Serrano looks like a clean business face that should meet the demands of your client. The italic, although a bit of a departure from the roman, has a much more friendly feel to it. This difference can be used to advantage when a dry business is trying to make an appeal to a human customer.
When you say "whipped out" it sounds like you mean you knocked this out in a few weeks time :-) How long did it really take?

Good crip work as usual, Kris.--best of luck with your rollout!

ChrisL

Serrano is a stunner!
The characters have a friendly feel, some letter forms Resemble feijoa which may be unintentional, but is definitely a good thing! I wonder what they would look like when paired. Will this ever be available for retail? And do tell us how long this took you.
Great job as always!

Thanks for your kind words! I was briefed to design a typeface that was 'friendly, approachable, easy and helpful', so that's why it looks like it does. It will be available for retail in October 2013, they have a 5-year exclusive. I've just checked the first .vfb—it was created 24 July 2008, the final .vfb was sent for mastering on 30 August 2008. I don't know how many weeks that is, but you get the idea.

--K

WOW love it...saw the tv ad yesterday
and was wondering what it was...
Looks awesome bro! But I'm a big
fan of your work anyway!!

Jörg

Snappy work in that timeframe! Well done!

ChrisL

Great work Kris, well done.

had a look at it again, not sure why it reminded me of feijoa.
they look completely different.
i guess i don't function that well in the morning...

My personal wish would be an interpretation of an informal sans made by Kris earlier than 2013 … :)
BTW Great friendly face! Especially the beautiful contrast between the "normals" and the italics. And … rendered really good in the online ads.

Grüße

I really like it. (It reminds me of Albert Pinggera's 'Strada'. Especially the bold weight/s.) Love the italic.

Dav

I think it meets the brief perfectly. Very nice!
I would be interested in hearing about the relation to the bank's wordmark - its letterforms seem related to Serrano in 'feel' -; which informed the other? Was there a dialogue with the branding agency during development, and what motivated their decision to commission a new typeface?

Kris, is 'z' your favourite letter? The italic 'z' is almost too cute ;)

/Fredrik

Gorgeous design, it's definitely "business casual".
I am also interested in hearing about where the wordmark, and the general branding overhaul fit into all this.

Fantastic work on the typeface.

Poking around the site this PDF shows just how major of a transformation has gone on since their last branding effort.

I am very curious to see where the brand is heading visually with similar design challenges, as they have lost a great deal of the sternness and heritage evoked by the previous mark.

Thanks guys! I was waiting for the Strada comparison… I had a mini panic attack at one stage when I realised that Serrano was looking close to Strada, so I asked Erik Spiekermann for advice & he said it wasn't close enough to worry. The rounded terminals are actually suggestion from the AD after an early proof. At that stage there were no rounded bits—just normal square terminals. He suggested rounding on the uprights:

and curving the 't' tail to a point:

I responded with a new draft with the suggested upright treatments and additional rounded-to-a-point terminals on a,c,e,f,g,j,l,r,s,t—as it would look weird just having it on the 't'. The AD/client liked it & that was that!

As for the logotypes, they were drawn in-house & sent to me to polish. I'm not sure at what point they were started or what the references were, but they are a bit different from Serrano. I'm not entirely sure what motivated them to commission a custom face, perhaps they weren't entirely happy with anything currently available for retail?

--K

Well done Kris all I can say is Wow! I'm sure everyone here will agree with me that you truly are the best new type designer since Nick Shinn! Is that nice logo based on the font too? The z looks different and I like the one in the font much better.

The fonts nice, no question. It definitely fits the brief you were given. Not sure about what they did with the logo though. DNA should have incorporated the old logo into it. I think I might change banks now to be honest..

I can't help to say that it does reminds me of my Foco...
http://www.daltonmaag.com/browse/fonts/dama/foco/standard/focobold#

Greetings All,
I came across this website while trawling the net for some help with a graphics problem. I am an engineer who knows as much about graphic design as my arse knows about snipe shooting. However I must create a stylised logo for an earthmoving bucket product range. The company name is Venco (how inspiring is that?) I had hoped to do something around the letter V. That’s where the inspiration dried up! Can any of you brainy guys kick me in the right direction. PS I am based in Africa and graphics agencies are not quite ten a penny. Thanks in advance.

Norman,
It would be best to start your own thread on this matter.

ChrisL

Nice, though less innovative than your other stuff. Also the rounded-with-a-point terminals aren't working for me.

It looks amazing, Kris. Just saw it in action on their website. It makes me feel like they are a friendlier bank. You really have a talent for getting a feel for your clients are looking for. And given that you've created typefaces that lean slightly more toward the warm & friendly side (Feijoa, National, Hardys), it is remarkable that you can create Serrano and still not make it look like these others.

Congratulations! and much success to you!

Rahim

Thanks for all your kinds words thus far, especially you Nigella! It has been quite a while since you've posted on these forums.

Fabio: I can honestly say that up until now I was quite unaware of your Foco. Is there a page where I can read about it?

Bill: Less innovative? I'm not sure that I needed to be so 'radical' designing a typeface for a bank. I didn't expect the terminals would work for you ;-) Perhaps you could suggest an alternative?

