Simplified Arabic

[H_Afash]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

Congratulation!! I think it will be a great group. Go ahead.

We all know "Simplified Arabic" font which came with Ms windows since the first version -I believed-.

I would like to know:
- Its designer.
- Creation year.
- Any information about it.

Thanks,

Hasan Abu Afash
www.hibastudio.com

[Saad Abulhab]

Hassan,

Indeed, مبروك, I am happy to see a "mini forum" on Typophile to deal with all aspects of Arabic typography. This will be a nice international gathering spot.

I think "simplified" Arabic was developed early 80s for Microsoft by a Boston based firm: "Glyph Systems"

-Saad

[H_Afash]

Saad,

Thanks for this information. But:
Who is its designer?

In Simplified Arabic font information we can read:
"Portions (C) 1990 Compugraphic Corporation. Typeface Portions (C) The Monotype Corporation plc. Data Portions (C) The Monotype Corporation plc./Type Solutions Inc. 1990-1992. All Rights Reserved."

Hasan

[Saad Abulhab]

I think it was a digital scan of an the earlier print typeface done by Linotype in the 1950s??

-Saad

[Vladimir Tamari]

مرحبا- I too am glad and thankful that Typophile has made this forum possible. I wonder if simpo.ttf (Simplified Arabic) was part of Windows 95. Rather I'd like to know more about the first Arabic computer fonts. Some proposals appeared in the press in the 1970s but what did the first Apple or PC Arabic fonts look like? Whoever designed them had to do a lot of work. Of course there was the photo-typesetting technology just before that, using computerised input and a monitor, so the basics of the encoding must have been already figured out. Going further back, before photo-typesetting the Arabic typewriter had long been in use, and it had a small set of glyphs . This may have been the origin of the phrase "Simplified Arabic". In any case we should salute these unknown pioneers and be thankful things have been made relatively easy for us nowadays!

[H_Afash]

Thanks Vladimir for great information.
Saad: Maybe, but how much I would like to know its designer or the source of it.

By the way, I found Arabic characters of Arial font are similer to Simplified Arabic font.

when we looked at font information of Arial in designers feild, we found:
"Monotype Type Drawing Office - Robin Nicholas, Patricia Saunders"

So, are they the same designers of Simplifed Arabic also?

Hasan
www.hibastudio.com

[John Hudson]

As I understand it, the concept of simplified Arabic, in which the number of variants of each letter is reduced by having isolated/final and initial/medial forms share the same glyphs, originated at Linotype in the context of adapting newspaper typesetting machines to set Arabic. Only a small number of Linotype's Arabic types followed this model (Yakout being the best known example), and it was specific to the mechanical issues involved with these machines. It is sort of funny, in a bleak way, that this technical improvisation resulted in the propagation of a new 'style' of Arabic, subsequently implemented in technologies which did not have the same limitations.

I'm not sure of the origins of the Microsoft/Monotype 'Simplified Arabic' design. It follows the same simplified model as Yakout, using different shapes. I believe it is older than the work on Arial, and was adapted for inclusion with that font from existing Monotype sources, so neither Robin Nicholas nor Patricia Saunders are likely responsible. It is the nature of a lot of things produced by the older type companies that no designer is credited.

[John Hudson]

I mentioned this discussion to Fiona Ross, who directs us to her 2002 St Bride conference presentation on Linotype non-Latin font development:

http://stbride.org/friends/conference/twentiethcenturygraphiccommunicati...

This is what she had to say regarding the development of simplified Arabic type:

In the 1950s, the Arabic typeface design Yakout was developed. It was produced in 1956 by Linotype & Machinery for hot-metal typesetting, being specifically intended to function as a newspaper text face (dispensing with diacriticals and ligatures). With the dual intention of fitting the Arabic script onto a Linotype linecasting machine for setting type for rotary printing, and of maximizing keying speeds in creating copy for daily newspapers, much effort was concentrated on reducing the normal Arabic character set of over 100 characters. Yakout was designed in a similar manner to Arabic typewriter fonts created during this period: used a limited range of letterforms to represent the full Arabic character set. The resultant style of type design became known as 'Simplified Arabic'. The number of characters was reduced to 56, which enabled the typeface to fit into one 90-channel magazine. A brochure at the time claimed that 'the output of work may be increased by as much as 30 per cent'. Yakout was manufactured in six different point sizes and became, indeed remains, one of the most popular Arabic typefaces.

