UNIVERS
Adrian Frutiger Designer of Univers, 1928 – present Adrian Frutiger is one of the most important type designers to emerge since World War II. He is the designer of many notable faces—the best known being the sans serifs Univers and Frutiger—and was one of the first designers to create type for film. Although Frutiger has said that all his types have Univers as their skeleton he felt, when he came to design a face for the Charles de Gaulle Airport at Roissy, that Univers seemed dated, with a 1960’s feel. His airport face, originally known as Roissy but renamed Frutiger for its issue to the trade by Mergenthaler Linotype in 1976, is a humanist sans serif that has been compared to Gill and Johnston types. Frutiger has created a broad range of typefaces, including OCR-B, a type for optical character recognition. His 1982 face Breughel is an original design almost wholly comprised of curves and fitting into no existing type category. He has also embraced new technology and used it to his advantage in faces such as Centennial, a modern whose fine serifs are made possible by recent improvements in definition. More than ten years earlier his Iridium had demonstrated that the classical modern face was neither outdated nor necessarily caused legibility problems. Frutiger himself is skeptical about theories of legibility. He learned to read with gothic characters without difficulty and says legibility is solely a matter of habit.1
u u uu uu
u u uuuu u u u uu u uu u
Numbering system The release of Univers in 1957 was quite innovative in rejecting the traditional reliance on descriptions like ’bold‘ or ’condensed‘ to distinguish between its fonts. Instead, Frutiger applied a naming system that uses two numbers, the first referring to weight from ultra light (2) to extra black (10), the second referring to width from ultra extended (1) to ultra condensed (9). This system makes it easy to compare fonts across typefaces and has been adopted by other designers.2
Anatomy of Univers Graphic strategies for legibility To achieve the goal of an expansive, integrated type family, designers must be sensitive to the nuances of each letterform while simultaneously considering the overall system. In the case of Univers, this sophisticated approach to type-family design is supported by a well-considered set of typographical characters. 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.” 3 By overlapping a Z and a T of the same point size, variation in stroke thickness becomes apparent. Frutiger’s decision to use different stroke thicknesses for the horizontal, diagonals, and verticals was a response to his assessment of the visual discrepancies in other typefaces. There is no coincidence that Frutiger’s interest in creating a functional, efficient type family followed well-documented scientific research in the ‘30s and ‘40s on the mechanics of eye movement during reading.4
Ideology shaping form Univers, as a neo-grotesque typeface, was designed with an emphasis on rationality and logic. The curves of the letterforms are simple and consistent but instead of relying on pure geometry, the forms are optimized for legibility and efficient reading.
Oc
While the bowl of the capital o requires significant horizontal reduction from a perfect circle (1), the letter c needs a narrower character width to maintain its color due to its wide aperture (2).
2
1
2
wx 5
4
Subtle stroke adjustments
45 pt
To create the illusion of even horizontal and vertical strokes, it is necessary to manipulate stroke widths. Our eyes are biased to the sideways motion of reading text, making horizontal strokes seem thicker. This illusion also occurs with the diagonals of Z, X, K or Y (3). Similarly, the intersections of sloping strokes within letterforms must be adjusted to provide optical balance. When the lowercase v is superimposed on the lowercase w (4), it is clear that Frutiger has made two major decisions: assigning steeper slopes to the strokes of the w and making the upper vertex where the diagonals join (5) wider than the actual stroke width so to allow for more breathing space in the form. In the lowercase x (6), a similar adjustment has taken place with overlapping strokes. The edges of the upper and lower halves do not actually join at the intersection; instead, the strokes have been shifted horizontally to create more balance between the x’s positive and negative spaces, which also helps reduce the typographic color at the intersection.
