Hello,
when I was drawing Ns, Ms, Ws etc. symmetrically (in the first row of the first picture) I've been told to put for example the right Stem of the N nearer to the diagonal stroke (second row). So the white space between the left stem and the diagonal is bigger than the white space between the right stem and the diagonal. And voila: The N looks better now!
Then I realised that the same thing occurs in other letters. So it's about balancing the white space, right? But I don't get how it really works or if there is some kind of theory behind it I didn't heard of. And maybe I misunderstand something and now it's a good time to get it right.
And is it the same 'problem' here? Or is this a type history topic?
I'm happy for every piece of information, big thanks!
Comments
What you're doing is letting the diagonal protrude the thin line. That's fine, but not necessary. For example in the N, you could have a wide apex on top, and a narrow (pointy) apex on the bottom-right, to get the same white-space effect. That's how it's done in most typefaces.
The M and W are all about balance. You (usually) want them to look like a structurally sound building. Imagine them carrying some weight and not breaking.
The same principle extends to some other letters, notably S, but is not wholly universalizable to letters like a and e. Depending both on style and on conditions of reading, a and e can properly have quite even or quite uneven counter ratios. But within a font, whichever ratio one has, the other should relate.
With your lowercase e, try experimenting with a diagonal crossbar or with a curved crossbar. Find which one activates the sheet of the white paper better. Or play with Photoshop's Gaussian Blur and set it to a low value. In my experience, Stone Sans and Myriad Pro are negative examples, whilst Quadraat by Fred Smeijers is a good example. Frutiger typeface is also a good example.
(kerning off).
One of the most obvious here would be the "gravity expectation". In other words, we expect that there is a force from the top to the bottom, where the baseline acts as a ground. @Jasper de Waard mentioned stability in the sense of carrying the weight. The letters with a rounded base like S are in danger to roll over left/right, for the same reason.
Indirectly, we expect that the "pyramidal" distribution of the weight is most stable. That's why most of the letters tend to slightly conform to this: Bases of Z and X are slightly wider than the top, the same goes with terminals/counters of S, counters of N, B, terminals of C, E etc.
The other expectation is that horizontal movement is more important than the vertical. For the evolutionary reasons (like hunting i.e.) we better control what's going on in "our layer". That's why we have a "cognitive bias" and make horizontals actually thinner in order to look the same as verticals.
Expectations like these, shape our aesthetics in general. I remember from my architecture studies that sometimes columns are made thicker than calculated by the mathematical analysis because people feel uncomfortable if they look too thin.
Gestalt psychology pays attention to visual cognitive effects and biases, illusions, etc. This area should be more explored for the purpose of typography and graphic design in general. If I had a chance to be in Hague or Reading I would probably pick this as a thesis. If someone has articles/books to recommend on this topic I would appreciate it!