1. Spacing Capitals 2. Construction of a Roman Alphabet

[gatorage]

How much do people generally space their capitals?

I tend to use either 50 or 100 thousandths of an em.

Also, asking two questions here, I recently found David Goines book Construction of a Roman Alphabet which I love. Can anyone recommend any similar books that discuss letterform creation like this?

[Neil Keller]

gatorage,

I don't think that you can just plunk down a set of numbers and mechanically construct the space between caps to match. Variables such as
• serifs v sans (and the prominence and width of the serifs)
• weight of the adjacent strokes
• angle of the adjacent strokes
• curved v straight adjacent strokes
• font size (wider l.s. in smaller sizes; narrower for headines)
• etc.
will influence this.

In the end, I think it has to be your eye that is the final authority on spacing caps.

Neil

[Dominic Hurley]

Talking display caps, I space by eye, using very thin spaces to get the results I want (I use character tags in combination with em and en spaces to give me these very thin spaces). As Neil says, the spacing depends on many factors, and in my experience the best results will not be obtained by using a constant spacing regardless of whether you use the font's kerning or not.

Where time is short, I do sometimes just set a tracking value for caps or small caps in text sizes, but again this will depend on the font and factors such as its size and weight.

Dominic

[gatorage]

Sorry, I meant things like sub-heads and small caps in text sizes rather than headings.

I would certainly space and kern display capitals by eye.

Cheers!

[Neil Keller]

gatorage...

Again, I'd give the same answer -- by eye, in relationship to the letters' environment.

Neil

[Ian Burton]

I am fascinated by the "by eye" concept. After several hundred years of development of typographical technology is that the best measure that can be offered.

By eye, I have a certain rejection of Rubens' nudes. By eye, I have problems with some of Picasso's cubist works. By eye, lots of Mirņ's works shout vivid messages to me. So can my eye be a trusted measure of artistic value.

By contrast, I have worked with professionally trained and very experienced typographers and graphic artists. Yes, I respect their "eye", because they show me why and why not certain typographical artifacts work. But, despite more than twenty years working with the experts in Europe, I am sure I would not trust my eye to make typographical decisions. I have a good eye, but it's not trained to the expert level.

Are you not, to a certain extent, creating a devaluation of typographical concepts with this "by eye", and who cares what experience this eye has, approach? I fully appreciate the empirical nature of typographical experience, but surely there's more to this very important aspect of communication than "by eye".
Yours most respectfully,
Ian

[Don McCahill]

Ian

I think it all depends on whether you want typography to be an art, or a science. If the former, then doing it "by eye" is acceptable. If the latter, then you will want some more precise and repeatable methods.

My personal experience leans towards the art. I remember being in type shops where, as soon as new lead hand was appointed, the first thing he or she did was recast all the kerning tables according to his or her eye.

[Dominic Hurley]

Interesting post. I could see this discussion getting quite philosophical quite quickly!

Ian, are you talking about using something like David Kindersley's LOGOS program or URW's Kernus? I've had a quick play with Kernus, but haven't closely examined its results and have only read about LOGOS.

Personally speaking, however, I don't quite follow how typographic concepts can be devalued by advocating spacing by eye. Rather, the devaulation in typographic standards I often see is the direct result of automation. Typesetting apps generally don't deal with automatic letterspacing very well, hence the need for kerning tables. InDesign has made advances with the optical spacing it offers, but it reportedly still has its flaws. And those kerning tables and optical spacing standards are based on someone's opinion anyway. Even a highly sophisticated spacing algorithm based on an analysis of the chosen font's lettershapes would need some human input because the whole problem is that equal visual spacing is not the same as equal mathematical spacing. Sure, people will have different ideas about what is good spacing, but that's why typography is an art, not a science. And I think you're too hard on yourself re "I am sure I would not trust my eye to make typographical decisions". Experts become experts only through experience and learning (often through their mistakes). As far as I'm concerned, anyone who reads is qualified to express an opinion on typographic matters, and after that it just comes down to how much confidence you have in those opinions as to whether you put those opinions into practice. (But please note that I'm not saying that anyone who reads is qualified to set up shop as a typesetter!)

