Design Guidelines for Non-Roman Monospace Typeface?

Daniel Yacob
Daniel Yacob Posts: 18
in Type Design Technique & Theory
Greetings All,

I'm hoping someone can direct me to any articles and blog notes that cover considerations when designing and testing a non-Roman monospaced typeface. I've found posts here that provide general monospace design guidelines, which are helpful. Still, I'm assuming that there are some additional, not-so-obvious, considerations to have in mind for monospaced text in a multi-script setting.

Invariably, the typeface will be paired with unknown monospaced Latin faces that the user selects.  The primary utilization is assumed to be for software programming code, so working well with punctuation symbols is important.  Should we try to optimize against a selected Latin monospaced typeface?  Or try to strike a balance between the most popular ones?

Any notes from past experience would be greatly appreciated.

thanks!

-Daniel
Tagged:

Answers

  • John Savard
    John Savard Posts: 1,201
    I suppose that for many non-Latin scripts, the thing to do might be to look at historical examples of typewriters for those scripts.
    There are, of course, some non-Latin scripts that are naturally monospaced, with the Chinese script as the primary example. However, when this script is combined with a monospaced Latin script, what usually happens (particularly in the case of computer displays) is that the Chinese characters occupy twice the space of the characters of other scripts. Which, of course, makes sense due to their intricate and detailed nature.
  • mitradranirban
    mitradranirban Posts: 101
    Most CJK fonts are monospace with usually square grid. Whereas Latin monospace fonts are usually having rectangular grid.
     I have tried to fit indic characters in monospace rectangular grid in my varible font which at times become very difficult due to multiple components in each glyph.

  • Craig Eliason
    Craig Eliason Posts: 1,485
    In case it's helpful in further searches, where you have used "non-Roman," I think "non-Latin" will be more clearly understood. In typographic terms "Roman" brings to mind upright and maybe seriffed letters—that is, Roman=not Italic, or Roman=not Gothic (sans), far sooner than it would imply the use of the AaBbCc writing system. 
  • Thomas Phinney
    Thomas Phinney Posts: 3,087
    Agree 100% with Craig.

    Because of these many meanings of the word Roman in type (upright; Latin alphabet; specific Latin character sets; ancient Roman in style), the ONLY times I use the word “Roman” in type are:
    1. When it is part of the name of the typeface (e.g. Times New Roman)
    2. When I am talking about typefaces specifically echoing ancient Roman inscriptions and lettering (most obviously Trajan, Rusticana, etc. But also Weiss and others that are especially ancient-Roman–adjacent.) Even then, I try to remember to use one or more additional words for clarity, such as “ancient” or “inscriptional” or “style.”

Categories