--K

I'm ambivalent about the italic* but overall, another winner!
Great job and congrats. Nice to see a bank do something right... :-)

* Maybe there's room for another, sister design?

hhp

I like the design and also -- as important, or more so -- the quality of the implementation. As near as I can judge. Very pleasant - - that's a tough quality to put across.

Kris, I think you fulfilled the brief admirably. And you're right, the point was not originality. Still, to me the terminals seem to me a little tacked on, not as organic as with your other faces. Also I find the tops of the BDR a bit awkward. As to alternatives, I think the way Myriad takes Frutiger and tapers the terminals is very systematically worked out, and is quite effective, even though I think Frutiger is a more beautiful face. A more soft, swashy treatment of terminals that works is in Goudy sans, but it's too busy and informal for a bank.

One of the last ones to see this. Very clean and well done.

I quite like the terminals. I don't think it is a requirement to follow existing methods used in long-accepted faces--particularly when the point of a custom face is to create brand separation. This is a contemporary sans that takes on the task of setting a brand-specific tone. I think the terminals go to that aim quite well along with the rest of the structure.

ChrisL

Chris, I don't think there is any "requirement to follow existing methods used in long-accepted faces" either. I just am not that taken with the way the terminals work here--but it looks like I'm the only one!

It looks excellent. I like the contrast between the straight and the rounded (corporate yet friendly).

At first glance it also reminded me of Strada, or maybe a pinch of Evert Bloemsma in there as well. But as you (and Erik) already said, it's not too close at all.

And very fast too, 5 weeks and 3 days, or something like that...

It looks a lot like foco.

Link?

hhp

It's fantastic.

as always i am a huge fan kris. fantastic!

... or maybe a pinch of Evert Bloemsma in there as well ...

Exactly what I thought when I saw Serrano. Nice one, Kris!

Really great combining of styles. The petal-like terminals are really nice. A fun semi-rounded take on a sans at display sizes and a straight-forward sans at text sizes.

Wow Kris, I'm impressed. Serrano is so friendly I want to take it home for a cuppa. Shame I won't be able to do that until 2013.

Congratulations, Kris. It's lovely. I especially love the bold italic.

Kris,
I've been suppressing this comment for a few days because I don't want it to come off as a slight in any way and it will use a VERY BAD word in reference to your work. You once asked me what it was that I thought characterized your style and after seeing Serrano, it finally gelled in my mind. To me, your work is a combination of Classic (so far so good) and Cute. There, I said it. Of course this design is meant to be friendly, but I think that's part of your aesthetic in general. I think all of your work (that I've seen) follows this Classic+Cute formula, with the exception of NZ Rugby Chisel. I mean all of this in the best possible way. I for one am a fan of your work and as you can see by this post, I'm not alone, so the formula's working. Mostly I just wanted to come back to the conversation we had months ago and fill in the blank. Keep up the good work! Oh and hello from Catherine Griffiths, she dropped by the DaMa offices the other day and we got to meet her and she raved about you. :D

Paul, this is reminiscent of David Berlow's comment in Robert Norton's TBR/TBF in the middle of an ITC selection committee meeting that he doesn't like Stone Sans italic and similar. (Something to do with masculine/feminine terminations which I never figured out.)

I like your formulation of Classic+Cute -- which is acute (which is the original meaning of cute). The problem with a corporate typeface is that it must be noticed and must be liked, but must never waver in its credibility. This is very tough to do. A great corporate typeface must also have Zeitgeist awareness. The feeling that this design belongs here, now, I like it now and I will like it for ten years, if not forever. Very few type designers have the ability to connect with and exploit the visual language of their moment - - it is such a very subtle thing. It's very easy to lose, and for the few who succeed, the achievement seldom carries over beyond a generation.

Cute is an interesting word in that it has simultaneous good and bad connotations, unlike for example 'naff' which can mean one of two opposite things (not invariably discoverable by context) but not both together. One could think of cute as having a possible axis with ego as one extreme and humour as another.

In a recent thread criticizing the Vista C-fonts, I used cute primarily negatively. There, the design goal was to prepare several typefaces suitable for everyday, every-hour use, to be used by hundreds of millions of users. All-day, all-weather use. Crystal goblet design. In this I think they failed, except for the user base which happily cohabits with the most famous C-font of all, Comic Sans. However, any of the C-fonts would be considered superb candidates for a corporate identity or advertising project.

By contrast we're using cute here in its happiest senses. This is a happy typeface. That is one of the very hardest things to do. I don't care how it happens, as long as it happens.

Speaking of the how, two people have noted a resemblance between Serrano and Foco (including its primary designer, Fabio Maag). Based on the web samples available, I just don't see it at all, and I am something of an expert on what constitutes type cloning. If someone is going to make this case, I think they should make it in good, high, resolution. Don't say something looks like something unless you're willing to prove it. (I could just as well say that Foco looks like a sans version of the Vafflard font I have been working on for the past 15 years. It does! Shame! The f and t without the left bar are mine! Forever!) However, in this particular case, having spent some careful time with the web samples, and even allowing for the low res, I must say they look like completely different designs to me. The suggestion of influence should not have been made.

I guess I agree with Paul about the 'cute' part about this design, but not about Kris's designs in general, where I would say 'beautiful'.

