Spiekermann's Strict New Daughter

The links to pages at macnews.de aren’t working (well, they’re not pointing to where it seems they should).

I’m intrigued though….

Jordan

http://www.typografie.info/portal/images/site/unit1.gif

(The macnews site is currently very busy because of Steve Jobs conference ...)

Ralf

Isn't it too close to all his other stuff?

hhp

So what.
The plainer the better.
Strict daughter? I think she might have snuck out
last night. The "R" is a touch expressive.

Thanks Ralf.

I do like the bold, particularly the ‘U’, but the lc does look a little … familiar.

Jordan

I like the bold too... and the typeface does really look like a slight remake of Meta, but then again, there's always room in the world for well designed text face.

To me, Unit = Meta = Officina = Info... I see nothing new.

> there's always room in the world for well designed text face.

Since Spiekermann is by all accounts a shrewd businessman, I'm guessing there must be a good reason (beyond just adding yet another font to the library at minimum effort) to design small variations like this -- and I think I know what it is: companies look for a font for their identity, and they often end up thinking things like "I really like Meta/Fago/whatever, but it's so overused." So a new font that's very similar to Meta/Fago/whatever becomes the perfect choice. Sequel-mania, sort of. Serialization. Great for milking the masses, but neither here nor there in terms of cultural contribution.

hhp

And it will probably be digitized by Ole Schaeffer.

--jacques

>Unit = Meta = Officina = Info

Really? I still specify the lovely Officina for loads of jobs but (even though I've used it a number of times in the past) I wouldn't consider Meta these days. I find the lowercase g and the kinks on all the ascenders quite repellant. This is probably more indicative of my aesthetic development than any inherent weakness in Spiekermann's design; but there's definitely a considerable difference between the two faces.

As for Unit, I'm afraid I can't really judge using the sample gif but it looks interesting and certainly worthwhile. To quote Polish theatre designer Adam Killian's Credo:

"Stay back in the same grade for 40 years and correct all your past mistakes"

Jacques:
Der wunderbar bezier monkey.

hhp

Hrant: you're right. I spoke him a few times. I sometimes wonder how such people work, or better: sleep?

YAK

Well, les goûts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas, eh? You should see some of the things I enjoy!

hhp

I have seen your website...

YAK

I don't know what bothers me the most: that Erik appears to be a one trick poney, or the fact that he's so incredibly good at it. He's a master at his trade, and does have an uncanny knack at sensing what the market wants/needs, as he scores hit after hit.

I've seen every design of his since ITC Officina as a further refinement in search of what he views to be the perfect typeface. It's almost like science, incorporating the findings that resulted from the previous design into the new one. So the equation should read:
ITC Officina -> Meta -> FF Info -> Unit.
I'll have to make up my mind about Unit, but I do know that after an initial short period of quasi-indifference, I've come to appreciate every single design of his.

Furthermore, in related news, I would like to point out that ITC Officina has been augmented with a display version just recently.

Both Officina and Meta aren't good display faces, because they don't fit neatly when the setting is tight. So display versions are overdue. "Tight but not touching", the mantra of the phototype era, seems to be returning...

> Both Officina and Meta aren’t good display faces, because they don’t fit neatly when the setting is tight.

Very right, that's why FF Info was a perfect addition to both faces when it came out, and why Erik made both a text and a display version for it. To quote myself ;) (...) incorporating the findings that resulted from the previous design into the new one.

I'm curious to find out which specific improvements were made in FF Unit.

The fitting in Officina is indeed shaky.

> "Tight but not touching", the mantra of the phototype era, seems to be returning...

Actually, I think there's a new trend:
"Letterspacing? What's that?"

hhp

well, i agree with keith tam. it's nothing new. and here we see "just" a new old font in the good ol' cooperation with ole schäfer. to me it's a a font made of stucked design conceivabilities. maybe the meta or the offica or even the fago are the most perfect types, but anyhow, the metaguys and erik spiekermann don't want to digress from their successful way of making a (good) font. kinda conservative. but i grant this to mr. spiekermann and ole schäfer. that's why they are that prosperous then.

TypeFORUM.de has some additional information about FF Unit.

They keep saying it's high-contrast. Really? Also, I found the movement of the upper part of the lc "a" along the weight axis somewhat strange.

BTW, do you guys think that Spiekermann is in effect continually refining a certain model in his head? If that's the case, then that's good.

hhp

continually refining a certain model in his head? If that's the case, then that's good.

is it?

When it is a design philosophy, it is. Although i would not -- as a designer -- take such a decision. Although a lot can be said for it. (bytheway it is the same with G. Unger, i admire, but hate his type at the same time).

--jacques

As a bit pointed by some, I think there is a clear distinction to be made between:

Subjective analyse of a new fonts versus others in the font market. Does this new font bring something new in type palette, does it answer to special design needs, etc.
and
Analytical analyse of the work of a particular designer, such all Frutiger fonts, Unger fonts, Zapf fonts show similar feelings in their respective forms.

