interested in subdued text typography: MLS includes a number of modern classics that have aged with grace and can still be used nicely (such as Caecilia), along with some good recent releases (such as Quire Sans). It helps, by the way, if you only need to use Latin-based alphabets: For those, the language support of most typefaces is good. For Greek, Cyrillic or Arabic, not so much.

Weiterlesen →