In looking again at it, I'm thinking that what bothers me is not so much the terminals themselves, as their combination with the slight reversed contrast, the Bloemsma influence. A more assertive design that Kris did--I think it was called Karbon--made the Bloemsma influence work well. But here the softness of the terminals for me don't go well with the heavy looking strokes. For example, in the 'a', the top stroke is quite heavy--like Gill sans. But then comes the soft, tapered stroke which to me contradicts it. By contrast, if you look at the soft terminal at the bottom of the 'g', which has a thinner stroke, the effect is lovely.

Also, I wonder whether it would look better with a rounded inner corner rather than outer corner in the stems of the m n r. And why have horizontal cuts terminating the 'w' when all the other verticals end in soft terminals? I just keep getting the feeling that a more formal design had a bow stuck on it. Very well drawn, but disconcerting to me.

I am here looking at the bold, as this stuff is not noticeable in the lighter weight in the link to Kris's site.

Billtrop, I didn't mean to say that Serrano could be a clone of Foco in any way. Sorry if it perhaps sounded like that. It just reminded me, mainly because of the terminals and how they are executed on c s e... here's a quick comparison of both. I'm also currently designing italics for it, so I'm really into it.

>(I could just as well say that Foco looks like a sans version
>of the Vafflard font I have been working on for the past 15
>years. It does! Shame! The f and t without the left bar are
>mine! Forever!)

Gee, can I see that? (I couldn't find on the web).

I started Foco from sketch in a workshop Bruno Maag did about 8 years ago. A few years after the workshop I finished my version of it and DaMa got interest. So they fine tune it to their high standard and it was released in 2006.

Kris, nice work! ; )

I just saw the link to Foco (sorry). And thanks for the nice comparison, Fabio. I have to think that the similarity ends with those characteristic terminals. In essence the two are nothing alike.

Concerning Dan's candid and incisive insight: I do see it, but Kris is just starting. If he gets stuck on one style, that's a problem. But I see him moving on, with confidence, as needed. That said, some people never move on from a style they're comfortable with and still contribute a great deal to the craft. As an example, some people (including Bill, IIRC) see persistent cuteness in the work of Unger, but we know how that turned out!

hhp

Fabio, thanks for the illustration. I now see some more of the similarities, and also more of the differences. I can better see why William is bothered by the terminals, but honestly, whereas I wouldn't want to use the font myself, I would love for my bank to use it -- and that's the whole purpose here. Fabio's design has a completely different flavour and feeling. Fabio, I wasn't serious about that Vafflard remark. Vafflard was the first (about 1783) to take the left bars off f and t, and I was the first to start reviving Vafflard's designs quite some years ago without however ever having released any of the work. (Interestingly, one of my quarrels with Adobe, when they took this work on, was that they decided halfway through that they wanted left bars put on. Matthew Carter and Sumner Stone, whom I consulted about this lunacy, professed themselves quite unable to understand it. That it was an issue at all illustrates my commitment to the barless f and t in this design. I gave in to them in the end -- what choice did I have? -- but that wasn't enough to save the project, which remains unreleased though occasionally used. A typophile thread where the font is illustrated is http://typophile.com/node/47453. You can see why Robert didn't want it released before Garamond Premier and some of his other later fonts, which incorporate many curiously similar ideas.)

Hrant, will you remind me what I said about Unger and cuteness and how it turned out? I don't remember any of this.

To get back on topic, I think Fabio's terminal treatment is more likely to work best at smaller sizes and I love anyone willing to take on the challenges of the left-bar-less f and t. (I am remembering Slimbach and Twombley's incomparable performance in this respect. 'Week 1. We think you should have a little blob, the teeniest thing, just two or three units, to the left of f and t. Week 2. Do you think you could shape the blobs a bit more? Just a couple of extra points? Week 3. We don't think two or three units is enough. Could you try five or six? Week 4. The blob shape isn't working for us, do you think you could make it more like a bar? Week 5. We know we asked you only for a tiny bar, just ten units, but do you think you could extend it just a tad to thirteen or fourteen? Week 6. Let's have the bar come out fully. We think that will give the characters better balance. Don't worry, Bill, it's just a blob. Nobody will notice it.' Oh, did I say I say I was going to stay on-topic?)

I enjoyed also Kris's article about Balance. I am more convinced by Bloemsma's curve theories than by his stress theories and I am glad Kris didn't overdo the stress.

I realize that Kris's approach to the terminals isn't entirely consistent, but it really works for me in sizes large enough to be visible. I think I know why: What is so acute about this treatment is that it states, through the simplest graphic elements, a strong message: innovation and modernity (C), plus tradition and stability (u). This is an utterly brilliant use of graphical elements to send a signal that will be recognized by everyone who has ever seen a conventional typeface in use. I really admire the intelligence and instinct at work here. William, surely, in these terms, you can see why he has done exactly what he did. I cannot think of another typeface where this has been done so successfully. It succeeds on so many different levels: visual, psychological, aesthetic. An exceptionally sophisticated command of contemporary marketing and advertising language is seen here at its clearest, its most elemental. I don't think I'm overstating the case when I say that we all can learn a lot from this typeface.