Before continuing discussing such subject all over the years...

So, you can appreciate type designer work, as you can appreciate the work of such and such artist, but don't see any use in your own jobs for others reasons.

>you can appreciate type designer work, as you can appreciate the work of such and such artist

The type designer as auteur. Absolutely.

A like the neofrutigers faces.

to set the record straight: Unit started as an exclusive face for my new studio, United Designers, just like Meta started for that studio back in 1991 (after the initial Post Office project). So, of course, it comes from the same brain and hands. And it will set tightly, it is very legible in small sizes and it has two very light weights.
But it was digitized and co-developed by Christian Schwartz, not Ole Schäfer. I got a little fed up with the fact that very time I had finished a project with Ole, he had a new typeface out. Hasn't anybody seen that Fago is Meta Display? And that Unit is Fago Text? ;–) Wait for the real MetaDisplays and the MetaLights and check out Officina Display, digitized by Christian Schwartz (who interned with me at Meta a few years ago).
Call it incest, but – as JFP pointed out – all Frutiger's faces look like Frutiger's faces and Gerard Unger’s look Dutch and like Gerard Unger's. And every book by Norman Mailer reads like a book by Norman Mailer. And shouldn't they? That's half the reason people buy them.
And if you want to see what else i do, look at the new faces for Nokia, sketched by me and produced by Monotype.

Wow, great to have you here!

> That's half the reason people buy them.

Yes, that's a very good point.
The type designer as celebrity? Why not!

hhp

>The type designer as celebrity?

that is not what i meant: If a writer has achieved certain status by writing books that people want to read, it is a fairly safe bet that the next book won't be a complete waste of time. While the plot may be predictable, at least you know that the guy can write. The deviation between text faces can only be about 5%, so Unit is a development of all the other faces i did before, but it won't be the last one. All my faces have addressed a specific problem: Meta for small sizes, Officina to combine typewriter and typesetting, Info for signage (with blunt corners to facilitate cutting by plotters), and Unit for small sizes as well as large display.

To set the record straight:
I suggested Ole Scheaffer had been involved in the project.

Being blinded by the design(-style), I forgot that although Ole S. might have been involved in past projects, that all E. Spiekermann's fonts were always designed by E. Spiekermann.

Excuse me for talking/writting too fast...

--Jacques

>Call it incest,

Alternatively, call the boy Aladdin Sane.

Who would have expected Mrs Eaves?

While some refine, reinterpret, and rework their major themes, others reinvent themselves (and that becomes a theme). Both are legitimate strategies.

The hand leaves a trace of personality in the shape of complex curves and subtle proportions, and that explains the consistency of the Frutiger oeuvre, for instance.

I'm quite intrigued to see the new Nokia face, and how the familiar Spiekermann style appears in a low-res font. But I couldn't find it. Do you have a link, Erik?

Funny enough Erik, I imagined that Unit was done again with the help of Ole! :-) I still don't know who need to take this as a compliement or who as a critic.

Anyway, your explanation about Unit is quite interesting. And seems for long, that collaborative way of designing typefaces is YOUR signature, I see that as an influence of graphic design team method applied to type design (who generally is more a alone and old craft.)

Next time, do a serif typeface with all the quality of a Sans as you know how to do it. It can be a good challenge.

> that collaborative way of designing typefaces is YOUR signature

Well, if Rubens could do that with paintings, I think there's a great case for applying a "division of labor" to type design. And this is not a new idea. Gill left the spacing to Monotype for example. There are drawbacks to this in terms of overall craftsmanship, but the economic advantages are clear.

On the other hand, I do agree that:
1) Variety is fruitful.
2) Serifs are good for you.

hhp

Gill left the spacing to Monotype for example.

Hrant, I’ve seen you mention this a couple of times before, as if this was somehow an unusual thing. I believe that in the era of large foundries the fitting was always done by the drawing/matrix-manufacturing offices. This was certainly true at Linotype. Dwiggins, for instance, gave plenty of input about fitting, but in the end he relied heavily upon the expertise of Griffith and Larson to fit his fonts. (This will be the topic of my talk at ATypI.)

Here’s a quote for you from WAD’s letter to Ruzicka: “Griffith steps in here, with his experience, and takes a first crack: establishes ‘side-bearings’ and sets up a trial page. If the result is not satisfactory you go on from there by experiment. Usually he makes it in one.”

It seems to me that in the beginning typefounding was mostly a solo activity. In the latter 19th and early 20th century, it became a large, collaborative effort (ignoring Goudy). Only very recently, with the personal computer and font-editing software, has it returned to being primarily a solo affair.

— K.

>Only very recently, with the personal computer and font-editing software, has it returned to being primarily a solo affair.

That's generally true. However, as I recall, typositor faces (that would be from the 1950s thru the 1980s?) didn't require sidebearings as they were set "by eye". Although there was always some kind of a left sidebearing, by default.

