Uni 1957
vers
U
Univers 2 Adrian Frutiger 4 Characteristics of the Typeface 7 Comparisons 10 Univers in Use 12 References, Bibliography, Colophon
1
Adrian
Frutiger
“When I put my pen to a blank sheet, black isn’t added but rather the white sheet is deprived of light.” Adrian Frutiger is one of the most important
Frutiger has created a broad range of typefaces
type designers to emerge since World War II. He
including OCR-B a type for optical character rec-
is the designer of many notable faces—the best
ognition. His 1982 Breughel is an original face
known being the sans serifs Univers and
almost wholly comprised of curves and fitting
Frutiger—and was one of the first designers to
into no existing type category. He has embraced
create type for film.
new technology and used it to advantage in faces such as Centennial, a modern whose fine
Although Frutiger has said that all his types
serifs are made possible by recent improve-
have Univers as their skeleton he felt, when he
ments in definition. More than ten years earlier
came to design a face for the Charles de Gaulle
his Iridium had demonstrated that the classical
Airport at Roissy, that Univers seemed dated,
modern face was neither outdated nor neces-
with a 1960’s feel. His airport face, originally
sarily caused legibility problems. Frutiger
known as Roissy but renamed Frutiger for its
himself is skeptical about theories of legibility.
issue to the trade by Mergenthaler Linotype in
He learned to read with Gothic characters with-
1976, is a humanistic sans serif that has been
out difficulty and says legibility is solely
compared to Gill and Johnston types.
a matter of habit.1
3
Characteristics of the Typeface To achieve the goal of an expansive, inte-
Frutiger’s decision to use different stroke
grated type family, designers must be
thicknesses for the horizontal, diagonals,
sensitive to the nuances of each letter form
and verticals was a response to his as-
while simultaneously considering the over-
sessment of visual discrepancies in other
all system. In the case of Univers, this so-
typefaces. It is also no coincidence that
phisticated approach to type-family design
Frutiger’s interest in creating a functional
is supported by a well-considered set of
and efficient type family followed well-doc-
typographical characters. Univers is a neo-
umented scientific research done in the
grotesque sans-serif typeface. Frutiger
1930s and ‘40s on the mechanics of eye
created a large type family with different
movement during reading. 2
styles and categorized the different fonts as numbers within Univers.
4
u
u u
The n is slightly larger than the u because white entering a
letter form from the top appears more active than white entering
from the bottom. Ascenders and descenders were shortened in
comparison with existing typographic norms, and x-heights were increased.
C
The c is smaller than the o because in open letters the white space achieves greater penetration into the form, thereby appearing larger.
5
T Z By overlapping a Z and a
T of the same point size,
variation in stroke thickness becomes apparent.
While Frutiger’s goal was to make letters that fit together so flawlessly that the assemblage formed a new satisfying gestalt, he also deemed it important that individual letter forms remain distinct from one another. “Built up from a geometric basis, the lines must play freely,” Frutiger wrote, “so that the individuals find their own expression and join together in a cohesive structure in word, line, and page.” To maintain the integrity of each letter form, careful optical adjustments were made, based on the current knowledge of the principles of perception. Larger x-heights also provided greater legibility, addressing the concern that sans-serif type was more difficult to read than serif type. All of these innovations contributed to the overall harmony among letters, allowing for a smooth line flow.3
a a aa a a a 6
Within the Univers typeface,
adopted the system of cate-
(Left to Right) 49 Light Ultra
there are 44 different fonts
gorizing the fonts into num-
Condensed, 53 Extended,
with 16 different styles of
bers because he envisioned
55 Roman, 65 Bold, 73 Black
weight, width, and position
a large typeface family with
Extended, 75 Black, 93 Extra
combinations. Frutiger
multiple widths and weights.
Black Extended.