>I am more convinced by Bloemsma’s curve theories than by his stress theories

I am not convinced by either. By 'curve theories' I take it you mean his quote from a teacher, "a straight line is a dead line." I think this is sometimes true, enough to make it a good quote. But it is also sometimes false. Straight verticals, for example, convey strength in some designs. The straights are also often combined with curves, and the tension is very lively, and not dead.

As opposed to the 'sometimes true' view about straight lines, I just don't like the reversed contrast thing with roman. The "heavy vertical, lighter horizontal" rule is so deep in the DNA of the Imperial caps and Carolingian minuscule that I just don't think the reversal works. Hebrew is the other way around, and there the heavy horzontal, light vertical rule works fine--but the shapes are fundamentally different. Also the Roman Rustica caps are reversed contrast, but again have a different skeleton. When you take classic upper and lower case 'bones' and try to put reversed-contrast clothing on them, it always looks ill-fitting to my eyes.

Bill, concerning the Unger comments:
1) It might not have been you.
2) It might have been a private comment (in which case I apologize).
3) Hwoever/wherever it was, the opinion was that Unger's work is often cutesy.
4) In terms of "how it turned out", I just mean that Unger has been a superb contributor (as I think you agree) irrespective of any persistent theme (cuteness or otherwise) throughout his work.

> I am more convinced by Bloemsma’s curve theories than by his stress theories

Well, his stress theories evolved rapidly and markedly even starting from Avance, and certainly by Legato. In the end (which came so soon) Bloemsma didn't see reverse contrast as anything central (if he ever did). He was slowly coming around to the practical benefits of (so-called) stroke contrast, serifs, etc., although absolutely not in terms of chirography, quite the contrary.

> Straight verticals, for example, convey strength in some designs.

I agree. And honesty too.

> The “heavy vertical, lighter horizontal” rule is so deep
> in the DNA of the Imperial caps and Carolingian minuscule

This makes no sense to me. There is nothing comparable to DNA here. And really, even DNA mutates! :-)

> the shapes are fundamentally different
> .... a different skeleton

This skeleton business has to go. Leave them in the closet, then burn the closet. We don't read skeletons; it's just an intellectually lethargic way to make fonts. And any differences are not "fundamental", but malleable; which is not to say we should change things in cavalier or chauvinistic fashion. But if something needs change, we should try.

hhp

I did a project for a corporate client a few years ago which bears some similarity. This kind of work is more styling than design. Nothing wrong with that, it's the kind of font development the situation calls for. Smoothing some of the corners is a quite literal (though somewhat simplistic) interpretation of the brief for something "friendly", that can be pointed to, easily understood, and signed off on by various levels of client. Art directors contribute by deciding where, and in which direction, the go-faster streamlining goes.

There is rarely enough time to do a thorough job from scratch, so it's expedient to whip up a font solution by taking something basic off the shelf and applying a little tinkering. Indiscriminately rounding some of the corners is one technique that does the job, as is chopping some of the perpendicular terminals off at angles. Voilà--a new custom typeface!

**

The positioning is no longer valid, following the economic crisis.
What people want is a bank that's secure, not friendly.
Surviving corporations will need to rebrand.

> Indiscriminately

Well, you can do it discriminately too.

> The positioning is no longer valid

Agreed.

hhp

>The positioning is no longer valid

Wow, very interesting. I will now be looking out to see whether the relatively new cartoonish logos and informal, somewhat cutesy faces (eg ATT), which seem to be everywhere, start to be replaced.

Should we be also expecting a lot of Corinthian Columns? :)

Well, you can do it discriminately too.

True. What I was trying to get at was the apparent lack of rationale for where the round corners go. Sure, one can discriminatingly place them here and there so that the overall effect in text is comfortable, but is that all there is?

"Should we be also expecting a lot of Corinthian Columns? :)"

Perhaps a few up-scale Spa/massage facades though for AIG :-)

ChrisL

Wow, thanks for all the interesting feedback! I'm not too sure how to respond to the classic/cute description, people will see what they will. I always thought it was more 'humanist', in the looser sense of the word.

In looking again at it, I’m thinking that what bothers me is not so much the terminals themselves, as their combination with the slight reversed contrast, the Bloemsma influence.

I'm not seeing the reversed contrast, there isn't any in there. Serrano has a fairly standard contrast. Where are you seeing it?

Smoothing some of the corners is a quite literal (though somewhat simplistic) interpretation of the brief for something “friendly”, that can be pointed to, easily understood, and signed off on by various levels of client.

You could say it was literal & simplistic, or you could say it was quite appropriate to the brief. There were three other typefaces that they were using for a reference & a starting point. All of them had rounded corners and only one was well-made enough to actually use. I was unwilling to do the 'rounded corner' thing, as it would date too quickly (web 2.0 etc).

There is rarely enough time to do a thorough job from scratch, so it’s expedient to whip up a font solution by taking something basic off the shelf and applying a little tinkering.

Are you insinuating that this isn't a thorough, from-scratch job?

True. What I was trying to get at was the apparent lack of rationale for where the round corners go. Sure, one can discriminatingly place them here and there so that the overall effect in text is comfortable, but is that all there is?