The PDF of slide images accompanying the text includes a couple of relevant illustrations.

[Saad Abulhab]

John wrote:

>>so neither Robin Nicholas nor Patricia Saunders are likely responsible.

I agree. Also, Hassan is right about the similarity. The Arabic glyphs added to Arial following the emergence of the web are probably the same as the glyphs of Simplified Arabic. This may be true with Arabic glyphs in New Times Roman and others.

I remember dealing several times in the late 1980s with the person in Glyph Systems (in Boston) who I thought was the creator of the "Simplified Arabic", "Transparent Arabic" and "Traditional Arabic" typefaces for Windows 3.1 Arabic. His name was Steve, but I forgot his last name.

-Saad

[Vladimir Tamari]

Thank you Hasan- this innocent question of yours has blossomed into a discussion of the roots of modern Arabic type design! Thanks Saad and John for the details you provided. Fiona Ross's pdf has a lot of interesting detail- I wonder if the Linotype sample sheet therin is available in greater resoltion?

>>>>[Yakout] type design became known as ’Simplified Arabic’. The number of characters was reduced to 56, which enabled the typeface to fit into one 90-channel magazine.>>>

Around that time I presented Monotype and Letraset with a proposal to abridge the number of glyphs needed to print Arabic using common swash-like endings for final letters like beh teh theh, and for hah kha jeeem, etc. I also obtained a patent for my idea (UK Pat. 1011006 Improvements in Printing)
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/tamari/vladimir/arabictyppatent.pdf

>>>It is sort of funny, in a bleak way, that this technical improvisation resulted in the propagation of a new ’style’ of Arabic>>>

I would not say that the trend towards what one might also call 'sans-serif' Arabic fonts was exclusively influenced by the technicalities of automated typesetting. I know well the clutter of those magnificent Linotype machines and their smell of molten lead, but the resulting text on newsprint did not appear too different from the older letter-press. Around the 1950's and 1960's there was a surge of interest in modernizing the Arab world, and the reform and simplification of printed Arabic was one important aspect. For me as an art student at the time the concern was for a modern look to the printed word (think Bauhaus and Gill Sans Serif), and that meant simplifying the outlines. The resulting abridgement of the number of glyphs needed came as an additional bonus.

>>>... subsequently implemented in technologies which did not have the same limitations>>>

Exactly, John - these days computers can 'do anything' and almost anything has being done! With all these fonts around the need for a systematic and critical appraisal of Arabic fonts is more important than ever.

[John Hudson]

Vladimir: I would not say that the trend towards what one might also call ’sans-serif’ Arabic fonts was exclusively influenced by the technicalities of automated typesetting.

To clarify, I wasn't talking about a style of 'sans-serif', which I take to mean a kind of low contrast stroke model that is itself applicable to different kinds of letter shapes (in Arabic type as in Latin), but of simplified Arabic in the sense of using a reduced number of forms -- prompted by technical limitations -- coming to constitute a new style with its own grammar. The actual shape or contrast pattern of the letters used is in most respects accidental to the style understood as a system, i.e. the simplified Arabic system doesn't imply particular shapes, only their number and relationships. So long as the same shape can function as both isolated and final or as both initial and medial, then the system is satisfied. Historically, as you say, there was a coincidence between a cultural interest in modernisation and this technically motivated innovation, but the two are independent: altering the visual appearance of the Arabic script to make it resemble Latin sans serif types fashionably associated with modernisation does not require simplification of the structure of the script, and such simplification can be applied to letterforms that continue to carry at least some residue of the traditional ductus (as seen in Yakout).