C
Comparisons 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.4
Inspired by his study of the limitations of existing sans serifs, Frutiger began with the assumption that “a purely geometric character is unacceptable in the long run, for the vertical ones; an O represented by a perfect circle strikes us as shapeless and has a disturbing effect on the word as a whole.�5
O OO Futura 78 pt
Univers 78 pt
Gill Sans 78 pt
Cap-height
Univers 55 Roman
Optima Regular
Baseline
Futura Book Ascender
Crotch Tail
Univers 55 Roman, in general, has a circular and rectangular curves with consistent strokes whereas Optima typeface has inconsistent strokes and Futura with very sharp and crisp edges. Futura is also has thinner strokes and higher cap-height compared to Univers. The edge of the character N is extremely sharp 8
for both Optima and Futura, but the edge of the N for Univers is more like a rectangle. The same characteristic is shown for the edge of the w. The stroke of Optima Y’s crotch has thin and thick parts, whereas Futura and Univers stay consistent. But, again, the Futura typeface is more thin compared to Univers.
The tail of the g for Futura almost touches the baseline. The g for the Optima connects with the upper and the lower part of the character, linking the neck. The ascender of the l for Futura reaches the cap-height whereas the Optima l has a thicker end stroke compared to its middle part of the l.
n n n y yy Univers
Helvetica
Optima
The shoulder (the gray rectangu-
Univers’s x-height by far, but the
ica is higher than that of Univers
lar block) of the Univers is slightly
Optima n shoulder is lower than
and the x-height of Optima is
higher than the x-height. Helveti-
the x-height of the Univers. Like-
lower than that of Univers.
ca’s shoulder of the n passes the
wise, the x-height of the Helvet-
Univers 65 Bold
Futura Bold
Helvetica Neue Bold
The y of Univers and Helvetica
Univers 65 Bold. The crotch (gray
(gray circular block) of the Helvet-
Neue have similar width whereas
rectangular block of the y) for
ica Neue points towards upwards
Futura’s is thicker. The baseline
both Futura and Helvetica Neue
and Futura’s goes more down-
for Futura Bold is higher than
is higher than Univers. The tail
wards compared to Univers’s. 9
Univers in Use
10
Typographische Monatsbl채tter, 1961 No. 12
Brazil Postage Stamp: Cardiogram (ca. 1978)
How Music Works by David Byrne
Magazine cover designed
Postage stamp focused on heart
Selected by graphic designers as
by Emil Ruder, with one lower-
disease awareness, designed by
favorite book cover from 2012,
case, Swiss International Style.
Marcelo Martinez in Brazil.
designed by Dave Eggers.
Bible Study Books Booklet about religion, use of graphics and typeface at the same time.
1972 Munich Olympics Tickets Munchen, Germany Olympics Ticket, designed by Otl Aicher.
Gallusplatz Signs
Typographische Monatsbl채tter 1962 issues
Sign posts in Sankt Gallen,
Magazine cover in Swiss
Switzerland on the streets.
international Style, designed by
Designer unknown.
Andre Gurtler and Bruno Pfaffli.
11
References 1
Pincus W. Jaspert, The Encyclopedia of Typefaces. (Poole, Dorset: Blandford Press, 1983), 69-70.
2
Jennifer Gibson. Revival of the Fittest: Digital Versions of Classic Typefaces (New York: RC Publications), 171.
3
Ibid, 173.
4
Linotype Library GmbH, Available at http://www.linotype.com/7-267-7-13347/univers.html Accessed November 1, 2005
5
Alexander S. Lawson, Anatomy of a Typeface (Boston: D.R. Godine, 1990), 304.
Bibliography Blackwell, Lewis. 20th-Century Type. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. (A&A: Z250.A2 B59 1998 and Vault) Carter, Sebastian. Twentieth Century Type Designers. Great Britain: Lund Humphries, 2002. (A&A: Z250 A2 C364 1995 and Vault) Kunz, Willi. Typography: Macro- and Microaesthetics. Sulgen: Verlag Niggli AG, 2000. (A&A: Z246 .K86 2000 and Vault) 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 http://fontsinuse.com/typefaces/1160/univers
Colophon Designed by Cynthia Rhee Sam Fox School of Design Washington University in St. Louis Class of 2016 Typography I Spring 2014 Used various typefaces with different weights of Univers Typeface
12
U
U
Uni 1957
vers