Let me be very clear. The rounded bits are not just slapped on here & there to make it 'friendly'. The 'humanist' structure (like Thesis Sans) the open, generous counters (like Frutiger) and the overall narrow set are purposefully designed to convey the desired qualities. I have rounded ascenders, but not on the horizontals or the capital uprights—as these start to look too weird & cutesy (haha) for a bank. All of the curve-to-a-point terminals are applied to curved terminals only, like a,c,e,s,f,t, etc.

--K

You could say it was literal & simplistic, or you could say it was quite appropriate to the brief.

Yes, I said it was literal, simplistic, and appropriate.

Are you insinuating that this isn’t a thorough, from-scratch job?

I'm not insinuating. I'm offering my thoughts (as you requested) as to how the mechanics of the working relationship between a foundry, the foundry's client, and the client's client affect the design of a custom type. I'd be interested in your insights, rather than just a straight assertion of how perfectly the design delivers on the brief.

Whether or not you drew it completely from scratch, or modified another of your designs, is not the issue. There is certainly nothing unprofessional about modifying one's own work to produce new designs; at the same time, drawing completely from scratch is no guarantee of quality. Conceptually, the wine typeface you showed here recently is more thoroughly original.

The rounded bits are not just slapped on here & there to make it ’friendly’.

They aren't? You have said that your client started you off with three rounded types--surely the metaphor that a rounded styling is friendly (not to mention fashionable) is central to the typographic ethos of this project? However, you were, understandably, unwilling to remain at that superficial level, seeking a richer implementation of the desired qualities, with the "humanist" features and proportions that you gave to the face. Nonetheless, the application of rounded corners wherever they don't look too cutsey does seem to be a compromise. Despite your explanation of a system, there still seems to be a certain arbitrariness in the application of round corners. Why, for instance, is the top left of "u" sharp, but not the top left of "n"? Why no rounded corners in "w"?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with making styling decisions with a discriminating eye, in fact, it polishes faces to perfection. But conceptually, when a client specifies not just a brief of abstract qualities, but an execution such as a rounded finish, how can that free the designer to do a completely thorough, from scratch, job?

> Whether or not you drew it completely from scratch,
> or modified another of your designs, is not the issue.

It certainly can be an issue, and I would say generally is, since a "custom" solution does mean something special to the client. Even if a client is not knowledgeable about type, he will feel cheated if the font they paid a lot of money for is based on an existing one. On the other hand, if one tells the client this is what will be happening (as I've done recently for a client in Armenia) then it's OK.

> There is certainly nothing unprofessional about modifying one’s own work to produce new designs

Nick, know that this was not the tone of your previous message.

> surely the metaphor that a rounded styling is friendly (not to mention
> fashionable) is central to the typographic ethos of this project?

You don't know that. Even if you or I think it's friendly, that doesn't mean the client thought so.

> how can that free the designer to do a completely thorough, from scratch, job?

Of course, nothing is completely from scratch. Duh.

hhp

Why, for instance, is the top left of “u” sharp, but not the top left of “n”? Why no rounded corners in “w”?

I see logic in this, as Kris already explained - compare Bookman:

Wow, Kris ! Looks like your design has touched some sensitive nerves. Bravo!

Segue from Craig: http://typophile.com/node/17047
"Head-serifs on lc 'u' - decision process?"

hhp

Nick, know that this was not the tone of your previous message.

Look again. I'm situating the discussion in terms of the professional process.

You don’t know that. Even if you or I think it’s friendly, that doesn’t mean the client thought so.

That's why I'm asking Kris, "Surely....?
From my perspective, the equation of rounded type with friendliness is pretty obvious.

Of course, nothing is completely from scratch. Duh.

Of course it is. If your brief consists of abstract qualities, then the conceptualization is entirely up to you; and if you draw all your characters (no tracing or re-using exisiting paths), that's from scratch. Duh.

On the "slightly reversed contrast" I meant as I said the a, which goes from relatively thick to the reduced, curved terminal, doesn't work so well, whereas the g tail, which tapers first, to me is very successful. And for me the top of the e and the r seem to have a little too much 'meat' also. The s is better, and again the g just right.

I don't 'get' the illustration with Bookman; it seems to me totally different than Serrano. As to the treatment on the other verticals of the lower case, if you compare Meta, for example, on this there is not just horizontal sheers, but different treatment to go with the bent stem tops on the mnr. To me this is more harmonious.

> “Surely....?

That's a classic rhetorical-question structure.

> ... if you draw all your characters ...

But to do that you have to have looked
at something during your lifetime!

> I don’t ’get’ the illustration with Bookman

Look at the head serifs.

hhp

That’s a classic rhetorical-question structure.

Surely not when directly addressing somebody?

But to do that you have to have looked at something during your lifetime!

Are you saying that "drawing from scratch" has no meaning?
I take it to mean that one starts with a blank page and works without tracing or pasting.

I wonder if all of this isn't just subjective. I mean if someone goes to a specific foundry, already knowing their other work, perhaps they are hoping for traces of what they like in the other typefaces. Whether or not something originates from a blank slate shouldn't matter. It is the final result that matters.

Kris wrote: I’m not seeing the reversed contrast, there isn’t any in there. Serrano has a fairly standard contrast. Where are you seeing it?

