Slide 1

Slide 1 text

Tools, techniques, 
 and innovation 
 (in typographic design) ! Gerry Leonidas

Slide 2

Slide 2 text

What is easier to talk about, 
 or sounds more fascinating, 
 or appears obvious, may not be the most 
 useful thing to consider.

Slide 3

Slide 3 text

“Doing design” is three discreet aspects: > how people think about stuff, > how they make decisions, > and how they make that stuff.

Slide 4

Slide 4 text

Some ideas from yesterday’s talks: > loss of (or emphasis on) materiality 
 (via, not only, Richard Hollis’ “physicality 
 of graphic design”) > imposed frameworks of interpretation
 (via the tyranny of Excel’s matrix)

Slide 5

Slide 5 text

> the “designers, learn to code” mantra > tension between form-making
 and encoding > the overlapping roles of people > design as a process to create meaning 
 and enable understanding

Slide 6

Slide 6 text

These are all aspects of the same thing. ! Like Berger’s “Ways of seeing”, 
 we want to make making visible.

Slide 7

Slide 7 text

Four routes into this: 1. effects of dematerialisation* 2. language of describing and specifying 3. tension between models and encodings and… * not “immaterial”, because the physical paradigms survive

Slide 8

Slide 8 text

(the elephant in the room) 4. the space for innovation and invention

Slide 9

Slide 9 text

An example:

Slide 10

Slide 10 text

Typecon 2013, Portland ! Kevin Larson & Matthew Carter report 
 on reading tests comparing Sitka with Georgia, Swift, and Paperback

Slide 11

Slide 11 text

Sitka looks like this Georgia looks like this Swift looks like this (Paperback does not look like this)

Slide 12

Slide 12 text

“We were not able to find 
 any statistically significant 
 difference between them” ! ! Which means that…

Slide 13

Slide 13 text

…at a line- and paragraph level, ! Well-designed typefaces are not
 distinguished by performance


Slide 14

Slide 14 text

! ! but by identity and association, 
 which are extrinsic to the “visible”
 encoding of the design.

Slide 15

Slide 15 text

Therefore, the key question is: ! “Is this typeface well designed?”

Slide 16

Slide 16 text

Or, better: ! “How can we talk about the design of 
 typefaces in a way that helps people
 make more well-designed typefaces?”

Slide 17

Slide 17 text

This is one of the key challenges 
 in teaching typeface design. ! ! ! And most common in a type crit, like…

Slide 18

Slide 18 text

type crit on the MATD wall, image by Ben Mitchell

Slide 19

Slide 19 text

[the objective is:] to help the student become conscious
 of how they absorb influences and 
 make decisions, through the narrow 
 medium of typefaces

Slide 20

Slide 20 text

This is more difficult when our ways 
 of talking about typefaces are unfamiliar 
 to the designers, like in the…

Slide 21

Slide 21 text

Type crit in ATypI Amsterdam image from porchez.com

Slide 22

Slide 22 text

Here, the objective is: To give feedback 
 > without imposing your style or taste,
 > equally across projects, and
 > consistently across sessions.

Slide 23

Slide 23 text

! ! ! ! So here are some pointers 
 for typeface reviews:

Slide 24

Slide 24 text

Pointers for typeface reviews (1/3): > fit of typeset text within the brief > key dimensions within the body > stroke thickness range > balance of key strokes and space 
 within and between letters

Slide 25

Slide 25 text

Pointers for typeface reviews (2/3): > stroke modulation > in/out stroke recipes > alignments in H and V axes > transitions between letter elements

Slide 26

Slide 26 text

Pointers for typeface reviews (3/3): > relating of inner and outer strokes > letter shapes within key patterns > integration of exceptions

Slide 27

Slide 27 text

! No part of this discussion needs 
 to rely on language derived from
 the technology of type-making.

Slide 28

Slide 28 text

Ways of looking at typographic design: 1. objectives 2. tools 3. language 4. evidence

Slide 29

Slide 29 text

! 1. through the way a brief are expressed 2. through the means of realising the brief 3. through our discussions with peers 4. through the records that connect the
 results to other acts of designing

Slide 30

Slide 30 text

1. objectives !

Slide 31

Slide 31 text

[an axiom:] Each new technology answers the 
 problems of the one it replaces

Slide 32

Slide 32 text

! Each new technology answers the 
 problems of the one it replaces so, what we want is expressed in the 
 parameters of the older environment

Slide 33

Slide 33 text

The initial brief here is: “make me something that looks close 
 enough to a book on a small screen” (and not: “what is the act of reading 
 on a portable digital device?” ) [next slide]

Slide 34

Slide 34 text

No content

Slide 35

Slide 35 text

The initial brief here is: “make me something that looks close 
 enough to a desktop pasteboard” (and not: “what decisions does the act 
 of document composition involve?” ) [next slide]

Slide 36

Slide 36 text

No content

Slide 37

Slide 37 text

The initial brief here is: “make me something that looks close 
 enough to a familiar word processor” (and not: “how do we enable text 
 composition for an online platform?” ) [next slide]

Slide 38

Slide 38 text

No content

Slide 39

Slide 39 text

! How many user-cycles does it take 
 for new uses to be imagined? ! and the use of a technology to 
 migrate to native paradigms?

Slide 40

Slide 40 text

[next slide example] Typecast makes text hierarchies
 visible during authoring

Slide 41

Slide 41 text

No content

Slide 42

Slide 42 text

[next slide example] Kindle’s X-Ray indexes and 
 cross-references the text you 
 are reading

Slide 43

Slide 43 text

No content

Slide 44

Slide 44 text

[next slide example] Readmill shows shared highlights 
 and enables local comments

Slide 45

Slide 45 text

No content

Slide 46

Slide 46 text

[next slide example] Medium, Quartz, and the Guardian 
 allow comments at a paragraph level

Slide 47

Slide 47 text

No content

Slide 48

Slide 48 text

No content

Slide 49

Slide 49 text

2. tools !

