Are Letters Characters?

y AL a Are Letters Characters?

An investigation into the visual communication of written language

Leo Field – 2015

?

Are Letters Characters?

An investigation into the visual communication of written language

Leo Field – 2015

C “Fonts turn words into stories.�

(Hyndman 2014)

CONTENTS

Introduction

p. 4

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

what are letters?

From aural to visual Writing with technology Central forms Definitions Letters now

p. 8 p. 10 p. 13 p. 14 p. 20 p. 22

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9

are letters characters?

What is character?

How is character communicated?

How is character gained?

Innate Learned Linguistics, aesthetics, form, function Is there neutral?

Letters as identity Case Study: Nokia Pure

p. 24 p. 28 p. 29 p. 35 p. 37 p. 40 p. 48 p. 55 p. 58 p. 63

Conclusion

p. 70

Figures Bibliography

p. 74 p. 78

I

“Letters are microscopic works of art as well as meaningful symbols.

They mean what they are as well as what they say.�

(Bringhurst 1992/2012: 23)

INTRODUCTION

Letters are all around us. They are the key visual communicators in our societies, the tool through which world-changing ideas have been recorded and spread and perhaps the ultimate distillation of pure visual expression through mark-making.

A quick note on the fridge, a text message to a friend, the ingredients of breakfast, road signs on the way to work, scribbles in a diary; we are so familiar with letters that we often fail to consider their place and importance amongst our lives.

“One cannot not communicate” argued psychoanalyst, Paul Watzlawick in the late 1960’s, referring to the idea that we, as humans, interpret everything around us as communication.

A person shouting will communicate something just as the person’s clothes, hair, expression and movements will communicate something else. A blank page communicates something as does the shape of a pot or the colour of the sky – intentional or otherwise.

Communication and narrative are embedded in the very fabric of human perception – it’s the way we make sense of the world.

For this reason, the communicative power of letterforms is twofold. Firstly, letters are a linguistic code for our spoken word – a system of shapes that allows us to encode audible language into visual form – but they are also objects in their own right.

introduction

7

The very shapes of letters – within their varying contexts – will communicate something to the viewer. These visual messages can occur before, during and after the viewer actually gains the linguistic message from a text and there is no guarantee that the two sides of this communication will work in harmony.

This study was spurred by frequent conversations that I have had with peers, friends and family during which the idea of written language having a ‘character’ has often been seen as ethereal, theoretical or purely academic.

As a designer, I believe that the visual communication of everything around us exists as a summation of many small parts – to understand the total we must understand these parts.

If we are to understand the communicative power of written language then it is essential to understand every aspect of that communication and it is to this end that I wish to pursue this study.

If we receive these varying messages from letters then what are they, how are they and what are the implications?

In approaching this subject I will restrict myself to the framework of the Latin alphabet as it is today. Surrounding my experience and culture, it provides the necessary understanding to assess the broader aspects and themes addressed. This is not to say that the exploration here is not relevant to other alphabets and scripts around the world.

8

Gotham became the face of optimism in 2008.

introduction

9

W “The lexicon of the tribe and the letters of the alphabet – the chromosomes and genes of literate culture.”

(Bringhurst 1992/2012: 196)

SECTION 1

WHAT ARE LETTERS?

Letters are the visual coding of our language: the set of symbols that have developed over years from the notation of audible speech into a system of written marks. There is no universal set – either by locality or point in history. This is because there are limitless ways to translate communicative ideas into sound (language) and limitless ways of translating these spoken sounds into written marks. These marks also inevitably evolve and change over time.

The power of the written word is vast, spreading ground breaking ideas and building cultures – but it is easy to forget that the literate culture in which we find ourselves is by no means to be taken for granted. If we are to analyse the shapes of our letters we must first consider how we have obtained the shapes that we currently refer to as our ‘alphabet’ and what purposes these shapes serve in our world.

A key writer on this subject, Timothy Donaldson, has recently detailed the historic stages of development for the Latin alphabet and I will use his 2008 book, Shapes for Sounds, as a leading reference here.

what are letters? 11

1.1 from aural to visual All social animals, like humans, use speech as a way to share complex ideas in groups. Speech is a visceral and emotive form of communication. Variants like tone, speed and body language mean that a particular voice in a particular situation communicates very differently from another.

That written letters should at least try to communicate in the same completeness that spoken sounds do is a given and in this way letterforms should have “tone, timbre, character, just as words and sentences do” (Bringhurst 1992/2012: 22). But the visual and written can never be considered as exactly the same thing as the spoken and audible. Figure 1 (Baines and Haslam 2005: 18) shows some of the key differences between the two. Regardless of these, since the written is here to express the spoken then it is worth noting that the two are inextricably related.

“As we are compelled from birth to utter sound to communicate, we are possessed by a no less primal urge – a desire to make a mark.” (Donaldson 2008: 20) The Latin alphabet is one of the current incarnations of a long history of writing. The many styles and iterations of these letters that we see today require a set of basic and central forms to use as a reference point. The name, ‘alphabet’, is taken from the Greek names for the first two symbols: ‘alpha’ (a) and ‘beta’ (b). It is the most economical system we have devised to date and works by visualising all sounds of basic speech as independent forms that we can build into words and sentences (Donaldson 2008: 20).

To make a mark is a basic form of expression. The idea of mark-making is timeless and the letters that we use today are only an extremely sophisticated iteration of mark-making. The tools of a particular time – from scraping into a leaf, dispensing ink from a nib or drawing on a computer using nodes – greatly effect the form and nature of the marks we make. The translation of spoken

12

Fig. 1 A comparison of spoken and written language taken from Type & Typography.

what are letters? 13

Fig. 2 Cave paintings in the Chauvet Caves, South of France – at over 30,000 years old, these are some of the earliest recordings of human markmaking.

Fig. 3 Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs – pictographic and logographic symbols.

14

word to written marks can be traced back as early as 32BCE, where ancient Sumerians (geographically correspondent to south-eastern Iraq) pressed a ‘tapered stylus into moist clay’ in order to record quantity, debt or investments (Donaldson 2008: 21).

Written languages are said to go through a number of stages before becoming the representations of basic sounds that the Latin alphabet is today. Donaldson says that the first stage is actually a ‘Token stage’, during which physical objects (that are smaller than the things they represent) are used to make a record. Pictures of the objects are then used instead of the objects themselves in the ‘pictographic stage’ and in the ‘logographic stage’ pictures are used only to represent the sounds made by words. Egyptian hieroglyphs (fig. 3) were largely pictographic – literally representing concepts with using images – but also logographic as they stood for the sounds made by words.

In the ‘phonographic stage’, language is reduced to its component sounds and pictures are used to represent these components. These individual pictures are essentially individual letters, reducing down over time to a set of marks that represent the components of language.

1.2 writing with technology Although letters originate from writing, they now exist in many different iterations and the words we see around us are often far detached from their written origins. A key development in the history of our alphabet is the invention of printing modular letterforms instead of writing them by hand.

In the later Middle Ages and early Renaissance, books were largely written and illustrated by hand but there is evidence of movable, reusable, modular characters made of clay and wood dating back to around 1040CE in China. In the mid 15th century, Johannes Gutenberg printed the Bible using cast letters. It is known as the ‘42-line Bible’ due to the number of lines on each page and

what are letters? 15

it is commonly thought to be the first major printed book in the Western world. Cast modular letters meant Gutenberg could create many copies of the same book without the text being rewritten by hand each time. The letter shapes themselves were cast to imitate the formal script of northern Germany at the time, ‘Textura’, lending to their heavy and formal appearance (fig. 4). In this way, the printed letters were essentially time-saving imitations of the formal handwriting of the time.

Since the advent of printing, typography has evolved to become an art in itself rather than an imitation of handwriting.

As needs, desires and technologies have changed, an endless array of styles have developed with which we can display our different written messages. In fact, most changes in the forms of our letters have been down to changing technologies over time; different tools to make the marks, the advent of reproducing and printing these marks as movable components (typography) and, more recently, computer technologies and their influence over our forms (both in developments and limitations).

1.3 central forms It could be considered that in order to have many variations of letter style, then there must be a central set of forms – a reference point to which we can compare and contrast.

It is important to establish two distinctly separate but related themes here. There is firstly the question of the central formation of ‘unclothed’ lines that makes an individual character what it is.

We will call this the ‘skeleton’. There could be a number of these that are accepted as standards. If we are to take ‘A’, for example, there is initially an uppercase ‘A’ and a lowercase ‘a’, there is also a cursive ‘a’ and a number of other basic line formations that could be accepted as the same character (fig. 5). These line formations can be seen as the basis or essence of letters – the link to their origins as writing and unbound by the stylistic or technological layers that clothe the line.

