Turnip: a Bookman-like serif face with rounded outer shapes and squarish inner shapes

[hrant]

I know Hammer believed his fonts were for text, but most people now don't (and I believe our aggregate views do become more refined over time - although dips are unavoidable).

We do know that designers follow trends, and I think this applies not just to style but to thought as well. Morison convinced Dwiggins and JvK to go slanted-Roman*, but then they changed their minds. And as you say I'm sure the anti-extender stance of Dwiggins and Hammer were not isolated views. But is it true that extenders have only gotten respect in the past few decades? I think there were periods in the past where people realized they're important functionally.

* Although not the right way.

hhp

[Ryan Maelhorn]

the new school (still a rag-tag bunch of guerrillas) is actually specifically non-calligraphic.

But it sooo is though. I remember Nick Shinn talking about how Fenlad couldn't be constructed with a nib pen by only one hand, but needed both left and right or something like that. And I know the Tankard specifically states he was trying to think in a way that could never been done with a nib pen, or something like that, but to me he failed utterly in that. You can't tell me those curves (curves, not shapes) dont come directly from classical penmanship. For instance, fill in the counter out of the |o|, and look only at the outside shape, that doesn't look calligraphic? Or something like that.

[hrant]

You can't tell me those curves (curves, not shapes) dont come directly from classical penmanship.

Uh, that's what I've been doing, sorry. Or are you talking about the outlines being chirographic? Virtually nobody does that. Read this though: https://typography.guru/forums/topic/41095-forwarding

You can create any shape with a pen, if you contort it enough. But does it make sense to go to the grocery store crawling on your back, naked?

You do have to take into account third-party interpretation though, and (as with Dwiggins) sometimes even the designer can't fully wrap his head around the results. Like how some people -who should know better- insist on seeing chirography in Legato. To me that's just ridiculous apologism.

hhp

[David Jonathan Ross]

Hrant: Do you remember that slide from my Mexico City talk (that you requested) where I showed two opposite "poles"?

I do! One of the dichotomies that most spoke to me was "expression" (for display) vs "service" (for text). Related to the original post on readability, I struggled with how Turnip should fall on this spectrum...namely how prevalent the inner/outer play should be.

John's right that the inner/outer play can take over at mid-to-large sizes, but I was mainly interested in text size (print and screen), where the effect is more subtle but there's still a little kick to it (M-formula sort of stuff, I suppose).

I can't speak for the goals of the other designers mentioned, and I can't say that this "kick" improves readability across the board. But for Turnip, I had a certain kind of use in mind. When you write with dialect, for example, it's not about directly conveying information but about cultivating a reading experience. Similarly, I consider the "expressive" aspects of Turnip to be part of "services" rendered.

[kentlew]

Kent, my contention is that Dwiggins's thinking was out of touch with his doing.

Yes, I’m well aware of this. And my contention is that your thinking about Dwiggins’s doing is out of touch with his thinking about his doing. You have conflated your “chirography” with his “calligraphy.” Dwiggins was not Johnstonian.

We all see the past through our own contemporary lenses. What inspires you about Dwiggins’s experimental work may or may not be what inspired Dwiggins. Which is fine: we take our inspirations where we find them. But our interpretations do not in turn define the objects of our inspiration nor the motivations of their originators.

because we don't hold up Hammer's work as aiding readability while we do do that for the M-formula.

Again, to be clear, you may hold up [your interpretation of] the M-formula as “aiding readability;” but if you study the original formulation carefully, you will find that that was never Dwiggins’s objective, certainly not in any sense that you like to employ that phrase.

You may see potential in the results of his explorations that inform your own particular thinking and that you wish to build upon, which is certainly a valid prerogative; just be mindful that your aims are not necessarily the same as Dwiggins’s pursuits.

If his results coincide with your thinking about Readability, it may be just that: coincidence.

[hrant]

I must be expressing myself poorly, because I actually agree with almost everything you just wrote. I'm not nearly as informed about Dwiggins as you are, but I do understand that his M-formula idea does not directly support my ideas on readability (and I'm certainly not trying to co-opt Dwiggins's prestige).

I guess what I'm saying is that Dwiggins -even though I think he was a genius, and I never use that word lightly- didn't realize all the ways that his ideas could be useful (which is normal for anybody); and one of those ways strikes some contemporary designers (and not just me BTW) as more significant than anything he seems to have explicitly thought about: the breaking of chirography to benefit functionality. Was that dumb luck, or killer instincts? We can't know - but faith makes me prefer the latter. And if he didn't even realize he was being un-chirographic*, oh well - at least he gave us a wonderful gift.

* Or un-calligraphic, which in spirit at least is quite close.

hhp

[J. Tillman]

I'm not a font designer, and so have a different starting point here. I looked at the Font Bureau's specimen (printed out) and I think the Regular size, shown with bold and italic, looks like a very readable text font for extended text. If you agree with this, please tell me why it is so. To my eye, at this 9 point size, the square insides are not noticeable. It just looks like a nice low contrast font. So is this a nice font because of the square insides, even though I can't see them? Or is it because of the big (wide) counters? Or some other reason. This is the way my brain works. Look at some type that works and figure out why it does. So... why?

