Naming the extreme styles on a contrast axis?

Johannes Neumeier

I'm working on a (variable) font that has masters with stroke contrast ranging from clearly modulated to monolinear. While I am mostly fine with the contrast axis name, I wonder what name you would find descriptive of those extremes when exported as separate style families?

So far I am working with "normal" and "linear", but especially the "normal" rubs me totally wrong. While for this design it is true that the "natural" state is the master with contrast I don't want to communicate that one is the default or favorable compared to the other. I am not sure how descriptive the "linear" is to graphic designers, either, but my hunch is that many don't instinctively understand what contrast refers to in the context of a typeface family range.

Any references or idea?

Craig Eliason

High and low?

Johannes Neumeier

Let me clarify. So for the OTVar the axis is what the user accesses, say in a layout application, but when also exporting the two extremes as separate styles I would end up with fonts in the menu like:

AcmeFont Normal Regular

AcmeFont Normal Regular Oblique

AcmeFont Normal Bold

AcmeFont Normal Bold Oblique

AcmeFont Linear Regular

AcmeFont Linear Regular Oblique

AcmeFont Linear Bold

AcmeFont Linear Bold Oblique

So in that context neither "Normal" works, nor does "High" and "Low", although it does describe the contrast.

Jasper de Waard

Large, as in, intended for large sizes (and large amount of contrast)
Small, as in, useful in smaller sizes (and small amount of contrast)?

I assume you don't want to use display and text?

Edit: I see that's not what you mean...

Chris Lozos

Normal plus Regular may cause a problem. Both those terms mean the basic (default) text weight of the family so they do not differentiate from each other

Steve Gardner

Anything wrong with 'modulated' and 'linear'?

James Puckett

If they’re optical sizes use small, medium, large, huge, etc.. If they’re just contrast grades use coarse, medium, fine, hairline, etc..

George Thomas

For 4.5 point and below, call it "micetype".

Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian

Font1 and Font2?  ;-)

I'm not entirely kidding: contrast is a parameter that affects the character of a typeface more than most others. It could be fun and might seem convenient to bundle contrasty and monoline versions, but to me they become essentially different typefaces, undermining the logic of type selection. Too much versatility can kill focus. Now if the contrast variance is intended as an optical compensation (as some people have been tempted to interpret it above) then that's OK – and then the naming can follow precedents (although "coarse" for one doesn't really jibe in my book).

Craig Eliason

Essentially, weight is a function of how thick the stems are, and contrast a function of how thick the hairlines are. So how about, in jargon-free terms:
AcmeFont ThinThins ThinThicks

AcmeFont ThinThins ThinThicks Slanted

AcmeFont ThinThins ThickThicks

AcmeFont ThinThins ThickThicks Slanted

AcmeFont ThickThins ThinThicks

AcmeFont ThickThins ThinThicks Slanted

AcmeFont ThickThins ThickThicks

AcmeFont ThickThins ThickThicks Slanted
  

Johannes Neumeier

Thanks for the discussion. The Font1 and Font2 suggestion is not too far off. I wouldn't give them entirely different names, since the "familiarity" of these two alternates (and the space between) is the whole point, but a blunt AcmeFont A and AcmeFont B would at least communicate quite succinctly that these are variants.

Based on discussion here and elsewhere my current favorites are "Contrast & Linear" (Monolinear would be more descriptive, but even longer still), but not 100% convinced — thankfully there is other things to improve upon

Needless to say that font menus are all over the place with this, following no conclusive logic or style linking from what I can tell (some are alphabetical, to an extent, then grouping some weights together, but not all, ...).

Hrant Հրանդ Փափազեան Papazian

I've just remembered the wonderfully named Bernini system by JAF, composed of Bernina and Bernino!

I think Contrast & Linear is pretty good though.

Mark Simonson

There was a VGC face in the seventies called Baker Sans that had three different contrast styles: Mono (very similar to Helvetica), Display, and Fineline. I wouldn't necessarily endorse it as a solution, but thought it was worth mentioning.

Thomas Phinney

I wouldn’t endorse that, either. One problem with “Mono” by itself is that it is ambiguous, as it could mean either monoline or monospaced.

Peter Constable

What would happen if you just leave the "normal" value unmarked? I.e., instead of

AcmeFont Normal Regular

AcmeFont Normal Regular Oblique

AcmeFont Normal Bold

AcmeFont Normal Bold Oblique

AcmeFont Linear Regular

AcmeFont Linear Regular Oblique

AcmeFont Linear Bold

AcmeFont Linear Bold Oblique

do this:

AcmeFont Regular

AcmeFont Regular Oblique

AcmeFont Bold

AcmeFont Bold Oblique

AcmeFont Linear Regular

AcmeFont Linear Regular Oblique

AcmeFont Linear Bold

AcmeFont Linear Bold Oblique

Johannes Neumeier

Thanks for the insightful answers. I agree the mono adds more confusion than it solves, but I like the use-case oriented approach to the naming — it just might not fit this style range. It kind of goes back to what display, text and caption do for optical sizes by describing the essential sum of differences, not just one attribute.

@Peter Constable That's what I started off with, but felt it designates one style as the default, the other as a variation; when really I want them to be a pair of same lineage, but different in voice.