Born Dec. 24, 1910 and died May 8, 1980
Max Miedinger is a Swiss typeface designer most importantly known for his Neue Haas Grotesk typeface in 1957 which was later renamed Helvetica in 1960. Helvetic is a sans serif font. I never knew how much love there was for Helvetica until i signed up for Pinterest today. Miedinger’s Helvetica was redesigned and released in 1983 as Helvetica Neue by Linotype. I had Helvetica Neue for Project 2 Font Mannerisms and I wasn’t impressed, but after the Project 6 book exercise I have a new appreciation for the font.
Below is some Helvetica love I found on Pinterest
Born March 17 1918, Died May 24, 1981
Very influential graphic designer and typeface designer.
I picked a couple of Lubalin’s works from the Megg’s textbook for my visual analysis and I think his typefaces are amazing. He isn’t afraid to push the boundaries of text and he isn’t concerned with the legibility when he’s creating. I think that’s very inspiring since I’m the opposite and hold back. Avant Garde Gothic shows tight kerning, over lapping ligatures and a very distinctive style. He wasn’t afraid to go crazy and really explore the limits of type and phototype.
P22 is a Type Foundry in Buffalo, NY. Their website takes the wood type catchwords created by The Hamilton Manufacturing Co. and digitalizes. This poster caught my eye because it’s the same company in the movie we watched in the open studio.
I think it’s interesting that there’s someone who is making and selling New Wood Type Catchwords and P22’s Behance page has a link.
New Wood Type Catchwords are being made for sale by Moore Wood Type
They also have a paragraph dedicated to the Two Rivers Hamilton Wood Type & Printing museum 🙂
Created at Loomis Group, San Francisco.
ECD: Johnny Bartlett
ACD/CW: Kelly Rodgers
AD: Michael Lashford
“At Loomis Group, all of our conference rooms were named after fonts. I initiated a project where designers company-wide each picked a room and designed a poster for it, somehow illustrating the font. These were then printed and displayed in the spaces. I partnered with copywriter Kelly Rodgers to create this poster”
A-Z glossary of the Anatomy of type. This website was extremely helpful when I need to understand the difference between two parts who’s descriptions were similar. An example was eye and counter. Some diagrams show the lower case ‘e’ having a counter and others showed it having and eye. Because this glossary was alphabetical I could look them both up and find out the difference.
Teo Gagliano’s letterforms are really creative and have a nature theme throughout all the letters. This is similar to what we created in Project 4, but taking it a step further and creating the whole alphabet.
I think it’s neat to see him apply his alphabet to cardinal directions on his website. His work is really cute and inspires me 🙂
This project has definitely been a learning curve for me, especially in the early stages of adjusting the columns with soft returns and kerning. The assignments was by no means “hard” but it was one of the hardest assignments for me because it was so tedious, time consuming and new. Looking back from my In Design file Project6 PartB.2 to Project6 PartB THE_Final shows how much I’ve learned through out this process. I can see now how hanging letters like “I, as, to, of, a” are very distracting when they are hanging at the end of a line in a column of text. I had never paid attention to typography like that before and it does make a visual difference when you soft return them down a line. However, at certain point sizes this soft return can create a huge, awkward hole in your paragraph that you have to compensate by kerning – or +. Sometimes that was impossible for me because my hanging letters were often followed by long words that could not be kerned with the line above.
Smaller point sizes were easier to make changes because the original kerning was tighter allowing for an “a” or “I” to move down without creating as much of a gap as the larger point sizes, but it also made kerning harder because -20 kerning of 8 point font is much more noticeable than -20 at size 16. Therefore, i wasn’t able to kern smaller size fonts as easily as larger. If I had a widow of “Q” in size 16, -20 kerning often brought the “Q” to the above line with no problem. If I tried this with 6,8,10 point fonts the kerning took -30 or more to bring the widow up which is unacceptable kerning for such a small font. Below is my original layout before any corrections were made.
