I've read that Gill Sans has no contrast at all. (E.g. 1, 2, 3, 4) Assuming this is correct:
I understood contrast derived from modulation of the stroke width, and I clearly see variations of stroke width in Gill Sans (where the curve of the lowercase 'n' joins the upright, or the upper part of the lower storey of the lowercase 'a', for example). This inplies to me that Gill Sans must have some (albeit subtle) contrast.
What have I misunderstood?
Many thanks
Dave Higgins
First of all, it's important to realize that:
1) People simplify to understand.
2) Mathematical equality of vertical and horizontal
thicknesses results in the former appearing thinner.
3) Things look thicker when they touch, and this effect
increases with the acuteness of the angle they join.
And #3 is where modulation (the way I like to define it)
kicks in: the thinning of joins to avoid visual "clotting".
In contrast :-), contrast means the difference in thickness
(and not just between verticals and horizontals) between
various parts without factoring in #3.
If you look at Futura for example, it tries to be totally
zero-contrast* but to achieve that the joins (like in the
lc "a") are thinned (modulated) a great deal.
* Something I actually wouldn't attribute to Gill Sans.
hhp
Very clear, thanks!
Captured from web.archive.org on 29 Jan 2012. view this capture