Making a Font: Maximal – Part II

Part I | Part II | Part III

I hope you guys had a great Easter (if you’re culturally inclined for such practice – if not, I hope you had a great week).

So, here we are, back on track. In the previous post, we talked about some preparatory steps regarding the conceptualization of the font in hand. Today, we’re going to start analysing an initial prototype, so we can make some early choice of the development to come.

But before we dive into it, I want to thank you guys for such an overwhelming response to the first post. I was really shy to promote it, since I thought it was a very initial approach to this subject, and I thought it was best to leave a more intense promotion to later on, when there was more reading material.

I’m humbled that you guys found a preparatory post interesting enough to share it so much, so my deepest thank you for your attention! I owe my motivation to you and your kindness, so I have nothing to do but my best! Thank you all!

So, to avoid more sappiness from my behalf, let’s get to the point.

1. How many styles?

At this point, this is the most crucial decision to make. As we are going to see in §4, this factor determines how lengthy this process will be.

The only reason why I should be concerned with the time this will take to make is that I want to keep you interested. Since most of you guys are casual visitors (meaning not subscribers [but you can subscribe at the bottom of this page]), this attention can easily go into the void.

To avoid that, I have to consider time. Or you can simply scroll down and subscribe to the newsletter.

Let’s say that we don’t have to worry about time. In this scenario, if we consider the “repetition” model (read about it in the previous post, §3 and §5), a linear incrementation would be the best one, right? Well, sort of.

Yes, it would give you more manual control, but the point here is about random substitution. And the glyph width variation should be extreme enough, since this is not about subtlety, but boldness.

Still, a natural or organic progression, although extreme, is welcome. So, here’s the solution: the Fibonacci sequence. The sequence goes like this:

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, …

The logic here is that any number is the addition of the previous two. In our case, we can skip the 1’s, since that’s our base glyph. And since we want 5 variations of expansion/repetition to each side (and both), we’ll use the numbers from 2 to 13.

So, we have 1 (our base glyph), 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13. The variations look something like this:

Then, as you saw in the image that opens this section, the same happens to the other side of the glyph and then to both sides. And then we make the “expanded” variations, using the repetition as the base. We’ll talk about that in a tick, in §3.

So, with 5 variations to each side, as well as 5 for both, in two sets (“expanded” and “repetition”) we have 30 stylistic sets, apart from the default glyph. That means 31 variation per letter. *heavy breathing*

2. The Base Glyphs

I have only two characters drawn, at this stage: E and F. And their 30 variations.

Now I’m more concerned with prototyping it, or better, to get the tech stuff sorted out before the drawing process; that’s why you’re seeing the same letters over and over again.

As this series go through, expect the tech geekness to decrease (although the next post or two will be about OpenType programming and maybe some Python macro stuff) and the drawing aspects to be mentioned more and more.

But as formal characteristics, the E can tell a lot, in our case. It can tell us quite nicely how the serifs will work, as well as how these elements work with the expansion/repetition. Of course, I’m still in the dark about the curved and diagonal shapes (although they’re playing cheerfully in my head, but that doesn’t mean it will play out properly once drawn).

I’m hoping to draw some very classic, rational and somewhat bland capitals. I want the magic to occur with the variations, not with the base forms.

3. Expanding Processes

After we have the base glyph, the expansion is pretty simple.

Each glyph is divided in two components: one for the left repetition, another one for the right one. Have a look:

I’m sure you can tell where this is going now: the components are propagated, on top of the base shape, to left, right or both sides, and so we get the “repetition” styles:

For the “expanded” set, we take the corresponded “repetition” glyph and simply delete what’s not needed. Here’s an animation of the process:

Et voilá!

4. The Math Of Going Overboard

As I’ve mentioned in the previous article, this font will be Latin-only. So, how many glyphs will it have?

I could go for a basic Type 1 Western/Roman character map (256 glyphs), but that would leave some languages aside. So, after the usual checking of language support tables, I’ve decided to go for the OpenType Latin Pro encoding (433 glyphs). If you think, as I do, that this is an OK character table, let’s make some further calculations.

Let’s consider a basic character map (Type 1 Western/Roman): 256 glyphs. As we saw on §2, we have something like 30 stylistic sets. Added with the default glyph, we have 31 variations of the same letter. How many glyphs are necessary for this? Here you go:

256 × 31 = 7.936

7936 glyphs. Ouch. And what about the OpenType Latin Pro?

433 × 31 = 13.423

Holy s***. Well, this might take a while.

But giving it a second thought, this font is all-caps, and that means that half of the alphabet is a duplicate. So, instead of 433 glyphs to draw, we have 310:

310 × 31 = 9.610

OK, this looks more manageable. *sighs*

5. Wrapping Up

This is all for today! I hope you’ve enjoyed the article!

