"To say the least, ranking fonts is an obviously hard task… how does one measure aesthetic quality, the benefit of an item, its value to humanity and so fourth?"
That quote is taken from justcreativedesign.com, where a list of the 100 best fonts created was posted on March 9th 2009. I've decided to use this particular list to help me for two reasons:
- It's one of very few 'best of' lists regarding fonts.
- The criteria given to decide a fonts place on the list is well thought out and logical.
"...the judges ranked the fonts by their objective and various other weighted measurements:
- FontShop Sales Figures: 40%
- Historical Value/Meaning: 30%
- Aesthetic Qualities: 30%"
I prefer this method, multiple judges allows for a greater range of opinion and the choice isn't simply made by which font looks nice. Of course, there are one hundred fonts on this list, so I can't analyse all of them, instead, I will on be examining the top 9. Here is the list's top ten:
1. Helvetica [1957 - Max Miedinger]
2. Garamond [1530 - Claude Garamond]
3. Frutiger [1977 - Adrian Frutiger]
4. Bodoni [1790 - Giambattista Bodoni]
5. Futura [1927 - Paul Renner]
6. Times [1931 - Stanley Morison]
7. Akzidenz Grotesk [1966 - G nter Gerhard Lange]
8. Officina [1990 - Erik Spiekermann]
9. Gill Sans [1930 - Eric Gill]
Helvetica
Starting off with one of, if not the most famous font ever produced. Helvetica has seen widespread use since it's introduction since 1957 and with valid reason. I think one of the things that makes helvetica so popular, and I know that I'm not the only one to have ever said this, is it's simplicity. It's easily readable at a long distance and because of this, requires very little strain to read. One criticism I would give it though, is that because it's so simple, some may deem it too boring, or that it's not interesting enough. While I agree to some extent, it's a necessary concession to allow a font to be readable, rather than interesting. Afterall, it wouldn't fulfil it's objective as a font if were not legible.
Garamond
Garamond is a classic serif typeface, which has been in existence for what seems like forever, four hundred and eighty-one years to be exact. A mature looking font to say the least, the key is how effortless it is to read. While it lacks character, there are noticeable details that aren't apparent until a closer inspection. For example, the flicks on some of the characters go either side of the stem as opposed to just the one way, the length of these flicks varies from letter to letter, as well as being different lengths for the same character in some cases. While still managing to look proportioned and not so wonky. I suppose this is why Garamond is held in such high regard among many designers, although personally it's too conservative for my tastes.
Frutiger
Bears a lot of similarties to Helvetica, although is more compacted and slightly less rounded on characters such as 'd', 'a' and 'b'. Which is why this font is often used as a helvetica substitute, as there are only slight differences between the two. You could say that this font has a more 'vertical' focus in regards to each individual character, it's the spacing however that stops it's from looking as though someone had a little too much fun with the transform tool. Of course when I look these fonts, I'm only examining the original standard version, rather than any bold, italic or condensed variations.
Bodoni
Bodoni is a very thick font that gives the appearance of a horizontally orientated typeface (mainly when using lower-case characters). I like the aesthetic appeal this font possesses, especially with the numbering. Each numeric looks old-fashioned, but in a positive way as they are done in a more artistic manner. This also corresponds with the date that it was produced (1790). The type face also puts more emphasis on contrast, as you can see by the thick strokes mixing in with the thin, as though everything has been accentuated. While it is only really used for advertising today, it can still have a great effect on the reader as long as what is being read isn't too long. Because of the thick strokes, it sometimes makes this font a little bit more difficult to read than other similar typefaces.
Futura
Again, this font bares some similarity to Helvetica as it's a sans-serif typeface. I immedietely noticed that the descenders and ascenders are a little bit longer, giving the font a nice variation in comparison to the more rounded characters. I also noticed that the 'j' doesn't curl at the end, an interesting choice as the 'g' is very rounded in comparison. Additionally, the dots above the 'i' and the 'j' look as though they are slightly raised. This could be because of the elongated ascenders & descenders. Finally, it's also note-worthy that there is very little variation in the stroke thickness used, as is common with a lot of sans-serif typefaces. This consistency adds to it's readability.
I will add the other 5 tomorrow. Frankly it's quite draining examing and analysing different fonts!
Times New Roman
Both of these samples are 48px in size. Notice how although Times New Roman is more vertical than garamond (particularly noticeable on the "h" and "k" characters), despite this the spacing between word is greater, making Times appear wider as well. There are also notable differences in the thickness of the characters which also contributes to appearance of Times. Additionally, Garamond incorporates upwards flicks as well as downwards. I could examine the differences between these fonts for hours, but in the end Time New Roman is a good font for the same reason as most sans-serif fonts; it's readable, works left to right, is over complicated, is subtle.
Akzidenz-Grotesk
A font that like Arial and Univers, is very similar Helvetica, mainly in the differences between each individual character, (example below). Akzidenz was the originl helvetica, although somehow, Helvetica has a more widely known reputation and seems to be more popular than it's older counter-part. There are slight difference between the height of each character, although only minute and of course very subtle differences betweene each character, some are actually identical to eachother.
As you can see, there are striking similarities between the two, helvetica, in my opinion is a more refined version of Akzidenz. So similar are these two fonts that I cannot really say anything that I haven't already said before, deciding which one to use will not hinder or make your design any better, it's purely a matter of preference.
Officina
A font that I'm not that familiar with, although I do recognise it as I see it used quite often for things such as site headers or large sized pieces of text, as opposed to the bulk of the content.
This font has more similarities to old type writers, I'm not saying it LOOKS like the typeface used on typewriters, just that is bears some resemblance.
For example the 'c' and the 't', both to me have some recognisable similarity. I like this font, it's a little bit difference while remaining readable. For example, the edges of the x are not flat to the baseline, but rather perpendicular to the stroke itself. Or the way the c isn't a perfect circle with a segment cut out, it's more of a rectangular shape. Simple, yet something slightly different.
Gill Sans
Gills sans is widely regarded as one of the best fonts ever produced, which isn't surprising as Gill work as Johnstons apprectice while he produced Johnston ITC, the famous typeface used for the london underground re-design. Simple, clean and elegant in its own way, there is absolutely no stroke difference, only solid lines used which add to it's consistency. Allegedly, the upper-case of Gills Sans, uses the proportions of Roman typefaces such as Trajan and Caslon. The lower-case based on proportions of Carolingian script, which has "rounded shapes in clearly distinguishable glyphs, disciplined and above all, legible. Clear capital letters and spaces between words".
So what makes a great font? Knowing the difference between readability and legibility? Perhaps, either way I do know that it takes a detailed eye and having some sort of ability at using details to enhance the overall appearance. Designing a font that I would like to read in should probably be my biggest priority, and then getting feedback on it and adjusting it accordingly. I've learnt that there are more differences to similar fonts that simply what each individual glyph looks like. It can include the difference between the ascender height and the x-height of lower case. The amount of spacing between Upper-case and Lower-case. The thickness of the stroke being used to create the letters. Many, many things make a great font.
Asides from that, I've realised that I should probably spend more time than is necessary to great a good font, as it is the less noticeable details, choices and influences of the designer that reflect in the font he/she has created.
No comments:
Post a Comment