16

Fig. 4 Johannes Gutenberg’s 42-line Bible featuring ‘Textura’ style letters – printed imitations of the formal handwriting at the time.

what are letters? 17

It is considered that the central ‘skeleton’ forms of our alphabet have been halted by the introduction of modular typography.

As writing, letters evolved and changed in their basic structure as different tools and individuals made an impression. Since the crystallisation of the Latin alphabet into a set of modular printed characters, the variations in form and style can only exist within and around the established ‘skeletons’ of each one.

As Donaldson puts it: “most of the attempted extravagances are merely tinkering with the contour lines of letters. The skeleton remains the same” (2008: 44). Figure 9 shows the development of the letter ‘G’ before and after the advent of printing – note that the changes after printing concern only the styling or ‘clothing’ of the line but not alterations to the basic skeleton.

“The skill in type design lies precisely in working within this 90 to 95 percent established framework.

An a is an a but it’s like music: you work with clearly defined notes, but an oboe A sounds different to a violin A.” (Spiekermann in Erler 2014: 24) Separately defined but interrelated with this is the letterform as we see it – the central skeleton as clothed by its creation through a specific media, construction, style, technology or individual expression. We will call this the ‘style’. You can have limitless ‘style’ variations within the same ‘A’ or ‘a’ skeletons for example (fig. 6).

German typographer, Adrian Frutiger, talks of the central style of letters as an evolving average of all that is around us in his 1980 book, Type Sign Symbol. Layering eight of the letter ‘a’ from different typefaces over one another (fig. 10), he points out the central form that is the average of them all. “The nucleus of the character is like the pure tone in music, while the outer form provides the sound”, he adds (Frutiger 1980: 69).

We will come back to these ideas later in the study but it is worth considering this distinction between the variations of the

18

Fig. 5 Some of the basic ‘skeleton’ line formations for the letter ‘A’.

Fig. 6 Some of the many ‘style’ variations of ‘A’ using the same ‘skeleton’ formations – from An Essay on Typography.

AAaa

what are letters? 19

Fig. 7 The constituent strokes that originally made up an ‘A’ – from Type & Typography.

Fig. 8 Some of the key stages of development for the letter ‘A’ – from a pictographic representation of a cow to a logographic representation of a word sound and finally a phonographic component sound. From Type & Typography.

Fig. 9 The visual history of the letter ‘G’.

Continual changes to the ‘skeleton’ formation occur when the letter is handwritten but only ‘style’ changes become more apparent once the letter is crystallised by the advent of printing.

From Shapes for Sounds.

Fig. 10 Layering many different characters could reveal the central ‘average’ form and styling at any one time.

From Type Sign Symbol.

central ‘skeleton’ that make a letter what it is and the variations of ‘style’ that further give letters the ability to hold a character.

1.4 definitions When we talk of letters we are really referring to a few distinctly separate instances (fig. 11). ‘Writing’, ‘calligraphy’, ‘lettering’ and ‘typography’ are all terms for letters but exist to describe the different means to which they are created. All of these instances have their basis in writing but are now distinct in their permutations. Gerrit Noordzij offers some sinsightful definitions in The Stroke (1985/2005).

Writing usually refers to the everyday scribbles that we all create to note our ideas. Handwriting can vary hugely between people and is first formed through schooling at a young age.

It is ‘single-stroke’, meaning that it is not built up or with separate strokes or constructed in parts but rather just written as pure ‘skeleton’ forms.

Calligraphy is the act of formal writing. Writing with a calligraphic hand is to consider the forms that are being made.

“Handwriting pursued for its own sake, dedicated to the quality of the shapes” (Noordzij 1985/2005: 9).

Lettering is a term that describes letters and words that are drawn or constructed as bespoke one-off pieces for a specific purpose. The letters in a piece of lettering are not repeatable modules but bespoke constructed forms. “Lettering is writing with built-up shapes” (Noordzij 1985/2005: 9).

Typography differs from the others as the aim is to create sets of characters that work together in a modular way in order to be arranged in endless combinations. The term also often refers to the practice of using type. Baines and Haslam write in Type & Typography that it is the “mechanical notation and arrangement of language” (2005: 7).

When writing, the individual can impart a ‘character’ to the letterforms through conscious and unconscious influence.

22

Fig. 11 Four different types of letters: Writing, Calligraphy, Lettering and Typography.

type

type

type–e what are letters? 23

This could be affected by the speed of writing for example or the emotions of the person. In calligraphy, one can impart a specific character to the letters and words on purpose. In lettering, the individual can construct an exact feel and style and in typography the designer can do the same.

The crucial two sides here are the basic idea of ‘writing’ and the later mechanisation of this process as ‘typography’. Just as we have a huge variety of typefaces to choose from now, it is thought that a European scribe of the Middle Ages – a professional ‘writer’ – would know “eight or ten distinct styles of script” (Bringhurst 1992/2012: 121), all for particular uses and to evoke particular feelings.

The advent of typography brought a kind of idealist order to the human hand, but the principles remain the same. The difference is that, in the computer age, everyone has the opportunity of choosing a specific and crafted ‘character’ for a message: “today we can imagine no simpler artistic freedom than that pull-down font menu” (Garfield 2010: inside cover).

1.5 letters now Letters are a vital part of the modern world and while it is often argued that communication is becoming increasingly imagebased, there is no evidence to suggest that words are becoming a smaller part of our world – they are only morphing in their uses. As Donaldson points out, the internet is made up of 95% text (2008: 9).

We are all ‘type consumers’ (Hyndman 2014) and are exposed to letters from our first to last days across every environment – they are deeply embedded in our psyche and way of life. The emergence of the personal computer, desktop publishing and the internet have put letters into the hands of the mass public like never before, causing an increase in general understanding of, and exposure to, this area.

As we go into the 2010’s, letters are still being used in their traditional ways but are now increasingly becoming central in the

24

application of more bespoke and crafted situations such as user interfaces and corporate identity. There has been a resurgence in hand lettering, a boom in custom typefaces and a return to traditional typographic values and considerations in the online space. There couldn’t be a more interesting time to really engage with the characters all around us.

what are letters? 25

A

“Everything we read, we perceive rationally and emotionally.

When we look at a sentence, we react emotionally to its form before we even rationalise its content. That makes it part of the message. Type is full of expression, sound, and tone, since it is the form speech takes.�

(Spiekermann in Erler 2014: 24)

SECTION 2

ARE LETTERS CHARACTERS?

Most of us know letters as the carriers of our messages – they are primarily a means to an end. When faced with them we naturally look past the forms themselves in an attempt to rapidly gather the linguistic message they are portraying as efficiently as possible.

In this way the letters themselves are almost invisible – the messenger but not the message.

I think it is more appropriate to describe letters as a lens through which we view these linguistic messages. Like prescription glasses they can help us focus on the information or like sunglasses they can tint the information with their own influence, dressing it up in different guises. It is important to understand that although letters are primarily functional carriers of information, they are also distinct objects in themselves – with their own expression and power to influence other pieces of information.

Just as different voices in different contexts impart a ‘character’ onto the words they say, written words penned by different hands in different situations will emit signals of the mind and context behind the writing, and typefaces will emit their own messages and ideas simply by their very shapes.

are letters characters? 27

SU Fig. 12 Letters, from left to right: – ‘C’ from Coca-Cola logo – ‘A’ drawn fast and large – ‘S’ in Din Condensed Bold – U’ from the London Underground logo – ‘A’ drawn smaller and slower – ‘W’ from Waitrose logo – ‘k’ from Mark Hairline – f’ from Facebook – ‘P’ in Didot Regular

28

Wk P These letters all ‘say’ very different things through their forms. My fast and large ‘A’ looks very different to my smaller and slower ‘A’.

These letters communicate just like these two crosses communicate or this square and this circle communicate.

Everything says something and comparisons with other forms can illustrate this.

are letters characters? 29

2.1 what is character?

“There’s a lovely little cheekiness to it, there’s definitely something in that little a” (Crabb in Nokia Design 2011: 130) At the beginning of Twenty-six Characters, a book about the ‘Nokia Pure’ corporate typeface released in 2011, they define ‘character’;

“Character (noun) 1. The combination of traits and qualities distinguishing the individual nature of a person or thing.

