Typophile

The Rise of Multiplatform types: my thesis (updated, with specimen)

blank

The following are a few excerpts from a much longer presentation describing my senior thesis. I am posting it here because the designers who heard it at school were not type designers, and so were unable to provide much useful feedback. I apologize if the grammar is a little wonky, but this was written to be read aloud. If you’re interested and want to read the whole thing, get it here.

To start with, here’s the thesis statement
Good typography is an important part of effective visual communication. As identity programs and typography converged, new typefaces emerged that could be used in a wide variety of media, from fine print on labels to signage to printed pages to computer screens. I shall address these faces as multiplatform types. Multiplatform types offer organizations exceptionally readable typography that remains consistent across more media than ever before.

To Follow that, I’ll define the term multiplatform typeface in detail
Multiplatform typefaces generally include a variety of weights designed for use in different situations. The designs are often very similar for use in very small and very large media; as Erik Spiekermann has pointed out, this is because legibility-promoting features applicable to one extreme are often applicable to the other extreme. A book or text weight that leaves out some of these special features may also be designed, as they are not needed under more reader-friendly conditions. These various weights may be clearly named for their intended media, or it may be left to designers to make such decisions.

In signage words must often be read quickly, from a distance, and at angles, causing the brain to process words letter-by-letter. Thus multiplatform typefaces are highly legible, and characters are intentionally dissimilar, as opposed to the strikingly similar character designs of Univers and Helvetica. Counters and apertures are large, this is facilitated with large x-heights and short strokes that do not extend into the apertures. Special attention is given to the glyphs lowercase i, uppercase I, lowercase l and the lining figure 1 to prevent them from being mistaken for each other.

And the goal and form of the work (this is not a written thesis project)
My goal is to examine, via direct experience, the design of multi-platform typefaces, and use the results to present their value to my audience. This will be done by presenting the history of the typefaces as well as examining design elements of the typefaces that enhance legibility and readability. The information presented will be used to explain why a multiplatform typeface is more appropriate for corporate identity systems than older superfamilies such as Helvetica, Univers, and Frutiger.

I will design a new multiplatform typeface and present it in a series of specimens designed as a brochure targeting businesspeople rather than the graphic designers that type specimens often target. The typeface will be produced in four weights; light, medium, semibold and bold. Because of the limited time available, complete fonts will not be developed—the character set will be limited to a Latin alphabet for the English language only, along with basic punctuation and lining figures. Only light and bold weights will be drawn, and I will leverage interpolation software to produce the regular and medium weights.

My typeface will be presented as part of the graphic design senior thesis exhibition at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. I plan to present my typeface in a specimen designed as a brochure targeting businesspeople rather than graphic designers.(We are required to not target designers with our thesis work) This brochure shall be given away at a trade-show style booth designed using the typeface in a variety of sizes. If possible, the booth shall sit in front of a large horizontal banner featuring the typeface.

AttachmentSize
specimen.6.pdf327.83 KB

To keep things cleaner, here’s my followup post to the big one.

First, I realize that trying to do a four-weight face in a short timespan is stupid and likely to fail or go horribly wrong. And even moreso as an undergrad project at school with no type designers on staff. But sanity and moderation are not my strong points. To be frank: I expect this typeface will likely come out looking light eight miles of cow shit, and that really doesn’t bother me. This is a learning experience.

Second, I’m really interested in workflow and interpolation/blending. Right now, I see three options:

1: Draw light and bold, blend them to get regular, blend regular and bold to be get semibold.
2: Teach myself multiple master next to the pool while I’m vacationing in Mexico.
3: Buy superpolator and teach myself that while I’m by the pool in Mexico.

Anyway, suggestions are welcome!

According to your criteria, Cheltenham was the first multi-platform typeface:

1. Developed concurrently for foundry and machine composition
2. Drawn with microdetailed serif structure (s-curve bracket) to provide visual interest at display size—an early Benton-pantograph drawn face, and...
3. At text size, sturdy construction held up on emasculating coated stock, and in crude process (halftone) knockouts and surprints of the era, and poorly registered multi-color printing, while fine details nonetheless looked smart, and...
4. On uncoated stock, small x-height provided elegant proportions.
5. Large family for all occasions.
6. Short descenders because focus of character recognition is on upper half of lower case letters (your “highly legible”).
7. Signature characters are “intentionally dissimilar” — spurred A and G, quirky g.

So your origin-theory “as identity programs and typography converged” doesn’t hold up — a case of recency.
Favoring technological determinism, I would say that media convergence in the late 19th century prompted Cheltenham’s multi-platformism, and that relationship is probably a general principle, occurring most noticably in times of rapid technological change when a new media assimilates older media.

Thanks need—that’s the kind of informed—and unflinching—feedback I’m looking for.

I admit to recency and technological determinism, but feel it is important. While Cheltenham is a large family with clearly distinguishable letterforms, it was—at least as far as I know—developed for metal setting on paper. There is a big difference between that and, say, FF Info, which was designed to work in small sizes and large, backlit signs. In the days of Cheltenham a signpainter could certainly have been hired to paint it onto a signboard, but that’s hardly the same thing. I probably need to state this very directly and up front.

-=®=-

unknown

Captured from web.archive.org on 21 Aug 2008. view this capture