Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Hrant H. Papazian

Specialist in Armenian typeface design. Interested in multi-script typography, readability and notan... and everything else.

About

Username
Hrant H. Papazian
Joined
Visits
3,111
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
495
Posts
727
  • Re: What are 'true italics'?

    If people didn't want Italics to send a different message from Roman, they would just use Roman. The flavor of the Italics is part of the flavor of a serif typeface. A bad Italic is a good reason to reject a serif typeface for a project.
    The best "flavor" suitable for an Italic is simply to mark emphasis, not to appear more informal, organic, fluid, etc. Because the emphasized word doesn't necessarily need that; in fact it's likely to backfire, because what it probably does need is to maintain the mood of the Roman, since that's what the designer explicitly chose.

    A good reason to reject a serif typeface for a project is that it has a primadonna Italic that doesn't know its job. Considering why people generally hit the Italic button, that is what's a bad Italic.

    The best way to view this Aldine shotgun wedding of expediency is as an accident, so we avoid it in the future.

    Christian Thalmann said:
    it would greatly impoverish and cheapen a serif typeface.
    There is a deeper, functional richness than this garish, shrill thing we've simply grown complacent towards.
  • Re: What are 'true italics'?

    I just got here, and I'll try to go back and read all of the above, but partly to hook this into my Participated threads for future reference I'll offer this for now:

    Using cursiveness to reference the authenticity of Italic is largely spurious, because a font is a tool that serves readers more than the artistic urges of its creator; an Italic is generally meant to emphasize snippets of text, and cursiveness is not up to that task. Slant is mostly what makes an Italic true, and in fact cursiveness generally distracts from the character of the Roman. Upright Italic for example is a terminological affectation, arguably driven by the romanticism of the hand-made. Quite often it's much better to leverage the term Cursive instead of Italic. Oh, and what is True Cursive? Not a font.  :-)
  • Re: Logotype turned Typeface

    I’d also work on the 'g' to make it a bit «funnier».
    Yes! Like the Koch form.
    http://typedrawers.com/discussion/2328/1-5-stories-g/p1
  • Re: Funtauna (rectangular slab serif)

    If you intend this to carry a lot of text, make the descenders shorter than the ascenders (which you might here ideally do by increasing the latter). This is because in actual text descenders are quite rare, so it's better to allocate more vertical space to more important parts.
  • Re: Does that “y” exist?

    Would it work in Cyrillic as well?
    As long as that's not what its Latin "y" looks like.  :-)