2. A symbol used in a writing system, such as a letter of the alphabet.” (Nokia Design 2011: 7) The ‘combination of traits and qualities’ that distinguish the individual nature of a person could be things like their background, nationality, facial features, tone of voice, clothing style or body language – among many other things. All of these will give you a kind of feeling for that person, an idea of a ‘character’.

Of course, it is immediately apparent that character is a subjective rather than objective term and, like ‘beauty’, perceived character traits will perhaps lie as much in the mind of the beholder as in the definition of an object itself. But also, like beauty, we could argue that there are mutually agreeable averages across societies of people to which we can frame individual ideas and opinions. Perception is of course subjective and varied but not completely random – we can draw similarities across groups of different people.

If we apply this concept of character to letters then the ‘combination of traits and qualities’ consists of things like the visual style of the forms, the rhythm, abruptness or softness, and the contexts in which the letters have been used before or are being used now.

We know that things have character because we personify rooms and objects just as we do people and animals. The Pixar

30

anglepoise lamp ‘looks friendly, the room ‘feels oppressive’ and so on. We do it all the time to everything we experience – mostly unconsciously – but what do we actually mean and how can things have character?

2.2 how is character communicated?

“Meaning is not ‘transmitted’ to us - we actively create it according to a complex interplay of codes or conventions of which we are normally unaware” (Chandler 2014: Introduction) As soon as we talk about the character of letters we are referring to levels of communication. The character itself cannot exist independently of or unaffected by the communication channels and contexts surrounding it. When we talk about communication we are really talking about many different factors that come together to create a specific instance of messages and when we talk about how letters communicate, we are actually talking about how everything communicates.

Semiotics, the study of ‘meaning-making’ (Chandler 2014: Preface) seems entirely relevant here. After all, the letters around us are perhaps not inherently meaningful but instead gain learned meaning or rather have meaning applied to them. I am talking of course in part about the linguistic meaning that we assume to arbitrary shapes but also about the emotional ‘character’ and visual messages that we apply to the different instances and styling of these shapes.

British Semiotician, Daniel Chandler, says semiotics is often employed in the analysis of texts, noting that ‘texts’ can “exist in any medium” and may be “verbal, non-verbal, or both [...] a message which has been recorded in some way [...] so that it is physically independent of its sender or receiver” (2014: Introduction).

are letters characters? 31

He continues:

“A text is an assemblage of signs (such as words, images, sounds and/or gestures) constructed (and interpreted) with reference to the conventions associated with a genre and in a particular medium of communication.”

The ‘text’ we are concerned with is letters – not the words and linguistic messages that they are forming but the interrelationship and independent existence of the visual communication of the letter shapes themselves as a text. We could alternatively argue that the text is the coded linguistic value of our symbols and the medium the form and styling of this linguistic text. Regardless of how we put it, the important point is that the overall communication of our letters is complex and layered; a summation of the linguistic code, the medium and context of it and the viewer’s own perception of all of this.

This is interesting because the ‘medium’ of letters is so commonplace that it is most often considered invisible. As Chandler explains: “the more frequently and fluently a medium is used, the more ‘transparent’ or ‘invisible’ to its users it tends to become” (2014: Introduction). This explains the widespread perception of type and lettering design as over-analytical and contrived to those outside of the industry. It is difficult to step out and look at letters as communicative objects in their own their own right when we use them every day primarily as a means to an end.

But it is this refusal to analyse and de-construct all of the different parts that make up every piece of communication we perceive that leads people to conclude that they are uninfluenced by advertising, packaging and the society around them. It is important to deconstruct our perceptions – especially those which we consider invisible and arbitrary.

Earlier communication theories started to analyse the occurrences of communication. Ferdinand de Saussure argued that the meaning of a text exists only within the structure of the

32

language-game that it is a part of. The meaning of ‘meaning’?

To have a recognizable function in a sign system according to the dictionary. In essence, a ‘table’ could be called a ‘chair’ and it wouldn’t make a difference – the word ‘table’ only has meaning within the English sign system or ‘language-game’. When I say ‘language-game’ I am referring to the idea that philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein, put forward that meaning and communication is only relative within a language-game. In this way, the shape of the forms in a typeface only have specific meaning within the framework of cultural history and in relation to one another. An ‘a’ of any drawing or typeface is only an ‘a’ within the structure of the written language code that we have created and it is only different in character from another ‘a’ when it is seen within the framework of all the other ‘a’s – and in relation to a central idea of what an ‘a’ is at any one time (see fig. 10, p. 19).

Along with the idea that most communications we receive affect us unconsciously as well as consciously – and only within relative language-games – another important aspect of the communication of any text is that the end perception achieved in a viewer may be somewhat or entirely disparate from the intended messages of that text. This is because of the complexity involved in the translation of any message from author to viewer.

Roland Barthes questioned the idea of authorship in a text.

He argued that the meaning of a text only really exists within the mind of the viewer – at the point of interpretation. This theory is referred to as the ‘death of the author’ (Barthes 1977: 142) and is important when considering how much control anyone has in creating meaning within visual communication.

This is important as it leads us to take into account that the actual end perception of different pieces of type and lettering design are ultimately only partially controllable – being a summation of many other factors than just the intention of the author or designer. The designer of a typeface, for example, is never in full control of the message: they would have to know how

are letters characters? 33

it will be used and in what context it will be seen by which people with what beliefs and perceptions of the world. Therefore the end messages are never fully calculable. The journey and context of the text is as much a part of the communication as the text itself.

This line of thought also becomes relevant when we consider how a piece of handwriting, lettering or typography has gained its character. One could not disagree that the handwriting of someone in a rush will be different to that of the same person writing a letter slowly to a loved one. That person’s background and the society around them, their mood, along with many other things will also impart a kind of character to the letters. This is the same in type design; a typeface is not only an expression of the creator but also of the contexts in which it was created. It is important to see that a piece of design is affected by the context in which it is created and this is part of understanding how letters can gain ‘character’.

“The act of writing, for instance, may be shaped not only by the writer’s conscious purposes but also by features of the media involved – such as the kind of language and writing tools used – as well as by the social and psychological processes of mediation involved” says Chandler (2014: Introduction).

Another hugely important aspect of the communication of letters and the perceived ‘meaning’ of them is the relationship between ideas of denotation and connotation. The denotation of a text is the literal meaning – the definition and the ‘obvious’. The connotation is the other meanings of the text – those implied or hidden, formed within the framework of a cultural language-game and in the minds of individual personalities, through interpretations and emotions.

As I referred to in the introduction, everything communicates, and I also mean that everything denotes and connotes. This page is an artefact of communication in every sense – not just the words you are reading but the style of writing, the line spacing, the shape of the page and so on. These are all significant parts of

34

the total message that you are receiving. The typeface that this essay is set in – Calluna Sans – has been chosen in an attempt to communicate in an appropriate way this piece of writing. Whilst working well as a text face and avoiding an outwardly noticeable expression of character to dominate the content, it was chosen on the simple basis that it references mechanical type as much as it references writing. By this I mean that it looks a lot like type but also consistently references writing in the way that the letters are shaped. This seemed appropriate for an essay on the subject of letters in general – rather than type alone.

Are these characteristics denotations or connotations? It depends what you are classifying as the ‘text’. But if it is the whole communication of the essay then you could say that denotation is the literal linguistic code content of this essay (which could be presented in any manner under the sun and still essentially have the same letters in the same order) and the connotations are the way I have chosen to communicate the content of the essay – the type, the size, the layout, the page and so on.

“The moment a text and a typeface are chosen, two streams of thought, two rhythmical systems, two sets of habits, or if you like, two personalities, intersect.

They need not live together contendedly forever, but they must not as a rule collide.”

(Bringhurst 1992/2012: 24) A very simple way of representing this idea of denotation and connotation is to show the kind of interplay between linguistic message and visual message that we see on a daily basis.

If a linguistic message is discordant with the aesthetic message of the letters that are portraying it then we get a mismatch between the denotation and connotation of the text.

Comic Sans is one of many typefaces that has become famous in the public sphere since the advent of personal computers but it

are letters characters? 35

Fig. 13 The website ‘www.comicsanscriminal.com’ charts the worst misuses of Comic Sans.

Fig. 14 The linguistic code and aesthetic messages of a piece of communication should correlate.

Comic Sans Regular and Helvetica Bold used to illustrate the interplay of these two messages.

36

NO ENTRY NO ENTRY Play Centre Play Centre

has become somewhat synonymous with the idea of misuse.