[Vladimir Tamari]

>>the simplified Arabic system doesn’t imply particular shapes, only their number and relationships>>
Of course John is right there. One extreme example of simplified Arabic is the campaign by Nasri Khattar whereby there is only a single unconnected glyph for each letter. Individual letters were elegantly designed but were not really what can be call sans-serif, and had ornate features. I am sure Yakout must have had a significant impact on those involved in the practicalities of type design and printing in mid-century. I still wonder if the need to develop an Arabic typewriter had provided a similar solution even earlier? A history of type in that period is given here
http://29letters.wordpress.com/2007/05/28/arabic-type-history/

[piccic]

What a wonderful post! :=)

For me as an art student at the time the concern was for a modern look to the printed word (think Bauhaus and Gill Sans Serif), and that meant simplifying the outlines.
Vladimir, could you tell me if somewhere an attempt to design an Arabic Typeface with the "flavor" Gill Sans gave to the Latin forms (i.e. "classic proportions", partly geometric but "warm", typographically-wise, etc.)?
I am collecting what we could call Gill "migrations" in other scripts (so far I have bought Monotype's Gill Greek, I have the new Greek version of Cannibal Fonts, and thanks to Yanek Iontef, his wonderful "Erica", which is, say, "Gill Hebrew"…).
So, since I see there's such a wonderful ferment and vitality in Arabic type design of recent years, I was wondering if someone ever did something like that…

[dan_reynolds]

Pascal Zoghbi did a Gill Sans Arabic –
http://29letters.com/new/files/fonts.php?type=fam&id=8

[Vladimir Tamari]

Hello piccic
It is amazing how influencial Eric Gill's work has continued to be through the years.
Here is Pascal Zoghbi's Gill Arabic designed specifically to match Gill Sans
http://www.29letters.com/new/files/fonts.php?type=fam&id=8
I show the influence of Gill on both my Arabic and its matching Latin designs of my forthcoming font AlQuds here:
https://typography.guru/forums/topic/60960-forwarding
I looked at Yanek's Erica font and of the three Gilliesque fonts mentioned above it seems to be the one closest to the original inspiration. On the other hand Gill himself designed - or advised on the production thereof? - Arabic and Hebrew fonts for Monotype at a period of his life when he worked in Jerusalem.

[piccic]

Great. Thank you, Dan & Vladimir.
I don't know how to judge properly the design choices operated in Erica and in the Greek Gills, since my familiarity with Greek is extremely limited, and I have no familiarity at all with Hebrew and Arabic. Coming closer to other scripts through heartfelt interpretation of Latin types by native designers seems to me one of many ways to get more in touch with the wonderful letters of other alphabets…
I recall I quite liked the Gill Monotype version, but when my friend Panos sent me the new version they did at Cannibal, it seemed more "cold" to me. It's also important to actually use them, and as of now I have not had the opportunity to do so…
The work by Zoghbi looks good. I hope he will release Gill Arabic soon… :)

I had a look at your Al-Quds family and I really enjoy it. It's difficult to get good bezier curves out of pencil drawings.

On Gill: what you say is of great interest. In which sense you mean "closest to the original inspiration"? Are there any work documenting Gill's work in Jerusalem?

Many thanks for the time taken in replying… :)

P.S. You live in Tokyo: great!

[Vladimir Tamari]

Hello piccic

Here is something about Gill working in Jerusalem at the Rockefeller Museum. I have fond memories of that very beautiful place with Gill's bas-reliefs surrounding the pool.
http://www.imj.org.il/rockefeller/eng/Gill.html
I did not actually convert my drawings into bezier curves directly, but used the drawings as a background and made new curves which I refined many times over in the past year or so. Speaking of drawings I had a chance to hold Gill's original drawing for Gill Sans at Monotype!
“closest to the original inspiration”?
I meant closest to Gill Sans in the way the verticals, curves and are constructed, connected together and proportioned. AlQuds Arabic is monoline and lacks Gill Sans' variable thickness.
Your website does not show your typographical work.
Viva Italia!

Vladimir

[piccic]

Vladimir, wow, thank you!
Same link of Gill in Arabic: http://www.imj.org.il/rockefeller/arb/Gill.html
and Hebrew: http://www.imj.org.il/rockefeller/heb/Gill.html
I have tried to send you an email message via Typophile, don't know if it worked…

Some of my old types here: http://www.identifont.com/show?1I7
I worked very sporadically on other things for years and I just picked up recently…

What I said about your Al-Quds is from a non-Arabic viewer, but I think some modulations (esepcially in "junctions") is really needed even if you are designing a monoline. In your shoes, I'd just add some in the Latin and see how it could work for Arabic, if needed.

