Audree!

ferfolio_2's picture

I would love to see some information / process about this typeface!
This kind of work is so hard, and yet they managed to do so well!!!!

https://www.typonine.com/fonts/font-library/audree/
by Nikola Djurek & Marko Hrastovec

hrant's picture

I'm gobsmacked. Did you see the very nicely done video too?
http://vimeo.com/63208060

The main thing I'm dying to find out is, are they actually generating OTFs on-the-fly (I would just keel over and die) or do they have all 1320 (if my math is correct) instances pre-generated?

In any case, those guys are amazing. Immediate booking for Typographica's "Favorite Fonts of 2013" please!

hhp

ilyaz's picture

> I'm gobsmacked.

Hrant, in http://typophile.com/node/75610 you wrote

> Enough with the deluded expanded-skeleton business, people.

Do you take it back now?

hrant's picture

Hah. :-)
If so, could I have written this?
http://typographica.org/typeface-reviews/fenland/

Mostly I'm impressed with Audree's [dimensional] scale and/or -presumed- parametricism. Simply slapping on different serifs for example to a skeleton would not at all be something to write home about.

hhp

ilyaz's picture

> Mostly I'm impressed with Audree's [dimensional] scale and/or -presumed- parametricism.

This is the whole idea of using strokes. It is very easy to parameterize chirography (note how their difference between strong/weak contrast is just about strokes with slants like | or \ ). Very few people have a clue how to properly parameterize “two-sided” strips of paint…

One exception I know is http://www.typophile.com/node/73827.

hrant's picture

You want easy? Don't make fonts. :-)

I'm glad to see you're aware of that exception. If one person can do that, fewer people should do it the other way.

One key idea BTW is to see letterforms as not things with painted bodies, but things with drawn borders, as instances of notan. However, an interesting hybrid: http://typophile.com/node/31095

hhp

ilyaz's picture

> If one person can do that, fewer people should do it the other way.

I read it slightly differently: if only one person could do it this way, it makes much more sense to look at the other ways to do it. And: as far as 31095 went, my impression was that nobody got any idea what your point was… Me neither.

hrant's picture

Hmmm, so what proportion is lower: the number of people who make parametric fonts liminographically versus chirographically, or the number of people who make fonts versus who don't? :-) One is tempted to conclude that not making fonts "makes much more sense"... Anyway progress is pretty much never about following the herd.

About chiroliminography (that thread): I think most people got my drift (even if few of them saw much practical use in it). John Hudson for example tried to help me explain to Michael "Two Coats" Clark that there's a fundamental difference between the work of Salden and Okano. In fact here's some evidence -please read my comment there- that people got my drift even before I said it: http://typographica.org/typeface-reviews/quintet/

hhp

ilyaz's picture

[My apologies for hijacking the thread…]

> In fact here's some evidence -please read my comment there- that people got my drift even before I said it: http://typographica.org/typeface-reviews/quintet/

Fascinating! You giving (explicit or explicit) positive remarks about two chirography fonts — in one thread!

Quintet is very impressive — and I’m very interested in its provenance w.r.t. http://typophile.com/node/31095 — but it is clearly pure chirography. A glyph consists of two parts: a flourish, which is a single chirographic line; and the skeleton, which (according to my very cursory inspection) is an algorithmic expansion of the character's spine (so it is also chirographic). (I find it very helpful to imagine that what you see in the skeleton is two edges of a 3D band going about the spine and twisting as needed. Of course, after you can see it as this, it is very easy to describe the transformation as a 2D operation too. This 3Dness is somewhat similar to one of Calypso.)

> Hmmm, so what proportion is lower: the number of people who make parametric fonts liminographically versus chirographically, or the number of people who make fonts versus who don't?

I do not know. Anyway, I find it completely irrelevant.

> You want easy? Don't make fonts. :-)

I do not want it easy — unless it can be done algorithmically. What I want is results, and results yesterday.

While it is obvious that designing one edge of a stroke separately from the other edge of a stroke allows one more freedom, it is also obvious that this more or less prohibits parametrization. And where I live, optical scaling is a must; other types of parametrization are also of great use. So unless you design your font for the audience used to the character repertoire of a non-IBM typewriter, you will not have resources to manually design separate flavors.

Also, I cannot omit that in certain endeavours, more freedom gives worse results than less freedom. Remember: when people have an especially complicated message to transmit, sometimes they choose verses and not prose. (Same happens in math: for many topics, a free-style discourse turns out to be less comprehensible than a strictly formal one — I wrote something on this tune here. But, frankly speaking, I know no typographic examples of this.)

Syndicate content Syndicate content