Comic Sans looks like a child’s handwriting, the writing in a comic book speech bubble or perhaps something to be seen in the setting of a nursery school. If we set a message that is about something very serious in Comic Sans then we get a problem (fig. 14): the denotation of the message is serious and the connotations of the message (i.e. the ‘character’ messages of the typeface) are playful.

This is a very common issue and one that straightforwardly reveals the ‘character’ that we instinctively feel from letters and the different levels of communication involved in this area.

2.3 how is character gained?

Now we have clearly identified the differences between the content of textual messages and the visual and emotive messages of form, we can analyse how different forms have gained different ‘character’. We are highly evolved at ‘reading’ letters. We have exposure to a world of different letters from our very first days and therefore ‘read’ them fluently, naturally and subconsciously just like we do faces and expressions.

“When somebody is talking to you, you take less than 10% of the meaning from the words they’re actually saying.

The rest of it comes from their tone of voice, from their body language and from the clothes they wear.”

(Hyndman 2014) This means that we rarely notice the visual messages that we are receiving from letters but like the process of conversation, it is these emotive and subconscious messages that affect us firstly.

Take a look at figure 12 (pp. 26 – 27) and try to write down the different messages that each individual character is portraying.

These will be slightly different for everyone but also have correlation across general perception. The way that these different shapes have character is multi-faceted but largely falls into two

are letters characters? 37

Fig. 15 DIN Regular and Calluna Sans Regular with their underlying ‘skeleton’ strokes revealed.

Fig. 16 Whilst using the same underlying ‘skeleton’, the outer styling can create different outcomes.

38

crucially separate considerations – that of innate character and that of learned character, sometimes otherwise described as ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’.

2.4 innate By ‘innate’ character I am referring to the character that shapes may hold due to their existence in reference to the natural world and our innate judgement. Very simply this involves evolutionary considerations (like round = sweet and sharp = dangerous) and emotional personification (the letter ‘looks like’ it has been drawn slowly and carefuly or angrily and passionately reflecting the temperament of the communicator – or perhaps the letter looks a bit like a smiley face or a solid block of concrete). These are not really ‘learned’ considerations but are instead based on human perception and understanding in it’s completeness.

If we refer back to figures 5 and 6 (p. 17) we can see that there are two parts to this kind of innate character – in the rhythm of the central stroke ‘skeleton’ and the dressing of this stroke with the ‘style’. Figure 15 reveals the central strokes of two different a’s – the left (in DIN Regular) being more machine-like and the right (Calluna Sans Regular) portraying a more calligraphic and natural rhythm, like the movement of handwriting. This itself is quite an innate communication, making us think of the temperament of the letters in reference to the mark-making that we can all partake in.

Figure 16 expands on this example by showing the difference that the style or dressing of the stroke can make whilst using the same skeleton lines. The Bold version of DIN (very left) uses the same central skeleton as the regular weight but holds a more powerful and dominating character through the chunkier dressing of the stroke. Calluna Sans is also compared to its serif counterpart (very right), using the same skeleton but dressing the stroke with more contrast between thick and thins and with the addition of serifs. This makes the serif Calluna more formal and serious in

are letters characters? 39

appearance than the sans version– and with more of a reference to the pen.

That sans-serifs (letters without formal endings to the strokes) are commonly perceived as straightforward, simple and honest has as much to do with their use (or ‘learned’ character in reference to the development of letters, modernism and historical usage) as to do with ‘innate’ considerations. The un-serifed and unmodulated stroke could be seen as a purer reflection of basic mark-making – it is quicker to ‘draw’ and adds no additional styling (like the serifs) to the initial stroke – which could be seen as ‘honest’.

“Every sign that has been given a graphic form carries within itself a symbolic meaning. Every form of graphic expression, be it with only a single stroke, can be interpreted in this sense. To invent and give shape to signs and symbols is an activity based on a knowledge of the essential nature of forms.” (Frutiger 1980: 128) Adrian Frutiger talks of the innate character of forms and their relationship within human perception in Type Sign Symbol. When designing Meridien (fig. 19) he referenced natural influences to express an authentic and organic message: “I was concerned to take the stiffness out of the characters and to provide them with an appearance of natural growth.”

(Frutiger 1980: 28)

He talks of how forms that swell at the top and bottom are more appealing to the eye due to their being mimetic of ‘tree-trunks of a forest’ (fig. 17). He also compared swelling serifs to “the outlines of a bone, a silhouette to which we are accustomed” and noted that serifs that are concave rather than convex are more “pleasing and organically correct” as they better represent the ‘feet’ of Roman letters (Frutiger 1980: 30).

40

Fig. 17 Adrian Frutiger compares the interplay between letterforms to the tree-trunks of a forest.

From Type Sign Symbol.

Fig. 18 Serifs like the silhouette of a bone and the concave ‘feet’ of our Roman letters – from Type Sign Symbol.

in

Fig. 19 Detail of Meridien from Type Sign Symbol.

are letters characters? 41

This personification of forms is not actually unusual and could be considered a natural human disposition – a manifestation of our safety and survival mechanisms. Designer and educator, Sarah Hyndman, talks of information that has been “hard-wired into our DNA for protection and for survival”, adding:

“We know instinctively, when we look at something round and red that it’s likely to be ripe and sweet and nutritious and good to eat. But we also know that if we look at something jagged, it looks angry, it looks dangerous and it’s likely to taste sour or to taste bitter.” (Hyndman 2014)

Hyndman says that this process happens in exactly the same way when we look at letterforms and gives the example of her recent experiement in which she managed to influence the actual percieved taste of jelly beans by using different typographic treatments on the packets (fig. 20).

2.5 learned

“The basic forms themselves evolve without choice and the styling comes after as each designer approaches trying to create the same form in a different way, to a different ideal, in a different context and with different tools.” (Gill 1931/2013: 27) The other side of influence – that of ‘learned’ character – comes not from our natural perception of forms but from our evolving sense of what certain letter styles ‘mean’ through continued exposure to them in usage. This kind of gained character is not fixed and is continually evolving.

The main factor in changing letter shapes has always been technology. When people begin to use different tools to write, move from writing to printing or struggle against the limitations of a new technology, letterforms react and morph. But lasting

42

Fig. 20 Sarah Hyndman presenting her jelly bean type experiment at TEDxBedford, Dec 2014.

are letters characters? 43

effects can also become of evolutions and movements in culture such as new demands like advertising or new ways of thinking like that of Modernism. The relationship between letter shapes and the world around them is complex and interrelated.

There exists a rich language for describing different type styles and movements (fig. 21) that fits in with wider movements – Renaissance, Baroque, Neoclassical, Romantic, Modern, Postmodern and so on – but I am not so interested in the technical jargon as I am for the reasons they have gained certain ‘character’.

“On close inspection, typefaces reveal many hints of their designers’ times and temperaments, and even their nationalities and religious faiths.”

(Bringhurst 1992/2012: 99) As we have explored, ‘character’ is a relative term and although at any one time it seems that there are widely accepted character styles of letters, these are in flux. Look back at figure 4 (p. 15).

To use letters of a Blackletter (or ‘Textura’) style now would be making a very clear statement of character. It would suggest ornamentation, prestige, precedence, something aged and historic, or even something dark and horrific. When letters of this style were printed in Guteberg’s 42-line Bible they certainly didn’t give off the same ‘character’ messages as these. Being an imitation of the formal handwriting of the time, the perception would be of what we could call an ‘ordinary’ or ‘usual’ style of letter. The ideas of this being ornamented – of prestige and precedence – are built up by it’s contrast to what we have seen since then and the way Blackletter style letters have been used in contexts more recently over the years. One could also say that the ‘learned’ character of Blackletter as dark and scary owes to the more ‘innate’ characteristics of the heavy and spiky shapes – which in turn led to them being applied in ‘horror’ contexts and gaining ‘learned’ character.

44

Fig. 21 Images from spreads in The Elements of Typographic Style detailing key movements in type design from the 15th century to today.

From top: – Renaissance (15th & 16th centuries) – Baroque (17th century) – Neoclassical (18th century) – Romantic (18th & 19th centuries) – Realist (19th & early 20th centuries) – Geometric Modernist (20th century) – Lyrical Modernist (20th century) – Postmodernist (late 20th & early 21st century)

are letters characters? 45

Fig. 22 Illustration from Type Sign Symbol showing the relationship between societal developments and type style.

46

“The human spirit of each century resounds from its type-forms, which in a formal manner accompany the achievements of the century like a reflection�

(Frutiger 1980: 42)

are letters characters? 47

This succession of perceived character is comparable to that of clothing fashions – impossible to see holistically when in the midst of it. To look at a photo of a street from the 1980’s in 2014 would give you clear messages of character through the clothing styles.