Z 6
58 pt
3
Distinguishing features 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 letterforms 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 letterform, careful optical adjustments were made, based on the current knowledge of the principles of perception. The c is smaller than the o because in open letters the white space achieves greater penetration into the form, thereby appearing larger. The n is slightly larger than the u because white entering a letterform 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. 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.5
Reduction Adrian Frutiger’s goal of a creating an efficient and highly legible grotesque led him to reduce the traditionally curved punctuation marks (the period, comma, colon and semi-colon) and the dots of the lowercase i and j to sharp, geometric rectangles and polygons. Nevertheless, for legibility purposes these forms behave like their rounded counterparts, extending further than the stroke width and above the x-height, in the case of colon and semi-colon (7).
p
x-height
baseline
.:;,i 7
x-height
baseline
gjfy 11
8
10
9
Univers’ rational approach is clear in the way that each letterform’s positive and negative shapes interact in space. Even the endings of curving strokes are completed in accordance with the typeface’s systematic construction.
Observe how the descender of the lowercase g loops up to end with a perfectly horizontal edge matching the y’s diagonal descender (8 & 9). In contrast, the lowercase j has an understated descender that is sliced vertically like the hook ascender of the f (10 & 11).
5
Comparisons Univers with Futura and Frutiger Univers was created almost simultaneously with two other successful alphabets: Helvetica (1957) and Optima (1958). Whereas Helvetica, for example, had a general clarity and modern, timeless and neutral effect without any conspicuous attributes (lending to its great success), Univers expressed a factual and cool elegance, a rational competence.6 Here, Univers is measured against Futura, a geometric sans serif designed by Paul Renner in 1927, and Frutiger, which is a humanist sans serif designed by Adrian Frutiger in 1976, nearly two decades after Univers.
aa
gg Futura
14
6
Frutiger
12
Futura
Frutiger
Futura’s geometric basis is evident in the lowercase a’s single-story design; basically a line and a circle translated into a stroke and bowl, with a few minor weight adjustments to control the color where the two elements join. While all three faces use the two-story design for the lowercase g, the treatment of the descender varies greatly. Univers served as the skeleton for the later face Frutiger. In figures 12 and 13, this close relationship is striking. In the the g and a, the bowl and stem in both faces share an essential structure while the terminals’ shapes reveal two distinct approaches. In Frutiger, less boxy, more sharply angled strokes end farther from the bowl, creating a larger aperture. The superimposition of the Univers g on Futura’s (14) reveals how the stroke of the Univers descender is significantly thinner and shorter, with a more squared curve.
13
SSS Futura
Univers
Frutiger
17
15
16
baseline
Proportions
Geometric sans serifs like Futura and humanist sans serifs like Frutiger adopt the classic proportions of traditional serifs, reducing width in capitals with extending arms such as S, E, F, L and T.
Univers has a wider capital S because, like other neo-grotesques and most sans serifs, modern proportions give the face more even capital character widths.
However, the stroke endings of Futura relate more to those of a humanist sans serif like Frutiger. The upper and lower terminals are cut at different angles, neither of which are strictly
horizontal or vertical, but more naturally drawn (16 & 17). The same underlying structure can be observed below, where the curves of the bowl meet nonorganic elements at the throat and bar of the uppercase G (18).
GGG Futura
18
While Futura shares Univers’ emphasis on rationality and logic, its form is based directly on geometry, such as the circles determining the curves of S (15).
Univers
Frutiger
7
From left: Futura, Univers, Frutiger
baseline
Character Tails are highly expressive elements in letterforms, ending the stroke in a colorful flourish or terminal that helps define the character of the entire face. Here, the designers’ treatments of tails also reveal the underlying structures of the respective typefaces, as well as the strategies used to combine disparate shapes (circles, lines and sharp angles) effectively in the design. The uppercase Q is often one of the most expressive graphic forms in a typeface, as the basic form of the letter, just an O plus a tail, remains understandable even when the tail may be suggested with a minimal mark or elongated or detached in countless ways. The lowercase y and j present unusual challenges for the designer. The y is closely related to the v, and above the baseline, the j is practically identical to the i. Below the baseline, the j and y’s descenders extend to the left, a direction that traditionally produces the thinner strokes in serif typography, harkening back to the varying lines of calligraphy. In these sans serif faces the challenge is to balance an elegant terminal with little available space.