You can see all the widows and how much they stick out. Even my “and Q’s” were widows i had to adjust. I learned that in order to not be a widow the last line must be at least 1/3 the width of the column.
I found myself correcting my graphic design Visual Interpretation Poster after i started project 6 because I was arranging my layout in a grid with 300-500 words of text. The knowledge I acquired from this assignment made my assignment for graphic design better.
Below is my Final Part B (hopefully…)
Part B is killing me. I now know what a “widow” means and that sentences in a column should not end with a, of, to, as, I….. and I feel like I’m dying inside. On my second page no matter how hard I try I can not get rid of the widow on the left side column. I have tried to insert a soft return and that has issues or I can Kern it but its like -30 or +30 which Charles says is too much. Other issue is if I do a soft return to get rid of the a, of, to, as or I I’m left with awkward gaps in my text. I try to kern them, but often times those 1 or 2 letter words are before big, long words so the kerning does not work. I’m also having the same issue as Kim where everything is in metric so I change it to optic and the issues that come with that. Don’t get me wrong I am learning a lot, but my brain feels like it will explode with frustration >.<
If you are interested in my plight or have any suggestions here’s the PDF
Last semester in my Intro to Software class Andrea Cardinal mentioned about not double spacing after a period. I had been taught in K-12 to always double space after a period and have been doing so ever since. However, once Andrea brought up that it’s now a no-no I’ve been very careful not to in my writing. It has been a very hard habit to break. Oddly enough at the beginning of this semester I came across this article on facebook about typography and how its history demonstrates the once “needed” double space for type and how it is not needed with present day technology.
And yet people who use two spaces are everywhere, their ugly error crossing every social boundary of class, education, and taste.* You’d expect, for instance, that anyone savvy enough to read Slate would know the proper rules of typing, but you’d be wrong; every third email I get from readers includes the two-space error. (In editing letters for “Dear Farhad,” my occasional tech-advice column, I’ve removed enough extra spaces to fill my forthcoming volume of melancholy epic poetry, The Emptiness Within.) The public relations profession is similarly ignorant; I’ve received press releases and correspondence from the biggest companies in the world that are riddled with extra spaces. Some of my best friends are irredeemable two-spacers, too, and even my wife has been known to use an unnecessary extra space every now and then (though she points out that she does so only when writing to other two-spacers, just to make them happy).
What galls me about two-spacers isn’t just their numbers. It’s their certainty that they’re right. Over Thanksgiving dinner last year, I asked people what they considered to be the “correct” number of spaces between sentences. The diners included doctors, computer programmers, and other highly accomplished professionals. Everyone—everyone!—said it was proper to use two spaces. Some people admitted to slipping sometimes and using a single space—but when writing something formal, they were always careful to use two. Others explained they mostly used a single space but felt guilty for violating the two-space “rule.” Still others said they used two spaces all the time, and they were thrilled to be so proper. When I pointed out that they were doing it wrong—that, in fact, the correct way to end a sentence is with a period followed by a single, proud, beautiful space—the table balked. “Who says two spaces is wrong?” they wanted to know.
Typographers, that’s who. The people who study and design the typewritten word decided long ago that we should use one space, not two, between sentences. That convention was not arrived at casually. James Felici, author of the The Complete Manual of Typography, points out that the early history of type is one of inconsistent spacing. Hundreds of years ago, some typesetters would end sentences with a double space, others would use a single space, and a few renegades would use three or four spaces. Inconsistency reigned in all facets of written communication; there were few conventions regarding spelling, punctuation, character design, and ways to add emphasis to type. But as typesetting became more widespread, its practitioners began to adopt best practices. Felici writes that typesetters in Europe began to settle on a single space around the early 20th century. America followed soon after.