If we were in the same street at the time of the photo we would not be able to see this – the character would feel ‘neutral’.

Letter styles can go in and out of ‘fashion’ like clothes – they can become tacky, then retro, then relevant again as they react to the different contexts around them. We can only ever see through our very current lens of perception which we could refer to as our current ‘language-game’ (see p. 31).

Let us take one example to illustrate how we associate certain character traits with letters. ‘Didot’ (fig. 23) is the name given to typefaces in a style created by a famous French family of printers and typographers. Didone letters are often associated with the idea of luxury, refinement and fashion.

Didone typefaces are very much of the ‘Romantic’ period.

They differ from prior letter styles through their construction – the high contrast thicks and thins on a strictly vertical axis give them a statuesque rather than rhythmic feel (see fig. 21, p. 43).

Typographer, Robert Bringhurst, explains how the character of these letters is informed not just by changes in technology but also as a reflection of wider cultural expressions. Didone letters represent the transition of writing tool from a broadnib pen to a pointed flexible quill (1992/2012: 131): “The broadnib pen produces a smoothly modulated stroke whose thickness varies with direction, but [...] the stroke of a flexible quill shifts suddenly from thin to thick to thin again, in response to changes in pressure.”

But they also represent the wider ‘Romantic’ movement: “Dramatic contrast, which is essential to much Romantic music and painting, is essential to Romantic type design as well.”

48

Didot

Fig. 23 Linotype Didot by Adrian Frutiger in 1991 was based on the typefaces cut by Firmin Didot between 1799 and 1811.

Fig. 24 Didot in use in 1835.

Fig. 25 Cover of Harper’s Bazaar from the late 1950’s.

are letters characters? 49

He also continues that the ‘statuesque’ forms of these letters invite the reader to ‘look’ at the letters rather than ‘read’ them – they seem “more drawn than written” (130).

If the letters look still and slowly drawn as an expression – in contrast to more rhythmic ‘written’ letters – then this could suggest an ‘innate’ reasoning for the advent of their eventual and very common use in a fashion and magazine display setting later on.

After all, high fashion clothing is to be ‘looked at’ – rather than just used to clothe a person.

In terms of public perception, repeated exposure to Didone typefaces in settings such as Vogue or Harper’s Bazaar (fig. 25) means that they are now associated with “style, femininty and fashion” (Hyndman 2014) through ‘learned’ character. Here you can see that the perceived character of these letters is informed by the culture of a time, the innate character of forms and learned association.

Another important consideration in the communication of letters is that they are almost never seen in isolation. They are most often a part of something else and the contexts that they are placed in communicate as much as the letters do. Letters are rarely seen as letters but instead as word images. The micro details are evident on a macro scale across when multiplied across the whole text block. Letters on packaging are just a small part of the visual communication of the whole packet and the context within which it is.

2.6 linguistics, aesthetics, form, function A central line of thought that is at the heart of whether letters should be seen as characters lies in the interplay between letters as ‘form’ and letters as ‘function’. Historically, this has been the subject of much debate with some arguing that letters are purely at the mercy of content (and should therefore be ‘invisible’ to the reader) and others describing them as ‘art’.

50

Of course, relevant to this debate is the purpose of the letters in question. There has been, and always will be, uses for letters both for extended text and in display settings. These two instances are very different and use letters in completely different ways.

Beatrice Ward famously argued that letters should be only the silent and perfectly functioning carriers of content – she gave the analogy of a ‘crystal goblet’, saying: “Type well used is invisible as type, just as the perfect talking voice is the unnoticed vehicle for the transmission of words, ideas.” (Warde 1955/Typo-L n.d) She suggests that you should not notice any particular character in a well chosen and set typeface – in such a circumstance you would be noticing the letters rather than the content.

Of course this doesn’t suggest that the letters that are best chosen to reveal the content don’t still have a character that would be revealed if the reader did decide to look more closely. Even if you don’t want the letters themselves to communicate as part of the overall message, they still of course will – at least to an extent.

Type Design Director at Monotype, Dan Rhatigan, recently said, “the best typefaces are a marriage of being very functional and very beautiful” (Rhatigan in Grey London 2014) and this is representative of a very common modern mindset in type design.

“One of the principles of durable typography is always legibility; another is something more than legibility: some earned or unearned interest that gives its living energy to the page. It takes various forms and goes by various names, including serenity, liveliness, laughter, grace and joy.” (Bringhurst 1992/2012: 17) The way Bringhurst describes type with “liveliness, laughter, grace and joy” is very much of the mindset that letters are like characters.

Most people seem to accept this play between functionality and

are letters characters? 51

aesthetic impression. Nevertheless, the debate on exactly what letters are or should be has always been raging.

Type designer, Eric Gill, wrote an impassioned essay in 1931 in which he reacts to the “whirl of eccentricity which modern advertising is driving us” (Gill 1931/2013: 48). He was becoming disheartened by the increasing prevalence of extreme distortions in form for the display letters of advertising at the time (see fig. 26); “it seems good and reasonable to return to some idea of normality, without denying ourselves the pleasure and amusement of designing all sorts of fancy letters whenever the occasion for such arises.” (Gill 1931/2013: 48) Of course there are big differences between the letters we use to draw attention and those to which we purely devote the content of a message. Gill himself designed some of the most loved British typefaces. Gill Sans (fig. 27) has been used extensively in both text and display contexts since its release in 1928 (fig. 28). Whilst performing particularly well as an extended text face, it also seems to exude ‘Britishness’, capturing a strong character that comes out very differently in the lighter text weights to how it is expressed in the Ultra Bold.

As we have moved through different cultural movements, attitudes on the role of typography have changed. Jan Tschichold argued in his 1928 book, Die Neue Typographie, that good typography should: “develop its visible form out of the functions of the text. [...]

The function of [...] text is communication [...] and the logical sequence of the contents.” (Tschicold 1928: 66-7) And while this could, in theory, allow for fairly expressive letterforms used in an appropriate setting, the Modernist ideal usually favoured the more minimal sans-serif Grotesques (fig.29) to express the ‘spirit of modern man’ (Tschicold 1928: 67). These somewhat sterile Grotesques that were in favour for a long time

52

Fig. 26 Eric Gill illustrates the difference between illegible shouting and legible shouting in An Essay on Typography.

Fig. 27 Gill Sans in various styles, illustrated by Monotype online.

Fig. 28 Gill Sans featuring on the famous Penguin covers

by Jan Tschicold and BBC World News today.

are letters characters? 53

(and still are to an extent) achieved a varied expression of voices not so much through the character of forms but rather through expansive ranges of weights and styles within the one typeface.

Adrian Frutiger’s 1957 Univers (fig. 29) can be used to express many different ‘characters’ through the different weights and styles but the homogeneity which came out of the (perhaps) overuse of Grotesque typefaces led to a phenomenon of many brands and public facing letters looking more or less the same.

The postmodernist aesthetic of the latter 20th century threw the ‘rules’ out of the window (fig. 31) – type was not the servant to content but could be an almost illustrative expression (fig. 32).

The course has really headed to ‘super-families’ of type now, with huge varieties of weights in the aim of a seamless expression across a whole variety of uses. There is an element of working text faces that sport smaller touches and details that, although unnoticable in text sizes, become memorable and interesting features when the type is used at display sizes (fig. 33).

“The function of typography is to communicate a message so that it effectively conveys both its intellectual meaning and its emotional feeling” (Kunz cited in Baines and Haslam 2005: 55-6) Many letters are designed to solve specific problems or with particular purposes in mind. FS Millbank by Stuart de Rozario (fig. 34) was designed with wayfinding in mind. Most of the visual expression of the typeface was therefore informed by performance criteria in tests of legibility and function in a wayfinding context (fig. 35). But rather than let this compromise on the character of the typeface, Rozario explains that the aim was to imbue it with a distinct personality. He argues that part of the functional aspects of a typeface actually include it’s character or personality: “There’s an argument that personality has no real place in typography for wayfinding and signage. However, research

54

Fig. 29 Univers in all its original styles, 1954.

Fig. 30 Modernist typography, 1927.

Fig. 31 Cover of No More Rules

by Rick Poyner, 2003.

Fig. 32 Emigre Postmodern typefaces.

are letters characters? 55

Fig. 33 FS Emeric (2013). ‘Superfamily’, set in body text and interesting details shown when enlargened for display use.

Fig. 34 FS Millbank (2015).

