I’M
NO T YOUR
TYPE
CHAPTERS 1 THE LETTER 2 THE WORD 3 THE LINE 4 ARRANGEMENT 5 THE COLOUMN 6 THE GRID 7 SYNTAX I 8 SYNTAX II
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.1 is one of many examples of kerning too tight.
this will be one bad habit that can only be resolved by saying “let it breathe!� this example isn’t as tight as the others, but needs a little more room.
1.2&1.3 are similar in how close they are, it is
almost frustrating acknowledging how close they are. either they need to seperate and be their own letters or be tighter and become a ligature. in this state, they resemble The Lovers by Rene Magritte
1.4
1.5
1.6 1.7
1.4&1.5 these two are awkwardly spaced aside one another,
remember how you want the letters to be read and remember the negative space and the effect it causes. this one is like an awkwardly lengthed bowl cut... or a man bun with short-ish hair
1.6 the only suggestion i have for the y&i is let it breathe! there is no need for it be a ligature because of the negative space it will createthere’s no need for it
1.7 everything is way too light, the rendering was done by a light
pencil and scanned horribly; its a technical issue but makes the difference
2.1
2.2
typ ypo pog ogr gra rap aph phy typography
typ ypo pog o rap aph phy typography 2.3
2.1-2.5 can only be responded to as
“let it breathe!” make a ligature or don’t but mostly, none need to be made by these serifs or even at this specific size (72pts)
2.4
typ ypo pog ogr gra rap aph phy typography 2.5
2.6
2.8
2.7
typ ypo pog ogr gra rap aph phy typography
2
2.6-2.8 the same can be said when using sans
serif fonts—reminder once again to “let it breathe!” ligatures don’t always make it easy to read because it creates a whole new shape. we don’t read words letter by letter, we recognize shapes, so if we jern to tightly or even too loosely, we have to re-read and it makes the reading process more difficult.
3.1
3.2
typography is a beautiful group of letters, not a group of beautiful letters 3.3
3.1&3.3 once again “let it breathe!” what should be addressed is 3.3 because it is too close between two words, it almost begins to create a new word
3.2 YAY for the first time, you have now been grant-
ed the opportunity to kern tighter. WHY? because of the repition of the same letter ‘t’ and we see examples of this over on the next page
typography is the efficient means to essentially utilitarian and only accidentally aesthetic end
3
typography is a beautiful group of letters, not a group of beautiful letters
3.4 3.5
typography is the efficient means to essentially utilitarian and only3.6 accidentally aesthetic end
3.4&3.5 just like the doule ‘t’ situation, double ‘f’ and ‘s’ can be kerned tighter as well
3.6 however, the double ‘l’ cannot be kerned tightly because it would simply create one big block. there isn’t enough character to repeat the letter without making a blob
4
the twisted path of conformity is strewn with the tortured reminders of the vagaries of typographic taste 4.1
4.1 the lines indicate the prefered shape for this
quote to take. it looks pleasant as is but would be preferred to have a larger top because it adds to the hierarchal stance
4.3
4.4
the twisted path of conformity is strewn with
4.2 the tortured reminders of the vagaries
of typographic taste
4.2 a trap queen has the shape of an upper case p and lower case d, in the situation, they have come too close, ascenders and descenders clashing. so keep an eye out for the track queen... or just “tracking”
4.3-4.6 damn daniel, back at it again‑ “let it breathe!”