Off topic #1: I have ranted in the past that italics need to have the same darkness as the roman. https://typography.guru/forums/topic/87718-forwarding And Turnip's italics look good to me.

Off topic #2: Type specimens should show the text fonts at the size they will probably be used! Maybe the designer thinks they look best for long text at size 9 with pretty tight leading, but I am skeptical that a novel or textbook would have them this small. I think the designer should be forthright and say that, for instance, the font looks best at 10.5/13.1 and the specimen should be set this way. I shouldn't have to look at small text and try to guess how it will look at a usable size. And I would prefer unjustified text so I don't have to guess at how it looks straight out of the can.

If you like Turnip, you might want to take a look at Coline: http://www.emilie-rigaud.com/index.php?/project/coline/

Edit: What do you think about the capital letters like T and F not letting the lowercase letters slide in close? I wish the specimen had shown a few of these. My guess is that it looks just fine, but I wish I could see it.

[hrant]

even though I can't see them?

There are different kinds of seeing. Rest assured that your inner mind can see things that are "subvisible"; and everything matters.

italics need to have the same darkness as the roman.

It depends. Not all Italics can/should have a strong slant, and/but they cannot fail to work for emphasis in a body of Roman (even when just an "I" is emphasized, which is one reason so-called "upright Italics" can't really work) so sometimes you might elect to lighten the color. Or make it look smaller on the body (rarely done). Or both. Or any combination of the various factors above...

I would prefer unjustified text

Indeed - there's no gauging the spacing otherwise.

Coline BTW is quite interesting - I hadn't noticed it before.

--

BTW, something that's bugging me:
In the screen version of Turnip they reduced the characteristic tension between the insides and the outsides. Does this mean the screen impedes un-chirographic design? Or maybe it's that we're not treating the screen right? I'm not sure.

hhp

[dberlowgone]

Who is "they"?

[kentlew]

I must be expressing myself poorly, because I actually agree with almost everything you just wrote.

Okay, yes Hrant — from your restatement, it sounds like we’re on the same page. My apologies if I misread or over-reacted earlier.

I shouldn't have to look at small text and try to guess how it will look at a usable size.

J. Tillman — Yes, this is an unfortunate side-effect of having certain standardized showings.

And I would prefer unjustified text

Indeed - there's no gauging the spacing otherwise.

I’ll let you in on a little secret: FB text specimens are carefully composed so that the justified text is very close to the natural word spacing of the font. Shown here is the justified Turnip setting (left), compared with the same in a flush-left setting (right):

[hrant]

Who is "they"?

Uhhh... yeah. :-)

FB text specimens are carefully composed so that the justified text is very close to the natural word spacing of the font.

Good to know!
(Sounds like how I write my emails - and used to write my Typophile posts.)

hhp

[David Jonathan Ross]

DB: I think "they" is me. :-)

Hrant: The RE styles are quite different, but I don't remember consciously reducing the inner/outer tension. What you are seeing may be a factor of weight: in Turnip (print and screen), the inner/outer tension gets louder as the design gets heavier and there is more allowable variation in thickness. TurnipRE-Regular is lighter than Turnip-Regular and even Turnip-Book.

It also may be affected by how you are seeing the RE fonts rendered. A preview of this and other Reading Edge fonts across various renderings is here: http://www.fontbureau.com/ReadingEdge/

J Tillman: I agree that the Font Bureau PDF specimen shows the font on the smaller and tighter end of Turnip's range. If you are interested, I would be happy to send you supplemental materials. Since it appears I can't attach PDFs to this thread, please get in touch: http://djr.com/about/contact

I'm not the expert at making these specimens, but I do know that care is taken to show the font without a lot of primping, so you are seeing default spacing (or something very close to it), despite the justified setting. [Edit: I started responding, and then got breakfast and missed Kent's post. See his explanation above.]

[hrant]

I'm basing my comment on the notes on the "n"s here:
http://imprint.printmag.com/wp-content/uploads/turnip_comparison.02.png
It does say "accentuate[d]" and "preserve", but since the original (or at least the one that generates pertinent discussions like this thread) is the print version I think instead those really mean "preserve" and "dilute" respectively... Like how the "Classic" model is old and slow, the "Faster" and "Better" settings could be called "Crappier" and "Slower", and "widescreen" often ends up meaning "shortscreen"... :-/

About that "they" again: I'm glad to hear you did the mods yourself* but you're not the [only] one who nailed down the parameters for good onscreen rendering. In fact in a way even Microsoft and Apple could be seen as part of that "they".

* Not because I wouldn't trust third-parties (especially at FB that's a feature, not a bug) but because it means you know how to do it.

Breakfast? Well OK, if you must. But remember, "Lunch is for wimps." ;-)

hhp

[David Jonathan Ross]

I'm basing my comment on the notes on the "n"s here:

Ahhh...yeah my shorthand here is confusing. What I should have said is this: "Describing the design in general, Turnip's inner-outer tension is accentuated." ...and then: "Here, in the Reading Edge version, the accentuated inner-outer tension is preserved (i.e. not diluted), even as other things have changed."