Fig. 35 Screenshots from the FS Millbank microsite which detail some of the functional considerations of the typeface.

34

35

suggests that [...] a lack of character is likely to subliminally disengage the reader and functionally compromise the attention the information receives. And, is there truly such a thing as a font that is merely functional?” (Fontsmith 2015: FS Millbank)

2.7 is there neutral?

People often talk of ‘neutral’ letters and they are usually referring to a sans-serif typeface with an unmodulated stroke in the Grotesque area of style. Perhaps for something to feel neutral it must fall somewhere near to the current ‘average’ of all that we see around us (see fig. 10, p. 19) and since the letters I have just described are particuarly common in our modern society, they appear average or neutral to most of us.

The ‘Universal Typeface Experiment’ (although featuring the word ‘typeface’, refers to handwriting) is an attempt to establish the current average of each letter by asking all visiters to a website to write each letter of the Latin alphabet (fig. 36). The data is gathered and averaged over time, establishing a ‘universal’ handwriting.

‘Neutral’ (fig. 37) explores whether there is a way of averaging many typefaces in order to establish a central typeface which avoids specific visual associations.

But as I have already explored, everything communicates and the fact that letters may cohere to our current ‘average’ (and therefore appear neutral or lacking specific communication) doesn’t undermine that they have character and the average will change over time, revealing said character in a different light.

In figure 10 (page 19), Frutiger points out that if we gather all of the current ‘a’s and layer them over one another, then we get a kind of average – a representation of the current central norm for an ‘a’.

If you can imagine that we did this experiment with every letter in the world every few years, we could chart the changing average form of each letter. In this way we could plot all of the different extremities of style against the central idea of ‘a’ as a reference point. One could imagine that we all have something like this

are letters characters? 57

Fig. 36 Screenshots of the Universal Typeface Experiment online.

The site allows users to input handwriting and browse through the gathered data in reference to the demographics of all users.

58

Fig. 37 Stills from the promotional video for Neutral.

Transcript: “Most faces try to say a lot. Try to grab your attention – yelling, begging, commanding, seducing, getting all up in your face.

Not this one.

This typeface was based on a set of parameters derived by measuring a number of popular 21st century sans-serif fonts.

Aware that there is no such thing as total neutrality, this typeface explores how the absense of stylistic associations can help the reader to engage with the content of a text. unobtrusive, impartial, free of extravagance.

This face is Neutral.�

are letters characters? 59

central ‘a’ form in our heads at any one time and are subconsciously measuring what we see against it.

2.8 letters as identity

“The identity of the message has to be in line with the identity of the sender. [...] Only those that know how to speak to their audiences will survive.” (Spiekermann 2014) If letters are the visual signifier of the way we speak, then it makes sense that they are considered in the same way that most visual communication is. In our consumerist society, the big buzzword in graphic design is ‘brand’ and for as long as organisations have wanted to have a unique voice, letters have been used to provide it. But it hasn’t been until more recently, with the advent of easily distributable type on personal computers, that brands have really taken type seriously as part of their ‘identities’:

“While it was possible, financially and technically, to design and produce a typeface exclusively for the use of one company, it was not really feasible. Once, however, the same personal computer that was used to design typefaces and produce fonts was also used as the main communication tool inside companies, it became easier to convince marketing and technical people alike that fonts were meant for more than the occasional campaign headline.” (Spiekermann 2014)

From wordmarks to whole corporate typefaces for every internal and external use, bespoke letters are now often the “glue that holds everything together” (Smith 2014). They are a huge part of the corporate world, with a whole community of lettering and typography specialists there to create them.

One of the earliest and most famous corporate identities to be held together with letters is the London Underground. With its bespoke Johnston type (fig. 38) that has survived through the decades, even being used for wayfinding to the London 2012 olympic games and still in use across the whole network and 60

brand identity expressions for Transport for London to this day.

Adrian Frutiger talked of designing letters in the corporate setting to express levels of meaning and identity back in 1980:

“The consonant M has a very positive ring: it is the first sound that we articulate (mama); perhaps it is the sound of sounds, if we think of the oriental Om for everything supernatural, or the western Amen, which has remained the same in all languages. [...] The written movements of the miniscule [...] contain a sensitive rhythm, its beginning and end flowing freely into the white of the round area, awakening the wish for a perpetual return.” (Frutiger 1980: 130)

The way he describes the ‘m’ marque (fig. 39) is almost spiritual but it’s not uncommon. Typefaces are released today along with a whole list of (what we would usually think of as) human attributes. Fontsmith, “a leading type foundry creating fonts that are distinctively human and full of character” (Fontsmith 2015: homepage), name most of their typefaces after people or places (fig. 40), picking a colour and list of attributes for each one.

Many would think see this personification of letterforms as rather esoteric or obtuse but the evidence suggests that, although people generally don’t realise it, we all recognise and engage with letters on an emotional level. Letters as part of an identity build up powerful associations over the years, the longest running pieces morphing in their comparison in context to other pieces of culture as the world changes around them. The Coca-Cola letters have stayed as a constant through many different design eras:

“If you imagine the curved ribbon-like letters of the Coca-Cola logo. These tell a story of 1950’s America, of long hot summer days, James Dean, movies like Greece.

When you look at these you probably know that they are going to taste sweet, even if you actually never tasted Coke before.” (Hyndman 2014)

are letters characters? 61

Fig. 38 Johnston typeface (1916) featuring across the London Underground network and TfL brand expressions.

Fig. 39 The ‘m’ marque described in Type Sign Symbol.

62

Fig. 40 Screenshot of the Fontsmith website, where typefaces are described with human names, character traits and distinct colours.

are letters characters? 63

Fig. 41 Nokia Sans (2002) and Nokia Pure (2011).

Fig. 42 Illustrations from Twentysix Characters detailing design and identity features of Nokia Pure.

64

case study: nokia pure In 2011, Nokia brought out a new corporate typeface. This was to be used not only across all brand expressions (like packaging and advertising) and products (on the phones, phone batteries) but also across the user interfaces of products. This means that the letters had to work in the context of brand ownership with outward and recognisable character but also as a working text face to be seen and used at very small sizes within specialised environments and on very limited screens. The typeface also had to work in a huge variety of languages. Nokia Pure was to replace the previously designed Nokia Sans (fig. 41) in an attempt to refresh the brand image.

Moving in a fairly different direction to the previous typeface which had “played an essential role in transforming Nokia into a globally recognised brand” (Nokia Design 2011: 26), Nokia Pure was to communicate with only a light influence of character: “...the new mood calls for a font that’s less about Nokia and more about the customers that will use it. A clean, simple font lets the words do the talking.” (Nokia Design 2011: 26) But this functional aesthetic was to be representative of a brand character that they wished to portray and had its essence in the Finnish design background of the company. Type foundry, Dalton Maag, explain:

“Finns are fames for their directness. To outsiders, it’s a quirk of the Finnish personality; but it’s also an aesthetic, visible throughout the country’s world-renowned architecture and industrial design. As a rule, Finnish design is functional and coherent with an absolute clarity of purpose: words you could easily apply to the typeface Nokia Pure.” (Nokia Design 2011: 56)

The representation of Nokia Pure in many different scripts and languages also brings up interesting questions. “One man’s squiggle

are letters characters? 65

is another man’s symbol” (Nokia Design 2011: 82): perhaps you can see more clearly the pure visual character of forms when you lack understanding of the linguistic code that is being portrayed. But to what extent you can successfully create a seamless type character across vastly different types of letterform is still open for debate:

“the lengthy words of the Finnish tongue [...] can create an entirely different-looking paragraph compared to the same information in English. Similarly, the addition of accents or unique letters like the n will put a definite spin on the personality of any text written in that language.” (Nokia Design 2011: 82)

This approach to designing an all-encompassing brand typeface with seamless applications across everything from logos and campaigns to software and products is something that has been expressed in a similiar way by Microsoft in the last couple of years.

Segoe is a typeface crafted by Monotype and in recent years it has been fully implemented across the entirety of the Microsoft branding, products and services (fig. 46). This achieves a kind of consistency in messaging that is hard to come across, especially from an organisation this large.

Segoe is an appropriate typeface for a large range of uses with legibility across different devices and platforms. It is therefore fascinating that the leading portable device manufacturer at current, Apple, has recently moved from using the very functional Lucida Grande to Helvetica (fig. 47) across their user interfaces.

One can only imagine that this is to bring a consistency between the different devices – some of which were already using Helvetica – from a brand point of view rather than a functional one.