If you’re a newcomer, be sure to read the previous post of this series an, while we’re at it, check the rest of the blog for some more juice! Oh, and don’t forget to subscribe at the bottom of this page, as well as to share it, if you think it’s valuable!

Thanks for your attention! Cheers!

The Art Of Eyeballing – Part IV: The Stroke (Optics)

Index

Introduction | Learning To See | Overshooting | The Stroke: Optics

This is the first article of three, in our series, to talk about the stroke.

We briefly introduced the idea (in the previous article) that the stroke width has an effect on perception and, for this reason, should be adjusted. So, this article is just about that: optical adjustments to stroke.

May I state it right now: this is not rocket science and the more elaborated considerations about stroke (such as modulation, for example) will be covered in the next articles. For now, we want to approach a very simple case – a monoline construction – and try to achieve balance.

And without further ado (and because I’m starting to feel way to serious while writing this), let’s skip to the good part.

1. Horizontal vs. Vertical

Let’s get right to it: in the image above, which are the thickest strokes? Vertical or horizontal? Take your time. Horizontal, right?

If you thought “they’re equal”, you’re right. But do they seem equal? To me, they don’t. And to most people, they also don’t.

But for many years, I simply trusted the computer. And, as always, the computer was right, so who was I to judge mathematical perfection? Well, this is about perceptual balance, not the first. Again, trust your eyes.

And here’s a correction (with horizontal strokes being about 1% thinner than the vertical ones):

But why does this happen? In honesty, I don’t really know, although I have some theories about it:

1. We have two eyes, distributed horizontally, making our area of eyesight wider than taller; and this might add relevance to vertically distributed elements;
2. In type, we have millennia of broadnib and flat brush writing, usually with 30 to 40º angle from an horizontal position, making horizontal strokes wider than vertical ones. But again, this could be due to a perception/optical/neurological phenomena.

If you’re wondering about how this works in typefaces, have a look here:

2. Orthogonal vs. Diagonal

Consider the following example:

Again, all the 3 lines have exactly the same stroke width. We already talked about how to compensate the horizontal line, so let’s just do that:

If it wasn’t obvious in the first image, now it is: the diagonal line also looks heavier than the orthogonal ones.

So, for comprehension’s sake, let’s give the diagonal line the same stroke width has the (already compensated) horizontal line:

… which makes the diagonal line too thin.

Before we get into the solution, I’d like you to consider a couple of things:

• This example is not random, i.e., I’ve picked a 45º angle to the diagonal line for a reason that you’re about to find out;
• We can only apply this to monoline fonts, although this is just a starting point (the next articles will cover more cases and correspondent corrections).

So, if neither of the horizontal nor the vertical strokes’ width is applicable to the 45º diagonal (which, again, is half-way rotated between the orthogonal axis), what happens if we pick the exact in-between stroke width? Here you go:

Does it look alright? *wink*

And now, you might be asking about other angles. If we apply the same width stroke to any diagonal, we get this:

If you compare the first two lines, the second looks too thin; and if you compare the last two, the former looks too thick.

So here we can start to acknowledge that the thickness of a diagonal line should vary according to it’s angle, and that it’s a progression between the horizontal and vertical widths.

Here’s a linear progression of angles and widths:

2.1 Tackling Slants and Widths

If you’re anything like me, by now you’re doing some stressful mental schemes on how to calculate the exact width of a diagonal, depending on the horizontal and vertical strokes’ widths.

So, in order to save you some stressful times, here’s a quick and dirty way to do it:

1. Draw an ellipse that has the same width as the vertical stroke and the same height as the horizontal stroke;
2. Adjust the strokes to be tangents to this ellipse.

Two steps method. This is what I call workflow optimization! Here’s a visual representation of the method:

And, to implement a tradition, here are these principles applied to type:

3. Straight vs. Curve

And we’re coming closer to an end.

Let’s start with the following image, where all the strokes are exactly the same (and the O is already overshot):

And now, let’s make the corrections that we already know about (horizontal and vertical, in this case):

Same kind of question: do the straight and curved strokes feel equal? You might want to take a step back it see the images from afar.

The H seems to pop out more that the O. And, as I mentioned, the O is already overshot, so it’s not a case of overshooting. Or is it?

Well, curves seem thinner that straight lines for the same reason we have to overshoot them: a lot of white space is created and positive mass is decreased, so we have to compensate for that.

But the thing to retain here is that curves seem thinner than straight lines and the amount of compensation needed isn’t as extreme as the one we do in the verticle / horizontal cases, so it’s closer to an overshooting compensation.

Let’s correct our example:

4. How Much?

If you’ve noticed, I wasn’t blunt about how much to compensate; in fact, I only gave one example in §1.

I could provide rules-of-thumb that would be percentage ranges of compensation, but I feel that this is a trap.

First (and again), I advise you not to make calculations; providing you such rules (on how much to compensate) would oblige you to make these calculations and I want you to design as freely as you can.

