New: Origin of Type Frameworks (OTF) Course

LeMo aka PatternMan aka Frank E Blokland
LeMo aka PatternMan aka Frank E Blokland Posts: 732
in Education
This course offers an online practical and theoretical study of type design and font technology, taught by Dr. Frank E. Blokland and Dr. Jürgen Willrodt. Together they have over 80 years of experience in the type industry.

During the online OTF Course, delivered via Zoom, letter aficionados will delve deeper into what type design and font production actually entails, by evaluating and questioning how to approach the subject theoretically and practically, also from less common points of view. This is done by exploring and analyzing the historical, aesthetic, and technical aspects of type design and typography. The aim is a deep understanding of what exactly this comprises and a quantifiable translation of this knowledge into practical applications.

An important role is reserved for Frank’s dissertation. In On the Origin of Patterning in Movable Latin Type: Renaissance Standardisation, Systematisation, and Unitisation of Textura and Roman Type he argues that Renaissance typographic patterns were partly determined by requirements for the early font production. Hence, today’s typographic conventions are not only the result of optical preferences predating movable type, but at least as much the result of standardization that eased the Renaissance font production.

In short, the OTF Course covers all the usual ingredients of type-design education, such as drawing, spacing, kerning, font formats, (automation of) font production, etc. However, on top of that, there is also a unique and advanced approach, based on almost 40 years of experience in vocational type-design education combined with academic research.

Dr. Frank E. Blokland and Dr. Jürgen Willrodt

About the teachers: Jürgen (Hamburg, 1952) studied physics and mathematics and obtained a PhD in theoretical particle physics in 1976. As a software engineer, he became the lead developer of the IKARUS system since the early 1980s and developed interpolation, autotracing, and hinting algorithms, as well as special algorithms for Kanji separation. Frank (Leiden, 1959) is a type designer and has been (senior) lecturer in type design at the Royal Academy of Art (KABK) since 1987. From 1995 to 2025 he was senior lecturer and Research Fellow at the Plantin Institute of Typography in Antwerp. Frank founded the Dutch Type Library in 1990 and in October 2016 he successfully defended his PhD dissertation on Renaissance font-production standardization at Leiden University.

More information about the OTF Course can be found here.
Tagged:

Comments

  • LeMo aka PatternMan aka Frank E Blokland
    LeMo aka PatternMan aka Frank E Blokland Posts: 732
    We have now received the first requests for information and even registrations. I have also added a few lines to the description of the OTF course:

    ‘As for the font editors applied and discussed, students can use the application of their choice, be it Glyphs, RoboFont, FontLab, FontForge, FoundryMaster, or any other editor. The same goes for the operating system: it can be macOS, Windows, or a Linux distro. After all, while the controls for the font editors may differ, the resulting contour descriptions in cubic and quadratic Bézier curves are technically essentially the same, and so are the generated font formats. […]’

    FontLab and OTF Course

    I could have listed FontCreator, Fontra, and Glyphr Studio as well. The more diverse the editors students prefer, the more they will learn from each other. After all, a person’s favorite font editor often plays a significant role in their overall workflow. Once a particular workflow is established, it tends to become the reference point for their evaluation of other font editors and associated workflows. However, this raises an interesting question: to what extent does the choice of tool influence the workflow and the mindset behind it?

    The fact that a font editor is a favorite may be the result of factors such as conditioning, price, or general popularity. It is likely not always the outcome of personal preferences regarding functionality; rather, the preferences themselves may be adapted to what the tool offers. Of course, it is possible to personalize the tool to some extent if scripting is supported. However, this personalization still occurs within the technical boundaries of the tool.

    I want to emphasize that comparing font editors is not about determining the ‘best’ tool, as such a conclusion would be subjective, if not impossible. Instead, the real question is how to effectively combine the functionalities of various font editors, where applicable.

Categories