Spiekermann says that this is down to ‘pure laziness’ and compared it to using the same images for completely different design projects.

He talks of young interface designers who put style and beauty over function:

66

“They discover Helvetica. Then they discover that you can reduce it to like two pixels. It’s beautiful, and it’s pleasant [...]

You’re so taken away by this beauty that you forget that the user may have a different task. It’s a beautiful typeface, it totally sucks for an interface.” (Spiekermann in GIGAOM 2013)

This brings up some of the key arguments between character and function that have been important in this essay. The balance between style and pure function becomes especially important when letters are placed in a corporate setting.

are letters characters? 67

Fig. 43 Nokia’s brand slogan displayed in seven different brand typefaces with corresponding colours.

From top: Nokia Pure, Myriad (Apple), Samsung typeface, Palm typeface, Catull (Google), T-Mobile typeface, Sony Ericsson typeface.

Fig. 44 Nokia Pure ‘character’ as applied to different scripts.

68

Fig. 45 Working process documents for Nokia Pure showing some of the thoughts and intentions as crafting the typeface.

are letters characters? 69

Fig. 46 Microsoft logo, advertising and Windows 8 interface featuring the Segoe typeface.

70

Millilitre Millilitre

Fig. 47 Left: Helvetica featuring on the iPhone iOS8 interface.

Below: a comparison of Lucida Grande (top) and Helvetica (bottom) at different scales in order to illustrate the legibility differences.

At small sizes Helvetica is much harder to read as letters are less differentiated across the typeface.

Millilitre Millilitre Millilitre Millilitre Millilitre Millilitre Millilitre Millilitre

are letters characters? 71

C “I think as long as we are human beings and everyone is unique we will want different fonts.

It’s like music.”

(Maag in Nokia Design 2011: 21)

CONCLUSION

The question – are letters characters? – is really about challenging our perceptions of written language. The first question was to ask – are symbols just ‘characters’ (code) or are they ‘characters’ in the full sense of the term (personalities)? It seems fitting that we describe our symbols in this way.

The simple answer is of course no, they are not. They are not living, they are not breathing and they certainly aren’t acting or moving. A personality comes from a ‘person’. But the reality of our experience is quite different.

Humans are emotional and passionate creatures. We don’t just value and have feelings for people but we have them for objects too. We can’t help but make meaning out of everything – how else would we establish a framework of taste and opinions, rights and wrongs, likes and dislikes. We know only to treat things with this emotional capacity, regardless of what they are.

Letters are essentially just shapes. They function as meaningful communication only at a specific point in time and within a specific culture – the meaning is not inherent to them but instead exists in the minds of populations. But that doesn’t imply that they don’t feel meaningful. We can only ever speak from our experience and as long as we think letters are meaningful then surely they are so.

conclusion 73

Although I have explored some rational academic enquiry into how letters might have character, I maintain that this is really an irrational, emotional and subjective topic. This is almost the beauty of it – that there is a complex world of debate and discussion about shapes in which the meaning only really resides in our minds.

As a basic form of self expression, writing is ingrained in the fabric of mankind. The typefaces we use today are really just idealised writing and the various styles only a parallel to the different handwritings we all have. The visual cues we gain from a note written quickly or angrily tells us so much more about the message than the words alone do and throughout the last few decades this written expression has been mirrored with the emergence of desktop publishing. The evolving technologies within which our written language operates affect the ongoing visual characteristics of our letterforms but the fact that they do communicate in this visual way is unchanging – whatever medium and context.

Letters are part of visual communication and they are a particularly interesting part of it. They embody both the rational and functional as much as the irrational and emotional and they do this just with form and space where the only variables exist in a black and white world of positive and negative.

Letters are characters, at least in our heads, and they are characters like people are. They express themselves differently over time and in different contexts, they bounce off each other and form groups within a rich culture of opinions.

“Fonts turn words into stories with influence. And as the Graphic Designer, I’ve started to feel the responsibility of my role as the storyteller” (Hyndman 2014) As the percieved ‘identity’ of letterforms is becoming powerful in the context of consumer culture, we have to remember that the essence of letters is about good communication and they, like anything, can be abused in the wrong hands.

74

conclusion 75

FIGURES Cover and inside cover design by author using Calluna Sans Regular.

Introduction (p. 7) Image of Obama. n.d. (online). available at <http://media. npr.org/assets/img/2012/09/06/obama_ custom-1a255bf2a423cc181740a342913da 81a680a98ac.jpg> [accessed 2/2/2015] Fig. 1 Chart. from p. 18, BAINES, Phil and HASLAM, Andrew. 2005. Type & Typography (2nd ed.). London: Laurence King.

Fig. 2 Cave paintings. 2012. (online). available at <https://annadoherty. wordpress.com/2012/10/06/history -of-animation-cave-paintings/> [accessed 11/12/2014] Fig. 3 Egyptian Hieroglyphs. n.d. (online). available at <http://1.bp.blogspot. com/-YDwY3kgXppU/UjpipHhh_VI/ AAAAAAAAArc/MPDZPTvDnyI/s1600/ louvre-hieroglyph.jpg> [accessed 10/11/2014] Fig. 4 42-Line Bible. from p. 21, KANE, John. 2011. A Type Primer (2nd ed.).

London: Laurence King.

Fig. 5 Drawings of ‘A’. by author.

Fig. 6 Various ‘A’s. from p. 49, GILL, Eric.

2013. An Essay on Typography (originally 1931). London: Penguin Group. also typefaces – FS Me, Adelle, Calluna Sans, Mark.

Fig. 7 Strokes of ‘A’. from p. 41, BAINES, Phil and HASLAM, Andrew. 2005.

Type & Typography (2nd ed.).

London: Laurence King

76

Fig. 8 Development of ‘A’. from p. 39, BAINES, Phil and HASLAM, Andrew.

2005. Type & Typography (2nd ed.).

London: Laurence King.

Fig. 9 Development of ‘G’. from Appendix no. 24, DONALDSON, Tim. 2008. Shapes for Sounds. New York: Mark Batty.

Fig. 10 Average of ‘a’. from p. 69, FRUTIGER, Adrian. 1980. Type Sign Symbol. Zurich: ABC Verlag.

Fig. 11 Definitions. drawings by author. and image of book. 2015. (online). available at <http://www. kateforrester.co.uk/work/book-covers> [accessed 13/1/2015]. and itv logo.

2015. (online). available at <http:// www.fontsmith.com/case-studies/ itv-logotype> [accessed 13/1/2015]. and Capitol logo. n.d. (online). available at <http://payload169.cargocollective. com/1/0/9353/5698452/capitol_script_ rob_clarke.jpg> [accessed 13/1/2015]. and typefaces – Calluna Sans, Simoncini Garmond, Alan Pro. Fig. 12 Various letters. drawn and illustrated by author and typefaces as described. and ‘C’ from CocaCola logo. 2007. (online). available at <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Coca-Cola_logo.svg> [accessed 1/2/2015]. and ‘U’ from London Underground logo – used Johnston typeface. and ‘W’ from Waitrose. n.d. (online). available at <http://holtwhites. co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/

waitrose-logo.jpg> [accessed 1/2/2015]. and ‘f’ from Facebook. n.d. (online). available at <http://www.palaeodeserts. com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ Facebook-logo-PSD.jpg> [accessed 1/2/2015].

Fig. 13 Comic Sans Criminal. screenshot of website. 2015. (online). available at <http://www.palaeodeserts.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/Facebooklogo-PSD.jpg> [accessed 20/1/2015].

Fig. 14 Misused letters. illustration by author using typefaces as described.

Fig. 15 Stroke illustration 1. illustration by author using typefaces as described Fig. 16 Stroke illustration 2. illustration by author using typefaces as described Fig. 17 Tree stems. from p. 29, FRUTIGER, Adrian. 1980. Type Sign Symbol. Zurich: ABC Verlag.

Fig. 18 Human comparisons. from p. 30, FRUTIGER, Adrian. 1980. Type Sign Symbol. Zurich: ABC Verlag.

Fig. 19 Meridien. using typeface as described.

Fig. 20 Hyndman at TED. screenshot of video. 2015. (online). available at <https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=OXc-VZ4Vwbo> [accessed 2/1/2015].

Fig. 21 Classifications. from pp. 12 – 15, BRINGHURST, Robert. 2012. The Elements of Typographic Style (4th ed.).

Vancouver: Hartley & Marks.

Fig. 22 Type and technology. from pp. 42 – 3, FRUTIGER, Adrian. 1980.

