Half class critiques of groups #1 & #2 M/W with a focus on the specimen, and secondarily on the completion/refinement of the typefaces as follows:
- Do they show a range of scale?
- Is it easy to assess spacing?
- Do the proofs show all the glyphs in the font? (incl. alternates?)
- Do they put the type in context?
- How is the type reacting to its intended purpose?
- Should the intended purpose update in light of how the text is performing?
- What should this purpose be? What would be the best way to update the proof for this context: what should be included?
Forms / Spacing:
- Is there harmony in the forms? Are the consistencies carefully maintained, and do the idiosyncrasies feel deliberate or accidental? How can these be improved?
- Does the spacing feel consistent? If not, can you identify the culprit?
- Can you identify candidates for kerning? (ie. where the spacing is good overall, but particular pairs feel loose/tight, and their spacing should not be changed as this will be cause issues, so kerning is the best solution)
- How would you go about testing the kerning?
Finished specimen layouts and Refined typeface proofs for our Final next Monday 7th May @ 5.45pm. All digital submissions should be submitted to to this Google drive folder and physical proofs/process work/specimens are due between 4-5pm on Friday the 11th to Aoife's office 341M.
Watch Dan Rhatigan talking about the impacts of technological change on the development of typefaces through history.