Typophile

Loose kerning for stationery ?

jennifer_mbx

Hi,

I have a question regarding good kerning practices in stationery design.
I’m working on a stationery project and in the business card I have 3 stacked lines (address and phone) and I’m wondering if it’s o.k to kern the 3rd line quite loose in order to match the length of the other two lines. Also, my 2nd line is slightly looser than the 1st line. Is this practice acceptable or a big “no-no” in typography ? Thanks very much !

Jen

Typeface: Cronos-small caps 7.5/10

AttachmentSize
drupal13.03 KB

I don't think it looks bad at all. Your loosened tracking on the third line is barely noticeable when the overall color of the unit is seened. It's only a big nono when the text looks obviously forced.

What you want to worry about is the horizontal continuity...ie. don't lose the horizontal flow that should naturally lead the reader from left to right then down a line etc etc. This can happen if you have rivers/puddles, incorrect leading or kerning/tracking. Your example which creates a 'block' reads fine.

it's probably just me but the spacing around the dash on the top line compared to the spacing of the numerals looks odd. Likewise the spacing of the post code feels a bit strange.

Si

Oh I see, so as long as the text feels like a block (without the rivers) I’m fine. But what about consistency, I think that’s what Si is talking about; i.e. spacing of phone and the apartment number ? Is this just a personal taste ? For the last few days I’ve been looking at a lot stationery from a various studios and some designer would kern in a similar way, but others would not even touch it (and I’m not taking about excessive kerning here). I know it’s a case by case thing, but clearly it seems to me there are different schools of doing it ?

PS
Si, I’m not sure what do you mean about the post code. Is there a correct way of spacing a post code ?

I don't think the spacing is "incorrect" - just have a gut feeling that the numbers and postcode don't look right.

Si

Captured from web.archive.org on 27 Dec 2010. view this capture