the twisted path of conformity is strewn 4.5 with the tortured reminders of the vagaries of typographic taste 4.6
CRY ME A
RIVER
the dots show an excessive amount of space between words but an accumulation of them create rivers. since rivers are a line you can draw in the negative space throughout a body of text and a line is a series of dots, i made one in the same. if a series of dots create a line, you have a river and we can see that in some bodies of text here the line merely implied that the paragraph needed to expanded‑ tracked positively to make legibility easier
6.1
It may seem that many people point-blank refused to use the telephone because they might have to speak to someone to whom they had no formal introduction! Canʼt get much less intimate than that can you. The telephone survived the stupidity of snobbery and opened up a whole new world of intimacy. People couldkeep in touch. They could swap confidences in a way they would never think of in a faceto-face encounter. They could make their lives faster, more efficient and easier. In the 1990ʼs the mobile phone took the transformation of everyday life to another level altogether - constant communication. As the yuppie label faded rapidly, the mobile phone became the instrument of intimacy; the builder of relationships. If you wanted to be empa-
thetic, you would have to admit there was a hell of a lot to listen to. In an average day an adult can use as many as 40,000 words. Thatʼs about five hours of continuous speech. If you multiply this be 75, thatʼs about a billion words in a lifetime. And what will all these words be about? Important issues of the day? Very few of them. Most of our talk could be termed trivial. Itʼs about the process of talking rather than the content; we talk about family and friends, the weather, local news, and (especially) the days goings-on. Gossip is the lifeblood of intimacy. People automatically phone home to announce they are in the car and on the way home. Everyone is constantly calling everyone else to explain where they are, wh a t i s h appening, w h a t
Fish are the Last to Recognize Water m i g h t h a p p en . A p o i n t -by-point tracking throughout our lives with our loved ones. Intimate talking has become a 24/7 activity. Forget grammar and argument. Weʼre talking haphazard, incomplete and emotional. This is not about communicating information as we know it. This is a constant sensing of where you are, where I am, and how we are both feeling. To me commitment is one of the most demanding Lovemark attributes. Remember that great definition of the difference between being committed and being involved? In a plate of bacon and eggs, the pig is committed and the chicken is involved. Working with P&G I was introduced to Cape Town academics Jan Hofmeyr and Butch Rice from Commitment-Led Marketing. We all agree that
loyalty is not enough. As Hofmeyr and Rice point out, loyalty can just be consumers acting on autopilot, continuing to buy the same brand because they canʼt be bothered to make another choice. But commitment can transform loyalty from an unthinking acceptance to a real state imbued with real emotions - loyalty beyond reason. This continuation of loyalty and commitment is the powerful force we need to harness for Lovemarks. Getting to the crucial place where people are beyond the information stage and point-by-point comparisons. They have made their choice. They have committed to it before friends and family. It is part of them and they are not going to change now.
6.2
6.1 a hierarchy needs to be
It may seem that many people point-blank refused to use the telephone because they might have to speak to someone to whom they had no formal introduction! Can’t get much less intimate than that can you.
emphasized on, especially with the ‘fish’ part of the headline
6.2 there is a complication
added when puting text on an image. the inconsistency of color/shade messes with legibility, keep an eye outfor it an problem solve ways out of this problem
6.3 positioning was just a disgrace, needed to be mapped out better
6
6.3 Fish are the Last to Recognize Water
The telephone survived the stupidity of snobbery and opened up a whole new world of intimacy. People could keep in touch. They c o u l d s w a p confidences in a way they would never think of in a face-toface encounter. They could make their lives faster, more efficient and easier.
In the 1990’s the mobile phone took the transformation of everyday life to another level altogether - constant communication. As the yuppie label faded rapidly, the mobile phone became the instrument of intimacy; the builder of relatioships. If you wanted to be empathetic, you would have to admit there was a hell of a lot to listen to. In an average day an adult can use as many as 40,000 words. That’s about five hours of continuous speech. If you multi-
ply this be 75, that’s about a billion words in a lifetime. And what will all these words be about? Important issues of the day? Very few of them. Most of our talk could be termed trivial. It’s about the process of talking rather than the content; we talk about family and friends, the weather, local news, and (especially) the days goings-on. Gossip is the lifeblood of intimacy. People automatically phone home to announce they are in the car and on the way home. Everyone is constantly calling everyone else to explain where they are, what is happening, what might happen. A point-bypoint tracking throughout our lives with our loved ones.
Intimate talking has become a 24/7 activity. Forget grammar and argument. We’re talking haphazard, incomplete and emotional. This is not about communicating information as we know it. This is a constant sensing of where you are, where I am, and how we are both feeling.
7.1
7.2
7.1 bruh, words overlapping? that’s worse than a widow and orphan combined
7.2 avoid creating a concaved/convexed rag 7.3 i’m sure these leters need puffers and my suggestion to you is let it breathe
7.4 unsettled foundation doesn’t work in life... physically, nor typographically
7.3
7.4
7
8
8.2
8.1
8.1 just like in 6.2, be aware of text on imagery and maintaing legibility
8.2 the various widths of coloumns was suggested
but shot down, they are too close together in width that it looks like a mrookie mstake, so if you are going to do this again,do it with some conviction. greater contrast and a greater outcome
8.3 ...this actually works, yup, nothing to add here
}
8.3
galen
ward 315096