P.S. I just found this: http://www.oketz.com/iontef/
Here Iontef (designer of Erica) explains his design rationale behind how he infused the essence of Gill with his Hebrew letters.

[Vladimir Tamari]

Thank you Claudio (piccic) I think one can speak of a type International Style - simple outlines, no decorations or extras, that corresponds to the International Style of architecture of the the last century. You mentioned the Gill-like Hebrew, and the phenomena is also seen in many fonts, Japanese, Thai, etc. etc.

[piccic]

I'm pretty ignorant about it, but I think the modernism movement (in design and communication) quite missed the point of what the features of "universality" should be. A delicate exploration, by trial and error, each sensibility must be taken into account, said this, no experiment is too extreme.

[Vladimir Tamari]

...the modernism movement (in design and communication)
I think in this context the operative word is 'communication'. As type was exported from the pages of books to newspapers and TV screens and now to computers, certain constraints are imposed on the design. Marshall McLuhan's dictum "the medium is the message' applied to modern typography and one example in the 1960's was when Arabic type was simplified to adapt it to the limitations of the Linotype typesetting machines. Now of course the 'medium' is so sophisticated that almost any kind of graphic communication is possible to display and print, so we are in a new era of possibilities where 'anything goes' and statement about experimentation rings true. In the end however it is human beings, not machines, that read type, and the choice of what is right must come from what people feel most comfortable with.

[piccic]

I don't think it was just about "constraints".

There is an idea of universality which went quite wrong, there, and it may be that it was because it was a preconceived route with not so much openness, despite the complexity of thought in Germany and other European countries.
What you say about being comfortable is related to this, since a propositive idea cannot establish what is universal by preconceived simplification. This relates also to the recognizance of universality in specificity, precisely what we lack, seeing what's happening in Gaza and situations like that, which in my ignorance I do not know appropriately, but that they show how the other is not seen as an enrichment but as an enemy.

[Vladimir Tamari]

Claudio (piccic) This thread was started by Hasan from Gaza, so it is approriate that you mention it here. See https://typography.guru/forums/topic/63068-forwarding
a propositive idea cannot establish what is universal by preconceived simplification.
It depends: according Occam's Razor the simplest solution is often the best...but how you arrive there depends on the specifics of the situation. Sometimes by willfully paring down extraneous material or ideas in one step, and sometimes it happens quite naturally by invisibly small steps over a long period of time. We cannot generalize about this without giving examples. By 'constraints' I meant practical issues such as legibility, that a font for a computer should consider the pixels at small sizes, that the shapes of an alphabet meant to teach children should be easy to learn, etc. In addition such concepts as clean design by simplification may be a sort of fashion, but they have their place.

[piccic]

That's what I meant, Vladimir.

I have said "a propositive idea", in the sense that it's not just the theoretical idea which makes the change, and I said "cannot extablish", because despite of its good solution, it must be "lived" entirely.
Modern experimentation, even if it produced results like Futura, to me, looks like it has been too much conceptual and abstract (as you say, you cannot generalize in abstraction, but I wasn't generalizing, but doubting about a specific approach which do not take into account the worldwide richness of uniquities). Maybe the incorporation of "post-modern" philosophy in this worsened the problem (I have this strong feeling, as I became disaffectioned in Emigre magazine when this happened).

Abstraction is part of analysis, but I think it should be dropped as you work, by somehow getting in communion with others.

the simplest solution is often the best... but how you arrive there depends on the specifics of the situation.
Like… hmm, say, what's happening with AlQuds? ;=)

[John Hudson]

Vladimir: according Occam’s Razor the simplest solution is often the best

That's not actually what William of Occam said. The principle known as Occam's razor is that when faced with multiple explanations for a phenomenon none of which are testable one must give preference to that which involves the fewest assumptions external to the phenomenon.