So take what you’ve learned today and trust you’re eye. If it looks awkward, well, it’s awkward. Teach yourself to pay attention to the forms, counterforms and whitespace. Inspect the curve/line segments on by one and compare them to the whole form. And to the whole group of forms.

Even if we dabble in maths and geometry, here, keep in mind that these are means to an end, not the end itself.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this article, see you in the next one! Cheers!

References:

• The Stroke – Noordzij, Gerrit (Hyphen Press, 2005);
• Size-specific adjustments to type designs – Ahrens, Tim / Mugikura, Shoko (Just Another Foundry);
• Make Your Fonts Suck Less – Phinney, Thomas (video)

Bézier OCD Or Why You Should Know About Point Placement

0. Introduction

If you’ve been visiting this blog, you might be wondering why I’m writing another article about this subject.

You’ve probably read Bézier Curves And Type Design: A Tutorial and Bézier Curve Quick Tips: Two Methods For Smooth Curves, along with AGSC’s article So What’s the Big Deal with Horizontal & Vertical Bezier Handles Anyway?, and you might think that, for graphic designers and related métiers, things are pretty much covered.

Well, they’re not. The suggestions to keep nodes at extrema, handles vertical or horizontal, use explicit inflection points, balance the handles and so on aren’t just workflow optimizations: they’re methods to overcome technical problems.

So, today, I want to give you the reasons why these point-placement methods should be used extensively, in a more in-depth way than in the previous two articles (and again, here and here, because I strongly suggest you to read them before reading this one).

Ready? Go!

1. It Reduces Point Placement

This one is a no-brainer. As discussed before, in cubic Bézier curves, the most simple way to describe a curve is with two nodes and two handles, and if we keep angles smaller than 90º, we can easily draw any curve. So, working with extra points doesn’t seem much of an advantage, since it ends up with you having more stuff to deal with.

1.1 And Thus, It Reduces File Size

Less points, less coordinates. Less coordinates, smaller file size. Done.

2. Rasterizers Are Dumb

This section and §3 are this article’s gem: the stuff that you don’t usually see being talked about.

In Bézier Curves And Type Design we barely scratched the surface on this. Remember how a cubic Bézier curve is constructed? The animations there show how a Bézier curve rasterizer builds a curve through a method called linear interpolation. Let’s start there.

2.1 Linear Interpolation

Linear interpolation is a method of curve fitting that uses linear polynomials (read line segments joined together to fit a curve), and this is how computers draw Bézier curves, because De Casteljau’s algorithm (the one used in Bézier curves) was made to do precisely this.

So, as we know the Bézier Curves And Type Design‘s animations, the curve is broke into several linear steps. Have a look:

Fibonacci FTW!

Be aware that the subdivisions are per segment: from anchor point to anchor point.

So, with this said, how would the previous animation look with odd point placement? Here you go:

As you might have guessed, the perceptual smoothing of each segment through the various iterations differ quite a bit:

• The shorter the segment, the quicker it appears to be smooth;
• Since the segments differ in size, the smoothing appears to be uneven.

Ever worked with splines in 3D software? If you have, you know the pain it is (or used to be, rasterizers did get better) to convert it to a mesh, with steps unequally distributed along the spline. Or Flash, that converts the curves to line segments for processing and file size’s sake. Now you know why.

How to solve this? Same recomendations:

• Keep smooth nodes at the extrema;
• Keep smooth nodes’ handles straight vertically or horizontally;
• Balance the handles;
• Use explicit inflection points.

2.2 And Rasterizers Should Be Dumb; You’re The One Who Should Be Smart

Why? Because linear interpolation isn’t the only thing to worry about, when it comes to rasterizers.

We want our vector drawings to be cross-compatible between formats, rasterizers, hinters, printers, parsers, and the list goes on. So it’s our job to know a little bit more and try to minize conversion errors. Just because something looks good in Illustrator, it doesn’t mean that it will look good in an old printer.

And if you convert your drawing from cubic to quadratic and back to cubic and then interpolate it, welcome to hell.

3. Hinting

Though this part is somewhat related to §2, it deserves a different section.

Let’s get this straight: hinting is not exclusive to type design; in truth, every printer, for example, only prints bitmaps, i.e., it hints the vector artwork first. And printers may have their own rasterizers and hinters, and the way you draw can make a difference.

The reason why it’s an obvious type concern is that we (type designers) deal with a finer degree of detail in way smaller sizes.

But, in spite of rasterizers becoming better and better, it doesn’t mean that graphic designers shouldn’t be concerned about it too.

And with this I don’t mean that we should rasterize vector work and start editing pixels: you should, however, try to draw vector art as fool-proof as you can.

Can the way you draw influence hinting? Yes, very slightly, but yes. And the smaller you get, the more crucial it becomes.

4. Conclusion

I hope you’ve enjoyed reading this! Happy drawing!

Cheers!