Slide 50

Slide 50 text

! What is the impact of type-making 
 and typesetting technologies on
 decisions about typography and 
 the forms of letters?

Slide 51

Slide 51 text

[next slide example: on our way of 
 thinking about things] Ikarus, FontStudio, Fontographer, 
 Glyphs, Robofont, FontForge: 
 what is the best way to represent
 a character complement?

Slide 52

Slide 52 text

No content

Slide 53

Slide 53 text

[next slide comment] Given how many of these glyphs are 
 derivatives (components or automatically
 generated), does this arrangement mislead 
 as to the design problems in the typeface?

Slide 54

Slide 54 text

No content

Slide 55

Slide 55 text

Which design decisions (or the setup 
 to make decisions) can be automated?

Slide 56

Slide 56 text

In other words: 
 To what degree, if at all, are meaningful 
 decisions (the ones that matter for users) 
 possible to systematise?

Slide 57

Slide 57 text

[next slide example] Accents that are consistent within 
 a typeface may take very different forms
 across typefaces. What is topologically “correct”

Slide 58

Slide 58 text

across letters, within a typeface, and across typefaces within a letter: àààà áááá ââââ åååå èèèè éééé êêêê ěěěě

Slide 59

Slide 59 text

[previous slide example] What is topologically “correct” and 
 well-encoded in its outlines, may be 
 stylistically inappropriate, or even 
 culturally wrong.

Slide 60

Slide 60 text

! Decisions on shapes and space 
 can always be “well-formed” technically.


Slide 61

Slide 61 text

! Decisions on shapes and space 
 can always be “well-formed” technically.
 
 They are good or bad, appropriate or not, 
 for a specific context only.

Slide 62

Slide 62 text

3. language !

Slide 63

Slide 63 text

[next slide comment] A 1952 drawing for a Linotype Metro Black 
 letter: a snapshot at the end of a series of
 design decisions, that on its own tells us 
 little about the qualities of the design.

Slide 64

Slide 64 text

No content

Slide 65

Slide 65 text

! Is the definition of shapes and the specification of behaviour enough?

Slide 66

Slide 66 text

[next slide comment] Here’s a proof of a –redacted– typeface, 
 with just one set of comments surrounding 
 the letters: We can learn more from these 
 comments than any “production-ready” encodings for making the typeface.

Slide 67

Slide 67 text

No content

Slide 68

Slide 68 text

[next slide comment] But how well does our “niche” language 
 support design decisions? Frank Chimero’s example from a recent 
 blog post is telling.

Slide 69

Slide 69 text

Frank Chimero: 
 code as temporary substitute for language ! frankchimero.com / what-screens-want

Slide 70

Slide 70 text

No content

Slide 71

Slide 71 text

No content

Slide 72

Slide 72 text

[next slide comment] This reminded me of Ewan Clayton’s 
 descriptions of writing motions to the 
 MATD students, a couple of weeks
 earlier:

Slide 73

Slide 73 text

Ewan Clayton !

Slide 74

Slide 74 text

Ewan Clayton using 
 Rudolf Laban’s 
 dance notation

Slide 75

Slide 75 text

[next slide comment] So, when we attempt to describe typefaces 
 as disparate as Formal, Fenland, and 
 Enquire, individual shapes may be 
 described with precision, but the style is 
 captured by metaphor and association.

Slide 76

Slide 76 text

adhesion for rugby adhesions for rugby adhesions for rugby

Slide 77

Slide 77 text

4. evidence

Slide 78

Slide 78 text

No content

Slide 79

Slide 79 text

[previous slide comment] Going back to the comparison of foundry
 and screen type from earlier, we may ask:

Slide 80

Slide 80 text

! Which decisions add value to the object?

Slide 81

Slide 81 text

! How are people, places, and conditions
 of document-making captured?


Slide 82

Slide 82 text

[next slide comment] And, a comment on the statement we 
 heard that “everything we need to learn 
 is on Google”. Data and some information, 
 yes; but rarely the tools to create knowledge 
 and understanding. For example:

Slide 83

Slide 83 text

No content

Slide 84

Slide 84 text

[previous slide comment] Monotype’s Drawing Office Image: raises 
 questions of traceability, collaboration, 
 institutional memory, industrial relations, 
 gender bias… None of these aspects are 
 embedded in the image itself.

Slide 85

Slide 85 text

! Typography and typeface design are interesting because they reflect the tension between tradition 
 and modernity.

Slide 86

Slide 86 text

[next slide comment] A spread from Octavo on its own does 
 not tell you much about technological 
 shifts, the typographic context within which 
 this was groundbreaking, why it generated
 discussion, or what the arguments were.

Slide 87

Slide 87 text

No content

Slide 88

Slide 88 text

[next slide comment] Today an equivalent discussion about 
 innovation is taking place in the rethinking 
 of typefaces, in width (character sets), in 
 depth (family variants) and in richness 
 (the relationship between styles).


Slide 89

Slide 89 text

No content

Slide 90

Slide 90 text

! ! ! ! ! [in conclusion:]

Slide 91

Slide 91 text

Design matters because it forms the way we perceive and interact with our environment.

Slide 92

Slide 92 text

And if we don’t consciously talk about
 design interpretations and decisions, then the most obvious substitute, 
 the narrower language of making 
 will define the range of our expression.

Slide 93

Slide 93 text

! Thank you
 
 @gerryleonidas @typefacedesign