niversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversun universuniversunivers ersuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversunive niversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversuni rsuniversuniversuniversuniversunnivers universuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversun niversuniversuniversuniveru universuniversuniver versuniversunivers niversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversuniversunive universuniversuniversuniv iversuniversuniversuniversuniv
univers
univ 1
vers Adrian Frutiger is one of the most important type
came to design a face for the Charles de Gaulle
designers to emerge since World War II. He is the
Airport at Roissy, that Univers seemed dated, with
designer of many notable faces—the best known
a 1960’s feel. His airport face, originally known as
being the sans serifs Univers and Frutiger—and was
Roissy but renamed Frutiger for its issue to the
one of the first designers to create type for film.
trade by Mergenthaler Linotype in 1976, is a
Although Frutiger has said that all his types have Univers as their skeleton he felt, when he
humanistic sans serif that has been compared to Gill and Johnston types. 2
legibility “Legibility is solely a matter of habit.�
Frutiger has created a broad range of typefaces
possible by recent improvements in definition. More
including OCR-B a type for optical character
than ten years earlier his Iridium had demonstrated that
recognition. His 1982 Breughel is an original face
the classical modern face was neither outdated nor
almost wholly comprised of curves and fitting into
necessarily caused legibility problems. Frutiger himself
no existing type category. He has embraced new
is skeptical about theories of legibility. He learned to
technology and used it to advantage in faces such
read with gothic characters without difficulty and says
as Centennial, a modern whose fine serifs are made
legibility is solely a matter of habit.
3 3
The Univers family has 27 different variations with altering line weight, density, bold, and italics.
To achieve the goal of an expansive, integrated type family, designers must be sensitive to the nuances of each letterform while simultaneously considering
existing sans serifs, Frutiger began with the assumption
the overall system. In the case of Univers, this
that “a purely geometric character is unacceptable in
sophisticated approach to type-family design is
the long run, for the vertical ones; an O represented
supported by a well-considered set of typographical
by a perfect circle strikes us as shapeless and has a
characters. Inspired by his study of the limitations of
disturbing effect on the word as a whole.� 4
When the Z and T overlap, it is easy to see the variation of the top stroke thickness.
5
characteristics “The principles of perception.”
By overlapping a Z and a T of the same point size,
efficient type family followed well-documented
variation in stroke thickness becomes apparent.
scientific research done in the 1930s and ‘40s on the
the lines must play freely,” Frutiger wrote, “so that
Frutiger’s decision to use different stroke thicknesses
mechanics of eye movement during reading.
the individuals find their own expression and join
for the horizontal, diagonals, and verticals was a
While Frutiger’s goal was to make letters that fit
together in a cohesive structure in word, line, and
response to his assessment of visual discrepancies
together so flawlessly that the assemblage formed a
page.” To maintain the integrity of each letterform,
in other typefaces. It is also no coincidence that
new satisfying gestalt, he also deemed it important
careful optical adjustments were made, based on the
Frutiger’s interest in creating a functional and
that individual letterforms remain geometric basis,
current knowledge of the principles of perception. 6
The quick brown fox jumps over a lazy dog The quick brown fox jumps over a lazy dog One concern about san-serif fonts like Univers (bottom) is that they were less legible than serif fonts like Bodoni (top). To provide greater legibility, ascenders and descenders were shortened and the x-height was increased. The kerning and line weights were also increased.
structure The c is smaller than the o because in open letters
existing typographic norms, and x-heights were
the white space achieves greater penetration
increased. Larger x-heights also provided greater
into the form, thereby appearing larger. The n is
legibility, addressing the concern that sans-serif
slightly larger than the u because white entering a
type was more difficult to read than serif type.
letterform from the top appears more active than
All of these innovations contributed to the
white entering from the bottom. Ascenders and
overall harmony among letters, allowing for a
descenders were shortened in comparison with
smooth line flow.
7
When the C and te O are laid on top of each other, the C is actually smaller than the O. This manipulation of size is due to the spacial perception of the letter. The C is open, and therefore appears larger visually.
CO
C O 8
ppp The bowl in this Futura letterform is a perfect geometric circle. The use of geometric shapes is something Frutiger strived to avoid, calling such elements “shapeless” and “having a disturbing effect on the word as a whole.”
9
Though Helvetica (middle) and Univers (right) look similar at first glance, the stroke thickness is more varied in Univers, evident by looking at where the bowl meets the stem. This decision was made to improve Univers’s legibility.
comparison “Univers expresses a factual and cool elegance.�
Legibility Legibility Helvetica (top) has less kerning between letters than Univers (bottom), which makes the font as a whole more condensed. The x-height of Helvetica is also much larger, which gives the letters a much more compressed feel.
Univers font was created almost simultaneously with other successful alphabets: Helvetica (1957) and Optima (1958). Whereas Helvetica, for example, had a general clarity and a modern, timeless and neutral effect without any conspicuous attributes (lending to its great success), Univers expressed a factual and cool elegance, a rational competence.
10
10
Bibliography Blackwell, Lewis. 20th-Century Type. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. (A&A: Z250.A2 B59 1998 and Vault)
References
Kunz, Willi. Typography: Macro- and Microaesthetics. Sulgen: Verlag Niggli AG, 2000. (A&A: Z246 .K86 2000 and Vault)
1 Pincus W. Jaspert, The Encyclopaedia of Typefaces. (Poole, Dorset: Blandford Press, 1983), 69-70.
Carter, Sebastian. Twentieth Century Type Designers. Great Britain: Lund Humphries, 2002. (A&A: Z250 A2 C364 1995 and Vault)
2 Alexander S. Lawson, Anatomy of a Typeface (Boston: D.R. Godine, 1990), 304.
Revival of the Fittest: Digital Versions of Classic Typefaces, essays by Carolyn Annand ... [et al.]; edited by Philip B. Meggs and Roy McKelvey, New York: RC Publications, 2000. (A&A: Z250.R45 2000) http://www.linotype.com http://www.fonts.com
3 Jennifer Gibson. Revival of the Fittest: Digital Versions of Classic Typefaces (New York: RC Publications), 171. 4 Ibid, 173. 5 Linotype Library GmbH, Available at http:// www.linotype.com/7-267-7-13347/univers.html Accessed November 1, 2005
This book was created by Christina Belderson in Winter 2008. It was printed at the Samfox School of Design and Visual Arts at Washington University in St. Louis. The paper used was laserjet paper. Typefaces used were Univers, Bodoni, Futura, and Helvetica.