I suspect the comments re. 'reversed contrast' are in response to the strong x-height and baseline horizontals and the correspondingly reduced weight in the mid-zone in the frequent letters a e and s, most notable in the heavier weight. You're right, Kris, this isn't 'reversed contrast', but I can see how this kind of weight manipulation might remind people of Evert's Balance. What Serrano actually has is Jean François Porchez-style ’orizontalité. Very nice, too.

I am not sure the problem is that these matters are subjective. Describing or comparing visual features of typefaces, their roundness, edgyness etc, is part of our job, whether explicitly done or not. My problem is with describing type as "cute", "friendly", "beautiful". What we associate with a typeface is what happens in our's minds but is nothing found on paper as such. We better stick to describing what we see, like "rounded" (Nick) or "curve-to-a-point terminals"* (Kris) -- and then, maybe, if we feel like it, utter what we associate with this.

* Finally I have a term for this.  :)

Trying to make sense of what has been said: Maybe the issue is that quite a few typefaces use a curve-vs-corner trick so they look either a bit rounded or less rounded. 1. With curve-to-a-point terminals -- especially Underware's work (Dolly, Sauna) stimulated others to adopt this feature. 2. With point-in-curve counter, a corner inside "e" or "o" counters -- that's the opposite, to make it look less round, part of the Reading house-style. Both found in sanserif and serif typefaces alike. In so far it's not a "just slapped on" issue (using Kris' term, cannot find who brought this up), but that curve-to-a-point or point-in-curve appear as just two ingredients that can be switched on/off with virtually every kind of typeface -- 1. like "e" or "c" curve-to-a-point terminals in very different styles like Serrano or Omnes or seriffed Sauna, and 2. there was an entire Typophile thread dedicated to typefaces with point-in-curve counters (cannot find it now).

> part of the Reading house-style.

Really? That seems more Dutch to me.
The Reading drive isn't so chirographic.

BTW, have you guys heard of the term "foxtail terminal"?

hhp

My problem is with describing type as “cute”, “friendly”, “beautiful”. What we associate with a typeface is what happens in our’s minds but is nothing found on paper as such.

I talked further with Kris about this and it's so hard to describe what you are seeing that what you are feeling is sometimes easier (and maybe clearer, even if less precise). It's not the terminal treatments that make this work 'cute', it's the handling of all of the curves: they're all a bit over-plump you might say (or tend towards the super-ellipse if you want more techy terminology). It's this feature that makes all of Kris' work 'friendly', IMO. To me it's this feature that really sets Seranno and Foco apart: despite the rounded terminals of Foco, it feels more 'neutral' (throw me a more techinical term for that!) to me because the handling of the curves is different (to my eyes at least).

terminology is such a tricky thing, really. even seemingly universal terms such as 'yellow' are cultural constructs and mean different things to different people. To me it's obvious that Kris' concept of a 'curve' is different from my own.

> part of the Reading house-style.

Well, judge for yourself: http://www.typefacedesign.org
I can see what Karsten means: most diversely implemented – for instance – in Paul Hunt’s Grandia, Rob Keller’s Vesper, Fermello’s Frida … Jelmar Geertsma digs that kind of counters, too.

Then again, this preference is not limited to Reading, of course. Jarno Lukkarila’s Xtra Sans is a prime example for the point-in-curve counter – and he studied at KABK.

There are a lot of other examples in this thread: Cut and then curved

in Paul Hunt’s Grandia

you'll see it to less an extent in the display sizes... here i'm using it mainly as a device for keeping counters open for fonts intended for small sizes for a calligraphicly-flavoured typeface. The rationlized cousin of Grandia will dispense with this device.

I have not seen anything of Serrano other than the web samples but based on those let me say again: this was conceptualized beautifully from scratch and is the very opposite of the kind of work that is done by designers who take something off the shelf and make a few (or many) changes -- an MO I frown on. Again, as near as I can judge, the Serrano implementation is superb in a way that is still extremely rare today. By implementation I mean primarily truly excellent fitting and other factors that make the typeface harmonious, usable, and useful. For example, I am crazy about Paul's Grandia typeface, which shows such deep understanding of the intangibles of serious reading, but I don't think the fitting is there yet based on the sample referenced here. Great fitting is a skill few great type designers have, and ideally would not have to worry about. Nick, I love your type but Richler proved you were not very comfortable with text fitting, remember? Part of what I am trying to say is that one of the reasons why Kris's decisions to treat this element (n) one way and that element (u) another way is not important is that the overall appearance of the set typeface is so overwhelmingly convincing. No doubt Serrano is open to criticism, but I have not yet heard a pertinent criticism expressed yet. As for prediction that

>Surviving corporations will need to rebrand.

I'll take a bet that this one will stick with Kris's identity for some time to come.

Spacing requires a coupling of abstract analytical skill and the desire to use it. And somebody who feels like an artist is unlikely to enjoy the latter, even if he happens to enjoy the former (which is rare).

> I’ll take a bet that this one will stick with Kris’s identity for some time to come.

Sure. Five years to be exact (the duration of the exclusivity). But that doesn't mean Nick isn't right about it being too "friendly" -hence not sober enough- for these times (through no fault of Kris, since that's what the client asked for - although maybe DNAD should have said something, early on). The age of the straight line might be coming back, which is a shame, since that would seem to preclude organicity, which is just now taking flight for real (and I like it a lot).

hhp

I’m offering my thoughts (as you requested) as to how the mechanics of the working relationship between a foundry, the foundry’s client, and the client’s client affect the design of a custom type. I’d be interested in your insights, rather than just a straight assertion of how perfectly the design delivers on the brief.