Every modern typographer agrees on the one-space rule. It’s one of the canonical rules of the profession, in the same way that waiters know that the salad fork goes to the left of the dinner fork and fashion designers know to put men’s shirt buttons on the right and women’s on the left. Every major style guide—including the Modern Language Association Style Manual and the Chicago Manual of Style—prescribes a single space after a period. (The Publications Manual of the American Psychological Association, used widely in the social sciences, allows for two spaces in draft manuscripts but recommends one space in published work.) Most ordinary people would know the one-space rule, too, if it weren’t for a quirk of history. In the middle of the last century, a now-outmoded technology—the manual typewriter—invaded the American workplace. To accommodate that machine’s shortcomings, everyone began to type wrong. And even though we no longer use typewriters, we all still type like we do. (Also see the persistence of the dreaded Caps Lock key.)
The problem with typewriters was that they used monospaced type—that is, every character occupied an equal amount of horizontal space. This bucked a long tradition of proportional typesetting, in which skinny characters (like I or 1) were given less space than fat ones (like W or M). Monospaced type gives you text that looks “loose” and uneven; there’s a lot of white space between characters and words, so it’s more difficult to spot the spaces between sentences immediately. Hence the adoption of the two-space rule—on a typewriter, an extra space after a sentence makes text easier to read. Here’s the thing, though: Monospaced fonts went out in the 1970s. First electric typewriters and then computers began to offer people ways to create text using proportional fonts. Today nearly every font on your PC is proportional. (Courier is the one major exception.) Because we’ve all switched to modern fonts, adding two spaces after a period no longer enhances readability, typographers say. It diminishes it.
Type professionals can get amusingly—if justifiably—overworked about spaces. “Forget about tolerating differences of opinion: typographically speaking, typing two spaces before the start of a new sentence is absolutely, unequivocally wrong,” Ilene Strizver, who runs a typographic consulting firm The Type Studio, once wrote. “When I see two spaces I shake my head and I go, Aye yay yay,” she told me. “I talk about ‘type crimes’ often, and in terms of what you can do wrong, this one deserves life imprisonment. It’s a pure sign of amateur typography.” “A space signals a pause,” says David Jury, the author of About Face: Reviving The Rules of Typography. “If you get a really big pause—a big hole—in the middle of a line, the reader pauses. And you don’t want people to pause all the time. You want the text to flow.”
This readability argument is debatable. Typographers can point to no studies or any other evidence proving that single spaces improve readability. When you press them on it, they tend to cite their aesthetic sensibilities. As Jury says, “It’s so bloody ugly.”
But I actually think aesthetics are the best argument in favor of one space over two. One space is simpler, cleaner, and more visually pleasing. (It also requires less work, which isn’t nothing.) A page of text with two spaces between every sentence looks riddled with holes; a page of text with an ordinary space looks just as it should.
Is this arbitrary? Sure it is. But so are a lot of our conventions for writing. It’s arbitrary that we write shop instead of shoppe, or phone instead of fone, or that we use ! to emphasize a sentence rather than %. We adopted these standards because practitioners of publishing—writers, editors, typographers, and others—settled on them after decades of experience. Among their rules was that we should use one space after a period instead of two—so that’s how we should do it.
Besides, the argument in favor of two spaces isn’t any less arbitrary. Samantha Jacobs, a reading and journalism teacher at Norwood High School in Norwood, Colo., told me that she requires her students to use two spaces after a period instead of one, even though she acknowledges that style manuals no longer favor that approach. Why? Because that’s what she’s used to. “Primarily, I base the spacing on the way I learned,” she wrote me in an email glutted with extra spaces.
Several other teachers gave me the same explanation for pushing two spaces on their students. But if you think about, that’s a pretty backward approach: The only reason today’s teachers learned to use two spaces is because their teachers were in the grip of old-school technology. We would never accept teachers pushing other outmoded ideas on kids because that’s what was popular back when they were in school. The same should go for typing. So, kids, if your teachers force you to use two spaces, send them a link to this article. Use this as your subject line: “If you type two spaces after a period, you’re doing it wrong.”
*Correction, Jan. 18, 2011: This article originally asserted that—in a series of emails described as “overwrought, self-important, and dorky”—WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange used two spaces after every period. Assange actually used a monospace font, which made the text of his emails appear loose and uneven.