Saturday, February 20, 2010

Exploring Interaction

So far through this experiment process I have been focusing on the development of negative space and how it can define a letter. However, my process has evolved from working with individual letters and the alphabet to seeing these forms in contexts. When making this move I was finally able to break free of the typeface(s) I have been using, staying close to the actual form of the foundation font limited my definition and interaction. After playing with the defined letterforms in the context of words and phrases I have discovered yet another realm; working with how the negative space from each letter interacts with one another. I have worked with this at a surface level working with the forms I have already developed, but from these I plan to explore the relationships even more. Here is a look at what I developed during class on Friday, creating letterforms and applying them to words and phrases.

Bauer Bodoni, working with counters and line contour, some work better than others, and like most of the other experiements, I have had struggles defining the more geometric letters such as 'l', 'j', and 'i'; however, this may easily be resolved when working with interaction in context.

Color coding to visually show relationships of form.

Working with a pre-defined shape and how it interacts with the knocked out letter.

Working a previous study in context.

Why I am using "hamburgefonts"

I plan on re-working some of my previous trials to see if any interaction surfaces.

1 comment:

  1. The second image on this post is quite interesting: you have color which feels like art, but you still have the letters as well. I like it.

    Erik Spiekermann is famous for saying that, in type design, you can only get away with changing a character no more than 5% of what it should look like if you want it to be legible. But for art, you can go much further than that.

    That second image is relatively easy to decipher because it is ordered alphabetically. But what if it were not? Unless you had written the "designalogue/designalogue is good" explanation, it would have been more difficult to understand.

    This has been my question for the past few months: Is there a way to capitalize on the part of a character that is the most recognizable so that you can minimize the rest of it and still have it be legible?

    The boundaries and the peculiarities of each character seem to hold the key in my estimation. Whatever is particular to the letter is the answer. The connection of the bowl to leg of the capital R is its key. Either the diagonal spine of the capital S or its opposing serifs/terminals is its key. The two interior shapes of the capital B. The foot serifs of the capital A, or its counter, or its overall triangular shape is its defining characteristic. The counter shape (eye) as contrasted with the aperture of the lowercase e is its key.

    Look at designs that were intended to pare down all excesses, especially the "spurless sans" category; see what minimal shapes they came up with. Those will demonstrate which parts are necessary for each character and which parts can be dispensed with.

    FF Netto:

    FF Dax:

    Miniscule (look at how it changes as it gets smaller):

    Your experiments look great! Can't wait to see how it develops.