That no one answers meens that the question in propably to easy. Lets's higher the diffuculty level.
Do you do this in FOG or FL, or do you do this in Freehand or Illustrator? Do you then convert the font to paths and check it on the laserwriter, or can you just check it on screen.

I need to correct some curves on my Nordic and don't know what is the easiest way to do that. I don't want to be inefficient.

Thanx,
Rene

I don't check my fonts in "reverse field". Maybe I should, but I don't remember ever hearing about it before either...

hhp

I find a good way to check the quality of illustrations and logos, and this method probably works for type too, is to view it upsidedown or in a mirror, generally as a runout (because then I can make pencil notes/adjustments to it).
Tim

hhp, I'll try to find out where I read about it, but it makes sence. I checked Nordic in reverse and then you see the 'mistakes' that you wouldn't see normally. Exactly like you would do with logos this also works with type. The same is if you turn a logo upside down.

I did it and some characters show mistakes that I hadn't seen before, also not in magnified printing. The eye is so used to reading black on white, that with white on black it sees the mistakes.

At least I know I'm not the only one that never heard about it before. I'll see if I can get some more info if you are interested.

Rene

Yes, I'm curious to learn more - especially to see examples of how you caught problems this way.

hhp

Squinting (at the type) is helpful.

I don�t know if this will be considered helpful or not,
but this thread just reminded me of the process of
the making of Roxane (by Stuart Gluth)

Some good tips on curves at Briem's.

exactly, that's one place where I read something about it. The other place was one of my dutch magazines. I'll also do some more research on the subject (if I can find the time, next week I'm going snowboarding).

Ren�

You can do that easily in your font editor software. Just cut (ctrl+x) the outer contour of your glyph and use the preview mode. The countershape will be filled in black. Make any necessary adjustments and paste the other contour back.

But I think you should also take a look at other fonts. Look at their curves, the BCPs... see what works and what doesn't.

I think you can paraphrase Duke Ellington here.

"If it looks good, it is good."

James, I personally don't think that's completely true. A lot depends upon HOW you look at it and what you EXPECT to see. If you see it upsidedown (think about a brochure laying on a table), you'll be surprised about how it will look then. Then it might not 'look good' anymore. Invert a character and you'll have the same effect. A lot of mistakes you will not see in small sizes. But use it big and you can be shocked.

You expect to see a perfect font, so automatically I think the brain 'corrects' the mistakes. It's the same with grammar mistakes. Some you don't see because your brain correctes them, but they are there.

It's in the nature of fonts that there are a lot of ways on how to apply them. If a font contains some very small curve-mistakes that would mean that you limit the user in their creative application of it, because they could not use it bigger. That a font might have been optimized for small sizes does not mean that you can't use it big, or inverted, or vertical, or only the counterpunches, etc. I for myself do that very often in my work.

So for specific applications I agree with Dukes statement, but it seem to me to be only half of the truth. In this statement I miss the 'but...'. ;-)

Ren�

How you look at something and what you expect to see are all problems and experiences that make up the design process. My paraphrasing Duke here was in response to the original thrust of the thread that reversing your glyph would some how show you the countershape in a more critical environment. Personally I dont think any one enviroment is better than the other to evaluate a glyph shape, except for the environment that the type is designed to function in.

I think a common mistake is evaluating a glyph at some monsterous size when the type face is suppose to function at 10-48 point. After drawing, proof at the size range of intended use. And then, if it looks good, it is good.

Maybe I try to be too perfect, more than I should or have to be.
I think it's up to the designer how he want to proof his font. But if you can go the extra mile, why not?
Perhaps I judge the curve perfection only from my own point of view. I like to blow up, cut and past, abstract and invert fonts in my designs. It just looks cool. Perhaps out of my liking that I expect perfection, because at that level of closeup you see everything. You can even almost smell it. ;-)

If pro's like Dwiggins and Briem do it, there must be something to it. I for myself feel it makes my curves even better. And then it makes me feel better.