The mechanics are pretty straight forward. They came to me wanting a custom typeface to fit into their new branding direction. I looked at what they had graphic design wise, their mood boards, which typefaces they were referencing & talked to the AD about what was good & bad about those typefaces. Once I had a clear idea of what they needed I started drawing (yes, from a blank slate). The design was sent through at various stages to get feedback & sign-off, all the way until it was finished. Isn't this how everyone does it?

Nonetheless, the application of rounded corners wherever they don’t look too cutsey does seem to be a compromise. Despite your explanation of a system, there still seems to be a certain arbitrariness in the application of round corners. Why, for instance, is the top left of “u” sharp, but not the top left of “n”? Why no rounded corners in “w”?

I put the curves in where it made visual sense to me. Any more would have ruined it. I tried rounded bits on the 'u' and 'w' but they looked wrong. If that is arbitrary, then so be it!

But conceptually, when a client specifies not just a brief of abstract qualities, but an execution such as a rounded finish, how can that free the designer to do a completely thorough, from scratch, job?

I'm not sure I understand why this is relevant. I'm a designer, not an artist. I want and need their feedback and input to make a typeface suitable for them. They initially wanted rounded corners, like Unit Rounded. I didn't do that, but we arrived at the rounded-to-a-point curve mutually during the collaborative design process. I think that client involvement makes a thorough job.

On the “slightly reversed contrast” I meant as I said the a, which goes from relatively thick to the reduced, curved terminal…

Ah. I thought you meant I had gone totally Antique Olive/Balance! Maybe one day, for something else.

What Serrano actually has is Jean François Porchez-style ’orizontalité.

What a lovely term for it!

I’ll take a bet that this one will stick with Kris’s identity for some time to come.

Hey Bill, just to clarify that the identity isn't mine, only the typeface. I'd hate to take credit where it's not due…

--K

Richler proved you were not very comfortable with text fitting,

Bill, your opinion doesn't prove anything.

Kris, thanks for the further detail.

I tried rounded bits on the ’u’ and ’w’ but they looked wrong. If that is arbitrary, then so be it!

That makes sense. Maybe it's analog to serif typefaces where u v w x y serifs (need to?) differ from the others to look "right", horizontal rather than diagonal. Not arbitrary but by intention.

I had heard of fox tail but since forgotten about it. Does the wiki have a page for the terminal? I think a list of descriptive terminals should be added.

http://typophile.com/node/46990

hhp

>Bill, your opinion doesn’t prove anything.

Nick, you're not going to learn how to fit until you give up that system (for I must admit that it is a system, in that it is calculated to do everything wrong rather than right). And you aspire to release a Scotch in competition with Matthew Carter?

Thanks for reminding me, Hrant.

you’re not going to learn how to fit until you give up that system

You have no idea what you're talking about.
I used "that system" once, as an experiment--which was quite successful, actually.

...you aspire to release a Scotch...

I already have.

Paul’s Grandia typeface, which shows such deep understanding of the intangibles of serious reading, but I don’t think the fitting is there yet based on the sample referenced here.

thanks, bill! believe me, i'm keenly aware of the efficiencies of the fitting and struggled with it a long time before i had to give up in order to have something to submit for my practical. i fully intend on revisiting that, but have much yet to learn in the realms of inter-letter spacing. anyway, back to the lovely Seranno... :D

The age of the straight line might be coming back, which is a shame, since that would seem to preclude organicity

i'm sure the organic will be in vogue quite a bit longer...

Nick (and/or Bill), how does this "system" work?

Concerning the "in competition with Matthew Carter" bit, if we're talking about commercial competition* then quite sadly, as Mrs Eaves has shown so well, good spacing doesn't necessarily matter much. It's been the best-selling Emigre font (and that's saying a lot) even though Robin Kinross has equated it with a loose bicycle (while I've equated it with a high attractive women with a severe speech impediment).

* As opposed to critical competition, which is not something Nick (or Matthew, who is however too modest to do so anyway) should present an opinion about, leaving it to others to determine.

Paul, I most certainly hope you're right.

hhp

...how does this “system” work?

A bit off topic for this thread, but it's explained in the Richler PDF.
http://www.shinntype.com/Richler.pdf

The theory apparently is that squarish rounds should be fitted as if they were straights, not rounds. (This has got nothing to do with DIN, which in Pool's version is fitted by a master.) The result is that rounds have about twice the sidebearings on either side that they need. (Strangely this did not occur to Zapf whose competently fitted Melior is the ultimate parent of this typeface -- not that Melior should be encouraged to breed.) Another global problem is that the caps are incorrectly fitted in relation to the lowercase, leading to the excessive gaps between uppercase letters followed by lowercase letters. Look at commissioned, where mmi is reasonable but co is too loose, om is looser still, and the snobbish e has erected a hedge to shield its unwelcome neighbours from view. Ca and Ra show the problem with the caps.