I think the inner/outer tension feels about right when viewed in the context of other weights (with adjustments made to the RE font's scale and spacing, to compare).

About that "they" again: I'm glad to hear you did the mods yourself* but you're not the [only] one who nailed down the parameters for good onscreen rendering. In fact in a way even Microsoft and Apple could be seen as part of that "they".

I get what you're saying. I do think those parameters are still being nailed...it's not like there's a consensus or list of rules, though certainly there are attributes in common.

At least with Turnip RE, this was less a list of modifications and more of a reimagining of the design for a different medium. Being familiar with Verdana and the earlier members of the Reading Edge series, I felt free to deviate from the standard design where I wanted to (like those changes listed in that comparison, and others), or to make no changes when changes weren't necessary (like thick-thin contrast, which you'd expect to get much lower in a serif for screen, but wasn't necessary in Turnip).

J Tillman: What do you think about the capital letters like T and F not letting the lowercase letters slide in close?

While I had InDesign open, I made this image of F and T words compared to other cap-lowercase combos, for you to see.

[kentlew]

In the screen version of Turnip they reduced the characteristic tension between the insides and the outsides.

Isn’t it a bit misleading to be looking at outlines anyway? I mean, how much “tension between insides and outsides” can you display in the space of 7px high when the stem is essentially a single px weight?

[hrant]

But if you can't display it, why reduce it in the outlines meant for the screen? Or even: might you not exaggerate an important characteristic of your design to make sure it shows up on the screen?

(David, thanks for the elaboration.)

hhp

[kentlew]

But if you can't display it, why reduce it in the outlines meant for the screen?

First of all, DJR claims that it hasn’t been reduced in the outlines for Turnip RE.

So that aside, in general one might reduce idiosyncrasies in outlines for screen (i.e., from those meant for hi-res, albeit small size, in print) in order to better manage the practical rasterization at various small sizes.

might you not exaggerate an important characteristic of your design to make sure it shows up on the screen?

My point is that certain characteristics can’t show up on the screen — such as we have now, anyway — not for the RE targets.

So, to go back to one of your earlier questions —

Does this mean the screen impedes un-chirographic design?

— I suspect the answer may be [currently] Yes.

[hrant]

Which would be perplexing, considering it's made up of dots and not strokes...

Maybe instead it's that the screen's coarseness limits the inclusion of useful details.

hhp

[Frode Bo Helland]

Squared counters can reduce noise on screen. Quite a bit, in fact. Here’s an /o/ and a /g/ I once drew as a screen experiment, albeit without rendering samples. Squared white + diamond shaped black.

[eliason]

Squared white + diamond shaped black

Giambattista Bodoni (and Morris Fuller Benton) say

:-)

[Ryan Maelhorn]

really, only the bottom loop of the g looks very square to me. I mean i know its there elsewhere, but its not exaggerated enough for people to take notice. IMO.

Talking about Frode Franks post

[hrant]

its not exaggerated enough for people to take notice.

Which, in a text face, is exactly a feature and not a bug.

hhp

[Chris Dean]

@enne_son: Not had time to read the entire thread, but it might help others participate in the discussion if you defined terms and phrases like “systematic violation of (expansionist) chirographic logic” and “deliberated dissociation.” Perhaps it’s just me, but I have always been a fan of Plain Language. Especially in academic writing.

[enne_son]

Christopher, I'm assuming that most readers of these forums are familiar with Gerrit Noordzij’s term expansion. Noordzij uses this term to characterize the contrast scheme typical of the pointed nib pen, and some readers will know that the contrast in Bookman is of this sort.

Those who've read the links provided will probably connect readily with the ‘dissociation’ comment.

Perhaps I could have elaborated more in my opening post, but the thread has taken off nicely, including posts by the creator of the font.

Peter

[Nick Shinn]

I don’t think the issue of the chirographic relationship between inner and outer outlines (i.e. how difficult it would be to write a font glyph with a pointed nib pen) is particularly relevant to serifed, contrasting stroke typefaces.

You might just as well discuss their “punchographic” quality.
Fred Smeijers did something like that in Counterpunch.

The Stroke is a useful paradigm for analyzing type structure with words, and type designers may certainly use it as part of the conceptual scaffolding of a face, but the relationship between stroke and counter in serifed, contrasting stroke type plays a minor role for the reader, entangled in a complex relationship between glyph parts.

Most letters (18 out of 26 in the English lower case) don’t have enclosed counters, and serifs and terminals are more instrumental in determining negative space than the stroke.

While it is easy to see, and postulate, a relationship between the two elements of stem shape and negative shape in a sans face, it’s almost impossible to see this relationship in a contrasty serifed face, because stroke shape is confounded with serif shape, terminal shape and stroke contrast, and obscured by optical cheats, such as the heavy bottom of Times’ /e, that further divorce the typographic stroke from one that might have been made by a simple broad-nibbed pen held at a consistent angle.

Having said that, a low contrast slab serifed face like Turnip does show more of the counter-to-stroke relationship than a face like Times.