Ren�

>Then I'd see the proofing by masters like Dwiggins and I felt conflicted.

You knew, of course, that reference to Dwiggins would pique my attention. Stephen, what do you mean by "conflicted"?

>If pro's like Dwiggins and Briem do it, . . .

Ironically, it was just the opposite for WAD -- he drew large, but always proofed small. He would send off the drawings and wait a couple weeks for proofs of the actual type to come back so that he could finally judge his work at the size for which is was actually intended. As a shortcut, he would sometimes use a reducing glass (opposite of a magnifying glass) to try to get some impression of how the letters he was drawing would look in their final size.

But that was a different time and a different technology. The size that any given typeface gets used is no longer fixed.

-- K.

It seems to me that both "intended usage" and "theoretical integrity" have merits. I agree with James that mainly what matters is the perceived result among users, but I also think that it's possible to design for the subsonscious. Aaah, type design.

hhp

I test new typefaces in many ways (a brilliant advantage of DTP), but have never considered "in the reverse" -- but perhaps I will give it a try.

Thanks for the idea Ren�!

I'm not sure what the 'in reverse' test would tell you about a design intended for typical black on white use, other than that it probably isn't optimal for white on black. Luc(as) de Groot and Erik Spiekermann have both developed fonts that are specifically intended for white on black or backlit signage, and these designs are optimised for this purpose. In particular, if you have two signs side-by-side, one black on white and one white on black (or similar high contrast colours), you need to make the letters in the white on black slightly heavier and sturdier in order for them to look the same weight as the black on white.

Wouldn't the other way around make more sense;
making the white letters slightly thinner, since the white �eats� the black more than the other way around?
Especially when backlit or for example when lights from a car reflects it.


�

In the development of ClearviewHwy our research showed that fonts for Negative Contrast applications (Black letters on Light backgrounds) had to be slightly heavier and a bit more tightly spaced than the those for Positive Contrast applications (White letters on Dark backgrounds) to appear the same. One of the problems with current regulatory signs in the US is that they use a set of fonts designed for Positive Contrast, in Negative Contrast applications, resulting in the type looking too light.

I showed an example of this in my presentation at TypeCon.

I'll find the graphic and post it later.

I'm very much interested in the example, James. Your research makes sence. I personally would not think about te looser spacing on the dark background. I would think making it lighter would be enough.

BTW I think your ClearviewHwy is a great font and a strong family.

Ren�

Here is the sample,

I've reconfigured it a bit to fit into a pdf to post.

The top shows ClearviewHwy 5-W and 5-B in their respective applications. 5-W in Positive contrast (White letters dark Background) ad 5-B in Negative Contrast (Dark letters on Light Background)

The middle and bottom examples show the same fonts, but in each example one is not in the environment it was designed for. I hope the difference is obvious.

ClvHwy Pos & Neg.pdf (77.8 k)

James, thanks for the sample!
Since Typecon I've been wanting to see something from your presentation.

hhp

>I'm not sure what the 'in reverse' test would tell you

It's not about the functionality of the font, but about the functionality of the design process.

Designers get so close to their work, they lose perspective, seeing it negative is a strategy for getting a little jolt of objectivity.

Two related techniques I use:

Rotate the character 90 degrees (useful for examining relative contrast of vertical/horizontal stems and the curves between them)

Look at a print-out in a mirror, or held up to the light from the verso of the printout.

Do the same, upside down. (The paper that is, no need to stand on your head.)

> Two related techniques I use:

I use the same techniques. I have a poster behind me hanging which I use to 'control' my work. For fonts that's a bit difficult. The mirror is therefor a good idea. Holding it to the light also works for me.

Ren�

Wouldn't the other way around make more sense;
making the white letters slightly thinner, since the white �eats� the black more than the other way around?

Yes, thanks. I had it backwards in my head for some reason.

I would like to see some more work or research of the professionals. Wouldn't that be a good thread?
Because I always have to do everything alone, I would like to see some more and get some practical imput. I learn a lot from just looking at other people.

Ren