To forestall Hrant, the reason Mrs Eaves succeeds is not because of its bad spacing but in spite of it. The typeface has real charm and the looseness is tonic. Fixing the bad relationships but maintaining the looseness of Mrs Eaves, as more than one expert technician of my acquaintance has been paid well to do, only improves the typeface. One hopes that Licko has learnt something in the meantime, but refitting the commercial font would be impossible because of the necessity to preserve line integrity in older documents. On the other hand, there are people who are simply too invested in their sense of authority to learn.

Bill, you are too tied to convention. Overly invested in a sense of authority, one might say.
Innovation is not, per se, incorrect. Of course, the sidebearings of Richler don't look right when one examines them closely and looks for divergence from standard theory and practice. In fact, I had to overcome my prejudices and concentrate on how the face reads in text, to fully commit to the concept.

Ultimately, "fit" is not a matter of right or wrong. Like other aspects of type design, it's more a question of style and tone, and the personal discrimination of the designer. There are different styles of fit, and Richler is wide and open, whether you like it or not.

The face hasn't been used much, due to the exclusive conditions of the licence, but if you'd care to see it in its intended context, you might enjoy this--and learn something:
http://www.amazon.ca/Dispatches-Sporting-Life-Mordecai-Richler/dp/067697...

>Ultimately, “fit” is not a matter of right or wrong.

I don't agree. Getting good rhythm and color is important to readability, and so readability is a constraint on text faces that does make for "right" and "wrong". This is probably a range rather than a bright line, though.

> The theory apparently is that squarish rounds
> should be fitted as if they were straights

It seems to go even further. For example, the left side of the "b" would be spaced the same as the left of the "h", right? Basically it sounds like it's aiming for uniform spacing of the main verticals, ignoring lesser parts of glyphs.

> Melior is the ultimate parent of this typeface

I'm not seeing that.

> To forestall Hrant, the reason Mrs Eaves succeeds
> is not because of its bad spacing but in spite of it.

Well, that's what I already said.

> Fixing the bad relationships but maintaining the looseness of
> Mrs Eaves, as more than one expert technician of my acquaintance
> has been paid well to do, only improves the typeface.

When it comes to text, I can't agree. There's a relationship between a font's vertical proportions, color and spacing, and Mrs Eaves has to either be a lot tighter (to work at around 14 point) or darker, larger on the body & a bit tighter (to work at smaller sizes). For display work though I can see its airiness being aesthetically useful.

BTW, who are these re-designers? Is it legal?

> refitting the commercial font would be impossible

Not impossible, just annoying to a minority of users who for some rarified reason have to go back and reset a large work with the new version. Plus those people could just have both versions on hand.

BTW, do I actually remember correctly that Emigre eventually -and quietly- released an updated version (I mean after the OT one) with the spacing fixed? (Maybe it was a dream I had...)

> there are people who are simply too invested
> in their sense of authority to learn.

This is the real problem.
Artistes.

--

BTW, to those of you who are weary of the chronic Mrs Eaves bashing and/or fearful of yet another flame war sparked by the bashing, understand that the bashing happens because of Mrs Eaves's combination of commercial success and poor craft. This combination unnerves some of us, because it makes us feel like all our attention to detail goes ignored by most graphic designers. And it does. But we have to remember why we really do apportion this attention.

hhp

> concentrate on how the face reads in text

This is pretty much impossible for a designer to do
when it comes to his own work. One needs help.

> “fit” is not a matter of right or wrong.

That's art talk, not design talk.

Richler however does have great style. If/when the
exclusivity runs out you might consider respacing it.

> each would argue that the discrimination of his/her eye was best?

That doesn't mean they're using different philosophies of spacing. Plus some designers -like Paul in this very thread- are modest enough to admit they are not Perfect.

hhp

I don’t agree.

But Bill, surely if you asked several different type designers to "fit" the same set of glyphs, they would each do it differently, and each would argue that the discrimination of his/her eye was best?

...how the face reads in text...This is pretty much impossible for a designer to do.

What I mean is that the designer should not apportion metrics primarily by examining large images of glyphs in the metrics window of FontLab, but by reading paragraphs of text printed out at book text size.

That’s art talk, not design talk.

Even though they may adhere to the same philosophy, can't type designers have personal style in implementing it?
Doesn't one type designer "fit" differently than another?
Slimbach and Licko, for instance, are at different ends of the tight/loose spectrum.
But why should there be only one acceptable philosophy of fit?

Back to Serrano:

Kris, your website won't work for me.
Can you please post images of the Serrano fonts in this thread?

> Getting good rhythm and color is important to readability, and so readability is a constraint on text faces....

I agree with William. Good rhythm is consistantcy in color. There should not be strips of white space between the letters or words due to the shapes of the sides of the letters. This is where good kerning comes into play, as certain letter pairs need to be closer together, whiles others need to be further apart.

Generally speaking, larger type is tighter to a fault, and smaller type is looser. Text faces for children are a little looser even at medium sizes, or the typeface design is very wide, like Schoolbook.

In a well-made OpenType font, kerning becomes obsolete, or is only used as an override, like in InDesign diacritics panel (I assume the non-ME regular version has this pallete).

I wonder if the leading OpenTpe font-makers are adding this extra feature. David Berlow of FontBureau, is this the case with your fonts? Thomas Pinney of Adobe, co-makers of OpenType, is this feature in your fonts? Is Linotype still around?