Type Sign Symbol. Zurich: ABC Verlag.

Fig. 23 Didot. using typeface as described.

Fig. 24 Didot in use. n.d. (online). available at <http://www.csdl. tamu.edu:8080/DQIIMAGES/ largeimages/281/1835-Paris-Didot01-002-t.jpg> [accessed 9/1/2015].

Fig. 25 Harper’s Bazaar. 2007. (online). available at <http://www.eyemagazine. com/feature/article/through-thickand-think-fashion-and-type> [accessed 21/1/2015].

Fig. 26 Advertising letters. from pp. 42 – 3, GILL, Eric. 2013. An Essay on Typography (originally 1931).

London: Penguin Group.

Fig. 27 Gill Sans. 2015. (online). available at <http://membership.monotype.com> [accessed 29/1/2014].

Fig. 28 Gill Sans in use. Penguin book. n.d. (online). available at <http://1. bp.blogspot.com/-YK6f0SEaTUQ/ Uq7TWrz1I5I/AAAAAAAAAB4/608hppl_ LVU/s1600/Untitled-1.jpg> [accessed 27/1/2015]. and BBC World News logo. n.d. (online). available at <http://i.ytimg. com/vi/k2odMb94O78/maxresdefault. jpg> [accessed 27/1/2015].

Fig. 29 Univers. from p. 17, FRUTIGER, Adrian. 1980. Type Sign Symbol. Zurich: ABC Verlag.

figures 77

FIGURES Fig. 30 The New Typography. 2014. (online). available at <http://corinneand. com/die-neue-typographie/> [accessed 13/1/2015].

Fig. 31 No More Rules. n.d. (online). available at <http://images. betterworldbooks.com/030/No-MoreRules-Poynor-Rick-9780300100341.jpg> [accessed 13/1/2015].

Fig. 32 Emigre type. n.d. (online). available at <http://also.kottke. org/misc/images/emigre-type.jpg> [accessed 13/1/2015].

Fig. 39 ‘M’ marque. from p. 103, FRUTIGER, Adrian. 1980. Type Sign Symbol. Zurich: ABC Verlag.

Fig. 33 FS Emeric. 2013. (online). available at <http://www.fsemeric.com> [accessed 26/1/2015].

Fig. 40 Fontsmith typefaces. screenshot of website. 2015. (online). available at <http://www.fontsmith.com/fonts> [accessed 25/1/2015].

Fig. 34 FS Millbank values. 2015. (online). available at <http://www.fontsmith. com/fonts/fs-millbank> [accessed 19/1/2015].

Fig. 35 FS Millbank testing. 2015. (online). available at <http://www.fsmillbank. com/#/fs-millbank> [accessed 19/1/2015].

Fig. 36 Universal Typeface Experiment. screenshots of website. 2014. (online). available at <http:// theuniversaltypeface.com/home> [accessed 10/11/2014].

Fig. 37 Neutral. stills from video. 2014. (online). available at <https://vimeo. com/86399448> [accessed 5/1/2015].

78

Fig. 38 Johnston. London Underground signpost. n.d. (online). available at <http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/ archive/02446/undergroundsummar_2446901b.jpg> [accessed 17/1/2015]. and London Underground advert. n.d. (online). available at <http:// www.creativereview.co.uk/images/ uploads/2013/02/tfl_150_years_ad_0. jpg> [accessed 17/1/2015].

Fig. 41 Nokia Sans & Pure. n.d. (online). available at <http://images. pocketgamer.co.uk/FCKEditorFiles// nokiafonts.jpg> [accessed 29/1/2015].

Fig. 42 Nokia Pure illustrations. from pp. 16 – 17, Nokia Design. 2011. Twentysix Characters. Berlin: Gestalten.

Fig. 43 Corporate typefaces. from p. 195, Nokia Design. 2011. Twenty-six Characters. Berlin: Gestalten.

Fig. 44 International typeface. from pp. 86 – 87, Nokia Design. 2011. Twentysix Characters. Berlin: Gestalten.

Fig. 45 Nokia Pure workings. from p. 114 and p. 120, Nokia Design. 2011. Twentysix Characters. Berlin: Gestalten.

Fig. 46 Microsoft. logo. n.d. (online). available at <http:// blogs.microsoft.com/wp-content/ uploads/2012/08/8867.Microsoft_5F00_ Logo_2D00_for_2D00_screen.jpg> [accessed 1/2/2015]. and Windows Phone advertisement. n.d. (online). available at <http://3.bp.blogspot. com/-eAtd7pTAqyU/ULPJZ-krzPI/ AAAAAAAA5Ec/rka9oj6g9bk/s1600/ windows+phone+green+billboard. jpg> [accessed 1/2/2015]. and Windows 8 interface. n.d. (online). available at <http://2.bp.blogspot. com/-rKUiqb5ESb4/T8RCzlJojCI/ AAAAAAAAAos/pJXqDQ0Gndw/s1600/ Start+screen.png> [accessed 1/2/2015].

Fig. 47 Lucida Grande versus Helvetica. iPhone iOS interface. n.d. (online). available at <https://9to5mac.files. wordpress.com/2014/03/messages.png> [accessed 1/2/2015]. and illustration by author using typefaces as described.

Final image (p. 73) Black Square

by Malevich, 1915. n.d. (online). available at <http://upload.wikimedia. org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/ SchwarzesQuadrat.jpeg> [accessed 2/2/2015].

Everything communicates.

figures 79

BIBLIOGRAPHY PRINTED TEXTS AMBROSE, Gavin and HARRIS, Paul.

2006. The Fundamentals of Typography.

Switzerland: AVA Publishing.

BAINES, Phil and HASLAM, Andrew.

2005. Type & Typography (2nd ed.).

London: Laurence King.

BARTHES, Roland. 1977. Image Music Text. London: Fountana Press.

BARTHES, Roland. 1993. Mythologies (originally 1957). London: Random House.

BRINGHURST, Robert. 2012.

The Elements of Typographic Style (4th ed.). Vancouver: Hartley & Marks.

DONALDSON, Tim. 2008. Shapes for Sounds. New York: Mark Batty.

ERLER, Johannes. 2014. Hello I am Erik.

Berlin: Gestalten.

FRUTIGER, Adrian. 1980. Type Sign Symbol. Zurich: ABC Verlag.

GARFIELD, Simon. 2010. Just My Type.

London: Profile Books.

GILL, Eric. 2013. An Essay on Typography (originally 1931). London: Penguin Group.

KANE, John. 2011. A Type Primer (2nd ed.). London: Laurence King.

Nokia Design. 2011. Twenty-six Characters. Berlin: Gestalten.

NOORDZIJ, Gerrit. 2005. The Stroke (originally 1985). London: Hyphen Press.

80

TSCHICHOLD, Jan. 1995. The New Typography (originally 1928). California: University of California Press.

ONLINE VIDEO Fontsmith. 2014. (online). Fontsmith. available from <https://vimeo. com/64268590> [accessed 20/11/2014] Grey London. 2014. (online). Dan Rhatigan on Ryman Eco. available from <https://vimeo.com/103907391> [accessed 24/11/2014] GIGAOM. 2013. (online). Typeface on Screens: The Invisible Building Blocks of Brands. available from <https:// gigaom.com/2013/11/05/apple-fontbeautiful-as-typeface-totally-sucks-asan-interface-insights-from-a-famoustypeface-designer/> [accessed 29/1/2015] HYNDMAN, Sarah. 2014. (online).

Wake up & smell the fonts. available from <https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=OXc-VZ4Vwbo> [accessed 2/1/2015] Typotheque. 2014. (online). Neutral Typeface. available from <https:// www.typotheque.com/blog/neutral> [accessed 2/2/2015]

ONLINE TEXTS CHANDLER, Daniel. 2014. (online).

Semiotics for Beginners. available from <http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/ Documents/S4B/semiotic.html> [accessed 11/11/2014] Fontsmith. 2015. (online). homepage. available from <http://www.fontsmith. com> [accessed 1/2/2015] Fontsmith. 2015. (online). FS Millbank. available from <http://www.fsmillbank. com/#/fs-millbank> [accessed 28/1/2015] Spiekermann. 2014. (online). Erik Spiekermann on why type is brand. available from <http://www. creativebloq.com/branding/erikspiekermann-why-type-brand-41411187> [accessed 28/1/2015] Typo-L. n.d. (online). The Crystal Goblet. available from <http://gmunch.home. pipeline.com/typo-L/misc/ward.htm> [accessed 1/2/2015]

bibliography 81

?

t A Q, a