Q In Futura, the tail is an angled parallelogram that simply crosses the nearly circular O form, connecting the center of the letter to the outer corner of the invisible box describing the character’s outer limits. Such classic simplicity was Paul Renner’s goal: to build an alphabet from geometric modules alone.
ijyv For Futura’s j, Renner simply extended the stem of the i to the descender line, a decision as radical as the steep, sharp vertex of the v. The y’s descender abruptly ends in a horizontal edge, graphically consistent with the rest of the face.
8
QQ 19
Like Futura, Univers’ sprouting tail also complies to the invisible, geometric parameters of the character. However, Frutiger has cut into the form, smoothing transitions to heighten the readability of the letter. In the waist, where the tail’s upper curve joins the bowl (19), an acute angle juts inward to lighten the color and emphasize that junction.
Frutiger’s tail combines the strategies used in Futura and Univers, creating an altogether new element. The other two faces join the tail to the bowl as if the strokes are interacting in real space. Rather than suggest a physical logic, Frutiger is more nuanced. Its horizontally cut tail extends stylishly like that of Futura, but does not interfere with the interior counter at all.
ijyv ijyv In Univers, the y is actually identical to the v above the baseline. The j pulls down below the y’s descender, neatly tucking to the left in a compact curve whose rectilinear shape is reminiscent of the dots on the i and j.
Frutiger’s y adopts the curve of the j, bringing it more generously to the left. The descender’s clean but loose and natural swing into the stem in both the y and j helps characterize Frutiger as a systematic but humanist typeface.
9
Univers in Use Examples
Apple Beginning with the Apple IIc in 1984, the company’s computer keyboards were labeled in 57 Condensed Oblique. Originally, the tilt of the buttons was designed to match the oblique slant.7
Script Expansion Extending the idea of a flexible typeface superfamily, designers have adapted the principles of Univers for Arabic and Devanagari, with Frutiger’s consultation.
Modern Architecture Long associated with clear and systematic structural logic, Univers is used for these stamps commemorating hallmarks of modern Dutch architecture.
Olympic Games
Signage
Otl Aicher selected Univers as the typeface for the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, Germany. The perceived neutrality of a neo-grotesque design like Univers heavily influenced the decision, as the Olympics are meant to represent international union through athletic competition.8
The popular conception of Univers as neutral and extremely legible makes it ideal for use in signage and labeling.
Bibliography 1
Pincus W. Jaspert, The EncyclopÌdia of Typefaces. (Poole, Dorset: Blandford Press, 1983), 69–70.
2
Wikipedia: Deberny & Peignot. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Deberny_%26_Peignot>. Accessed April 24, 2014.
3
Alexander S. Lawson, Anatomy of a Typeface (Boston: D.R. Godine, 1990), 304.
4
Jennifer Gibson. Revival of the Fittest: Digital Versions of Classic Typefaces (New York: RC Publications), 171.
5
Ibid, 173.
6
Linotype Library GmbH. <http://www.linotype.com/7-267-713347/univers.html>. Accessed Nov. 1, 2005.
7
Wikipedia: Typography of Apple Inc. <http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Typography_of_Apple_Inc.>. Accessed April 24, 2014.
8
In Praise of: The 1972 Munich Olympics. <http://www.totaal. co.uk/2011/01/26/in-praise-of-the-1972-munich-olympics/>. Accessed April 24, 2014. Blackwell, Lewis. 20th-Century Type. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. (A&A: Z250.A2 1998 and Vault). Kunz, Willi. Typography: Macro- and Microaesthetics. Sulgen: Verlag Niggli AG, 2000. (A&A: Z246.K86 2000 and Vault). Carter, Sebastian. Twentieth Century Type Designers. Great Britain: Lund Humphries, 2002. (A&A: Z250.A2 C364 1995 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). Cheng, Karen. Designing Type. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. http://www.linotype.com http://www.fonts.com
This book was designed by Paul Cronan in April 2014, Typography I, Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts at Washington University in St. Louis. The body text is set in Univers 55 Roman 9/12, captions 7.5/9.5; Univers 65 Bold and 49 Light Ultra Condensed are also used.