PB a
univers a guide to the typeface and its conception
I N E V
introduction
univers and type
Typography originally arose out of necessity, in response to the spread of knowledge and with a focus on efficiency. The earliest typefaces simply mimicked the handwriting of the time by producing thick gothic scripts. During the Italian Renaissance, scholars began to turn their attention to the design of type itself by manipulating these gothic traditions to create more open forms, or lettera antica, which would then be changed again to produce the first Roman typefaces. For reference, this paragraph is set in Univers 55, a Roman typeface.
PB 1
If we fast forward to 1954, we come to the debut of Adrian Frutiger’s Univers, and the rise of both new technology as well as demand for consumer publishing. Typography is, at this point in time as well as today, scrutinized on levels beyond basic communication: legibility and aesthetic. This examination of Univers will provide not only a better understanding of the type family and its success, but also a glimpse of the broader realm of typography.
adrian frutiger
the brains behind univers
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 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 designed a face for the Charles de Gaulle Airport at Roissy, that Univers was dated, with an outmoded 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 humanistic sans serif that has been compared to Gill and Johnston types. Frutiger has created a broad range of typefaces, one of which was a type for optical character recognition called OCR-B. His 1982 Breughel is an original face almost wholly comprised of curves and fitting into no existing type category. He has embraced new technology and used it to advantage in typefaces 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 More than ten years earlier his Iridium had demonstrated that the classical modern typeface was neither outdated, nor necessarily caused legibility problems.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
univers
one big numbered family
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 wellconsidered set of typographical characters. Frutiger introduced a unique system of numbering the fonts of the Univers type family according to weight, width and position in place of terms such as “bold,” or “italic.”
u u uu u u uu u u u u uu u uu uuu u
Here, we can see what would traditionally be called Light, Roman, Bold, Black, and Extra Black organized in rows, from top to bottom, as designed by Frutiger, along with their various widths and positions. While this caption uses Univers 46, the paragraph to the left is set in Univers 55.
PB 2
39
45
53
55
63
65
73
75
46
56
66
47
48
57
67
58
3
49
59
68
76
wider
heavier
93
T
T Z Z Z
T
By overlapping a Z and a T of the same point size, variation in stroke thickness becomes apparent, even as slight as the difference in the top bars.
characteristics
univers’ quirks
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 per fect circle strikes us as shapeless and has a disturbing effect on the word as a whole.”2 Frutiger’s decision to use different stroke thicknesses for the horizontal, diagonal, and even vertical lines was a response to his assessment of visual discrepancies in other typefaces. It is no coincidence that Frutiger’s interest in creating a functional and efficient type family followed well-documented scientific research done in the 1930s and ‘40s on the mechanics of eye movement during reading.3 These concerns of reading ease, paired with the idea that “the foundations of legibility are like a crystallization, formed by hundreds of years of use of selected, distinctive typefaces,”4 led him to seek the skeleton of typefaces.
Frutiger believed that at the base of every typeface, you would find Univers acting as the skeleton, as illustrated in his diagram here. As compared to the first row of Univers letterforms, the bottom image superimposes a number of successful faces (Garamond, Baskerville, Bodoni, Excelsior, Times, Palatino, and Optima).
aen
PB 5
univers’ quirks
characteristics
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. These 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 The x-height is the distance between the baseline and meanline, or the height of the letter x. Anything that crosses the meanline is known as an ascender, while anything that crosses the baseline is referred to as a descender. Comparing Palatino and Univers reveals Univers’ taller x-height, as well as its slightly shorter ascenders and descenders.
Because of these small details, Univers remains legible at widely different sizes, making it suitable for the headers and subheaders, main text, and even captions of this book.
x-height x-height x-height ascender
meanline baseline
descender
c c oo uun Here we can see the size differences between c and o, and n and u. The variation between n and u is much subtler, an indication of just how precisely Frutiger considered letterforms.
6 PB 7 7
n
helvetica and optima
comparisons
Univers was created nearly simultaneously with other popular alphabets: Helvetica (1957) and Optima (1958). Whereas Helvetica, for example, had a general clarity and a modern, timeless and neutral effect without any conspicuous attributes (lending to its success), Univers expressed a factual and cool elegance, a rational competence.6
Univers, Helvetica, and Optima from top to bottom at the same size. In a larger comparison, we can see how Helvetica differs from Univers: its s comes closer to the meanline, its y has a curved terminal, and it boasts a taller x-height overall, as well as longer ascenders and descenders. These factors make its y much taller than Univers’.