Incidentally, I recently saw some typesetting that was done here while I was on holiday last month. The first thing that struck me was the lack of spacing on the title page - the caps were just too close together (ie, there was no added spacing) and the spacing between a "W" and an "A" was just awful. But it didn't register as a problem to those staff here who had seen it and approved the work (none of whom were in any way experienced in typesetting). Almost makes me weep, the lack of appreciation the average person has for the quality of typesetting!

[Ian Burton]

When I worked in Italy 1977 to 1987 I had the good fortune to work with designers like Ettore Sottsass, Perry King, George Sowden, Walter Miotto, and Franco Berta. You may not have heard of these people, but there is an exhibition of their work in the Pompidou centre in Paris this month. They all were highly trained, very experienced people and even dork engineers like me could not help learning something about design and typography.

The early eighties saw the advent of Word Processing machines allowing operators to choose fonts. Now, I believe millions of people, including many experienced writers I know, have confused the availability of fonts, and how easy it is to change the appearance of a document, with the aquired skills and experience of designers and typographers. These "experienced eyes" hold forth on the grounds that they, having messed about with fonts for more than fifteen years, think themselves capable of a serious judgment in this area.

I agree that everyone should have the right to hold an opinion, but I have seen the most screamingly dreadful examples of font usage by the uninformed and inexperienced. When asked about why certain decisions were made, several people have replied something like "in my eye it looks perfect".

So bottom line is how do you guys, significant contributors to typography issues on this forum, persuade the person who has messed about with fonts in word for fifteen years that there are "right to an opinion eyes" and "experienced eyes offering a significant opinion".

Please note I am not involved in the particular case that is annoying me at the moment, but I do wish I could simple tell the old documentation manager to shut up and listen to the advice of the young designer. May be I will do, once I know I won't need another contract there.

Oh, and thank you all for your many contributions that I have been watching silently (like many others I suspect). I have used lots of your advice and look forward to developing a more experienced eye wih your help.
Cheers
Ian

[Guy Smiley]

"I think it all depends on whether you want typography to be an art, or a science."

It's neither. Typography is a craft.

[Victor Caston]

Funny how 'art,' 'craft' and even 'expertise' can be used (in English) for the only word which will do (in Greek): techne. Know how.

If know how could be reduced to knowing that such-and-such is the case or that this-and-that is the case, computers could do it. And if not, not.

Easier said than done. Baffled Socrates, baffles me. Plato thought he understood how to make such things scientific. But unless you understand Republic VI-VII (and I mean UNDERSTAND it) ... it's easier just to train your eye.

(And I mean the way Ian's mentors did, not the way us common word processing folk do!)

Sorry, Dominic. Couldn't resist.

Victor (Caston)

[Neil Keller]

A few thoughts from my perspective. Typography is a craft. I'll concede that. But master typographers elevate the craft to an art.

Unfortunately, for most folks who have to put words to paper, pushing letterforms about isn't even typography; it's just typesetting. And (considering that many would otherwise use office typewriters; and think that Times and Helvetica are enough) barely that. Built-in kerning tables serve best to help keep typesetting from becoming totally illegible.

You can't regiment fine typography. But you can put some order into everyday typesetting. Compare Monet's work with paint-by-numbers. Same tools.

Neil

[Ian Burton]

Neil, interesting coincidence that you chose Claude Monet, the man who gave birth to the term "impressionist" (Un jour d'exposition, un de ses tableaux n'avait pas de nom. L'homme qui accrochait demanda: "quel titre lui met-on ?" et Monet répondit : "Je ne sais pas...'Impression, soleil levant' par exemple". Le terme "impressionniste" viendrait de ce tableau aujourd'hui exposé à Marmottan.) With all his mates like Cézanne, Degas, Guillaumin, Berthe Morisot, Sisley and Renoir, Monet featured in the first impressionist exhibition just down the road from where I live. But, the date was 1874, not last week.

I think your choice of Monet is most appropriate. In typography, it's the impression that counts. The reality is significant but the immediate impression is the lasting communication that counts.

By the way, Claude Monet was part of the group with George Seurat (generally considered to be the creator of pointilisme) that invented the bitmap format. I am not sure if he used RGB or CYMK in his landmark work giving an impression of "Une Baignade, Asnières" in 1884.

So thank you Neil. Until you mentioned Monet, I had not focused on the fact that the "experienced eye" seems to have been a local (bottom of my garden) development as was painting by numbers as in bitmaps.
Cheers
Ian

[Dominic Hurley]

As far as art or craft goes, somone better versed in the intricacies of their respective definitions (which basically seem to consist of references to art and skill) can argue that. But, I think that "art" can easily and comfortably be applied to typography.