Letraset had rudimentary sidebearings (little "nicks"), although I rubbed down an awful lot of letters and never used them once.

So there are at least four distinctions of "design" here: the concept; the rough sketches, the metrics; and the drawing. It's also possible for one person to do a basic character set to high finish, and someone else complete the full character set. Or extend the family.

Now, you can add hinting as a separate task.

The question is, where does design stop and manufacture begin? And how intertwined are they?

There are quite a few foundries that split up the functions these days, and even though they tend to be the more successful in terms of font sales, they are still in the minority when you consider the large number of one-person shops.

Also, when you think back several hundred years, I'm sure the maestro got a lot of help from his apprentices: he would perhaps do one size, and they would follow suit.

> as if this was somehow an unusual thing

Well, I was actually saying that it wasn't so unusual, and that it doesn't have to be. But like you say, it was not the norm in the beginning, nor is it now.

> the maestro ... would perhaps do one size, and they would follow suit.

I don't know about that, since optical scaling is one of the trickiest things in the book. I recently read a review by Ovink of Rädisch's autobiography, and he reserved the highest praise for the punchcutter's ability to modify the "original" according to size.

hhp

I'm quite intrigued to see the new Nokia face, and how the familiar Spiekermann style appears in a low-res font. But I couldn't find it. Do you have a link, Erik?

I did all the sizes as bitmaps for lowres displays, but i have no idea which ones were used where. In fact, the resolution of colour screens has become so good that most applications now render outlines. There is a wide version of Nokia Sans designed for screens (à la Verdana), normal versions for print and a few condensed and display weights. They all show up in literature and advertising. I did bitmaps first, with contrast between horizontals and verticals and drew the outlines over those to arrive at a display version with quite a bit of contrast. Ole Schäfer (!) then drew one testword for a text weight which i made into an almost complete alphabet (around 70 characters), but with dirty outlines. I then made Nokia Serif based on the sans outlines. Monotype took those digital sketches and made them into real fonts, interpolated the hell out of them, added the wide version, hinted, etc.

erik

>I 'm quite intrigued to see the new Nokia face, and how the familiar Spiekermann style appears in a low-res font.

The Nokia corporate font is quite a collaborative project indeed.

First I made a proposal for a set of bitmap fonts (for the phones) and then outine font based on it. After a while Erik Spiekermann and Ole Scheafer came up with another couple of outline and bitmap fonts. These were clearly inspired on my bitmaps and the outlines looked actually more like my initial bitmap than my own outline. Then I reworked this new outline proposal. Then Robin Nicholas reworked my reworking. Then Erik Spiekermann made Robin's version slightly heavier. With some help from co-workers at Monotype I produced the full set of hamburgefonstivs of all weights, about 25 in the end. This included the first drawings of the italics and serifed versions. These were all disgned with extended latin, Greek and Cyrillc. Carl Crossgrove did most of the initial work on the Italics.

And then there were all the hinters who made the outline fonts look like the bitmap fonts at screen sizes...

In other words: To attribute the design of the Nokia fonts to one person, doesn't seem quite right.

Jelle

Let me just spend a word to this diskussion:
- Fago has nothing to do with other typefaces
- I have not worked for Erik after 07/2001 and I will not release new typefaces with him
- you can view may latest released faces on www.primetype.com
- Jelle your comment is right. My part: I have drawn three Displayversions with the characters 0-9, A-Z, a-z and Hamburgefontives in Regular and Bold for text and never heard anything about it again. Erik may remember ...

Ole

Ole, Manual Semi is interesting. And in the family, the verticaly proportions are right on, and the hybrid numerals are nice.

hhp

I don't want to sound provocatory or ambiguous, you know I consider Meta a real landmark. But I wished to ask Erik (if he's still roaming around) if and how Georg Saldemann's old design GST Polo influenced him and if this face is available in digital format.

On a separate note, I love Fago Condensed, and consider it its own thing. I just like very much many facets of the design. I guess it's unavoidable to overlap in some way when co-designing and collaborating, that's why I like just certain weights or variants of a given family.

Claudio, I think the Saldemann business is old news by now.

hhp

>Claudio, I think the Saldemann business is old news by now.

I know nothing about it. Am I missing something? I was just exposed to it by Jens Gehlhaar when we used to talk about my book's entries.

I might be totally confused - not sure - and I can't find the relevant links - sorry. :-/

hhp

Just received the new FontFont Focus booklets from FontShop in the mail, and the one highlighting FF Unit uses selections from this very thread as main text. :)

Is that cool or what.
Like what did they use? I hope none of my nastiness...

hhp

Sure they did.. :)

But they cut out some quotes, so sometimes you don't follow. For example, after the Ole Schaefer post you get the Hrant post "I might be totally confused..." Which was a follow up of the Claudio post, which is not in the specimen ;)

Ahwell, who cares..still neat.

Hey, everything I write is copyrighted!
I'm suing, I'm suing!!! ;-)

hhp