Helvetica is the jeans, and Univers the dinner jacket. Helvetica is the jeans, and Univers the dinner jacket. Helvetica is the jeans, and Univers the dinner jacket.
Simply
yy Univers
Helvetica
G
Univers, Helvetica, and Optima from left to right, with detail of Univers. Optima stands out for its more open counter and lack of a chin. Though Helvetica and Univers are very similar, closer observation reveals Univers’ unique qualities, like its G with a flat terminal and no spur.
flat terminal
no spur
G GG
open counter
no chin
spur
Univers
Helvetica
Optima
PB 8 9
futura and gill sans
comparisons
Gill Sans, Futura, and Univers are all sans serif typefaces, and well-matched opponents. Gill Sans, created by Eric Gill in 1921 and inspired by Edward Johnston’s typeface for the London Underground, is a humanist sans serif; it looks back to handwriting and Roman inscriptions rather than follow the general rules of nineteenth century sans serifs. On the other hand, Futura is a 1927 geometric sans serif by Paul Renner, and pulls strongly from Modernist ideas. Its letters use the circle and square as their base, and it quickly dominated the advertising industry. Univers, as a neo-grotesque sans serif, strives to reflect a designed rather than drawn approach.
To the right, an overlay of the o’s of each typeface, illuminating basic shape differences. Below, the t’s illustrate the subtle details of each typeface. Univers straddles a fine line between the purely geometric and humanist, with the t’s terminal aligning with the crossbar, and an ascender that slants instead of remaining completely flat. Gill Sans goes further, allowing its terminal to extend past the crossbar’s end. Geometric Futura has none of these crafted details.
O
ttt Univers
Gill Sans
Futura
OOO ace of spades ace of spades ace of spades large aperture
Univers’ tall x-height removes it from the perfect circle o’s of Gill Sans and Futura, and follows Frutiger’s philosophy of creating nearly geometric letterforms. Below, an in-depth comparison of the typefaces pulls the a and d to attention.
flat terminal
expressive spur
one-story, formed by adding a single line to a circle
stem connects with bottom stroke
PB 11
References
Bibliography
1
Pincus W. Jaspert. The Encyclopaedia of Typefaces. (Poole, Dorset: Blandford Press, 1983), 69-70.
2
Alexander S. Lawson. Anatomy of a Typeface (Boston: D.R. Godine, 1990), 304.
Blackwell, Lewis. 20th-Century Type. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. (A&A: Z250.A2 B59 1998 and Vault)
3
Jennifer Gibson. Revival of the Fittest: Digital Versions of Classic Typefaces (New York: RC Publications), 171.
4
Frutiger, Adrian. Signs and Symbols: Their Design and Meaning (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989), 203.
5
Jennifer Gibson. Revival of the Fittest: Digital Versions of Classic Typefaces (New York: RC Publications), 173.
6
Linotype Library GmbH. Available at http://www. linotype.com/7-267-7-13347/univers.html. Accessed November 1, 2005.
Carter, Sebastian. Twentieth Century Type Designers. Great Britain: Lund Humphries, 2002. (A&A: Z250 A2 C364 1995 and Vault) Frutiger, Adrian. Diagrams “Complete Plan of Univers,” and “Typeface Skeleton,” in Signs and Symbols: Their Design and Meaning. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989, pages 181 and 201. (A&A: P99 F78 1989) Kunz, Willi. Typography: Macro- and Microaesthetics. Sulgen: Verlag Niggli AG, 2000. (A&A: Z246 .K86 2000 and Vault) Revival of the Fittest: Digital Versions of Classic Typefaces, essays by Carolyn Annand ... [et al.]; edited by Philip B. Meggs and Roy McKelvey, New York: RC Publications, 2000. (A&A: Z250.R45 2000) http://www.linotype.com http://www.fonts.com
This book was created by Sara Wong at Washington University in St. Louis’ Sam Fox School of Art & Design to examine exactly what makes Univers Univers as a capstone project for Typography I. All text set in Univers, with headings in Univers 65, subheadings and text in Univers 55, and captions in Univers 45. Printed on 80 lb Mohawk Superfine.
I N E V