And as for persuading one that there are "right to an opinion eyes" and "experienced eyes offering a significant opinion", I don't think you can. Art is in the eye of the beholder after all. The lack of knowledge about the way things were done has led to today's proliferation of what I consider "bad" typography, but maybe that means the new "good" typography will be yesterday's bad typography - you like what you're used to. I hope not, but ...

Ian, I'm still intrigued by your query about something being better than "the 'by eye' concept". What would you propose?

[Neil Keller]

Ian,

Thanks for your comments. As my French is considerably worse than my English, I don't know more than a handful of the words. So, if you wouldn't mind translating the Monet conversation...

Actually, in retrospect, I should have used Seurat v paint-by-numbers for my analogy!

Thanks.

Neil

[Guy Smiley]

"The reality is significant but the immediate impression is the lasting communication that counts."

This is just a turgid way of saying, "set type by eye".

[Ian Burton]

Dominic,
I suppose what I am looking for would be a journeymans' guide to typography that offered a few simple guidelines about what is functional but works for readability, what is decorative but acceptable since it does not detract from communication, what is art and how art and function can be combined. The objective of these guidelines would be to escape from the situation of typography "by eye" where the manager's eye, or the oldest eye, or the loudest eye dominates the informed/trained/experienced eye.

Neil,

Un jour d'exposition, un de ses tableaux n'avait pas de nom. L'homme qui accrochait demanda: "quel titre lui met-on ?" et Monet répondit : "Je ne sais pas...'Impression, soleil levant' par exemple". Le terme "impressionniste" viendrait de ce tableau aujourd'hui exposé à Marmottan.

On the day of the exhibition, one of the paintings had no name. The man who was hanging it asked: "what title should one put?" and Monet replied: "I don't know... 'Impression, Rising Sun' for example". The term "impressionist" comes from this painting that, today, can be seen at Marmottan. (Marmottan is a museum in Paris dedicated to the impressionist school.)

Guy,
Turgid - as in "excessively embellished in a style or language". Not at all, in my eye, especially since I was trying to imply something more subtle and complex than "set type by eye". That is, that typography is not merely decisions about what font/size to use for a paragraph, a heading or table text. This is often the disjointed thought process of the font fiddler after loading CorelDraw and finding 1500 new toys to play with.

I was trying to combine, in one sentence, the idea that the basic reality of typography is choosing character forms, that the skilled typography/artist will apply their experenced eye to the creation of an overall impression (to extend the Monet/Seurat connection) and finally that the objective is effective, efficient (even pleasing) communication. This was bit more than "set type by eye".

There you go. In my eye, I was trying to create a subtle, tightly worded sentence the brought together three different aspects of typography under one shelter. Your eye, Guy, saw an excessively embellished sentence conveying a simple message.

My Father used to build complex wooden roof structures "by eye". The Surveyors who measured these constructions with sophisticated instruments afterwards for certification found them inch perfect.

So my message to the font fiddlers is by all means set type by eye, but, if you can't get an informed/trained/experienced eye to give you a sanity check, read the Journeymans' Guide to Typography by Smiley, Keller, Hurley, et Alle, available from Adobe Press....
Cheers and thank you all for your help.
Ian

[Guy Smiley]

"I was trying to combine, in one sentence, the idea that the basic reality of typography is choosing character forms,
that the skilled typography/artist will apply their experenced eye to the creation of an overall impression (to
extend the Monet/Seurat connection) and finally that the objective is effective, efficient (even pleasing)
communication."

I agree completely with this notion of typography, except that it is incomplete. The notion of spacing--between glyphs, words, and lines--is also part of the basic reality of typography. In fact, I'll throw out for discussion the idea that spacing is actually much more important to achieving effective, efficient, and pleasing communication than typeface selection (assuming that we are talking about setting body text, and the typeface is selected from the many that are specifically designed for body text).

And I think if you go back to the point in this thread in which the notion of setting type by eye was first suggested, you will see that it was in the context of glyph spacing, and not in the more general context of typography writ large. Your comment seemed turgid to me in what I assumed was the limited context of spacing. Now that I understand that you were addressing broader issues, I can better see where you were coming from.