Serrano: a custom typeface for Bank of New Zealand

[kris]

Wow, thanks for all the interesting feedback! I'm not too sure how to respond to the classic/cute description, people will see what they will. I always thought it was more 'humanist', in the looser sense of the word.

In looking again at it, I’m thinking that what bothers me is not so much the terminals themselves, as their combination with the slight reversed contrast, the Bloemsma influence.

I'm not seeing the reversed contrast, there isn't any in there. Serrano has a fairly standard contrast. Where are you seeing it?

Smoothing some of the corners is a quite literal (though somewhat simplistic) interpretation of the brief for something “friendly”, that can be pointed to, easily understood, and signed off on by various levels of client.

You could say it was literal & simplistic, or you could say it was quite appropriate to the brief. There were three other typefaces that they were using for a reference & a starting point. All of them had rounded corners and only one was well-made enough to actually use. I was unwilling to do the 'rounded corner' thing, as it would date too quickly (web 2.0 etc).

There is rarely enough time to do a thorough job from scratch, so it’s expedient to whip up a font solution by taking something basic off the shelf and applying a little tinkering.

Are you insinuating that this isn't a thorough, from-scratch job?

True. What I was trying to get at was the apparent lack of rationale for where the round corners go. Sure, one can discriminatingly place them here and there so that the overall effect in text is comfortable, but is that all there is?

Let me be very clear. The rounded bits are not just slapped on here & there to make it 'friendly'. The 'humanist' structure (like Thesis Sans) the open, generous counters (like Frutiger) and the overall narrow set are purposefully designed to convey the desired qualities. I have rounded ascenders, but not on the horizontals or the capital uprights—as these start to look too weird & cutesy (haha) for a bank. All of the curve-to-a-point terminals are applied to curved terminals only, like a,c,e,s,f,t, etc.

--K

[Nick Shinn]

You could say it was literal & simplistic, or you could say it was quite appropriate to the brief.

Yes, I said it was literal, simplistic, and appropriate.

Are you insinuating that this isn’t a thorough, from-scratch job?

I'm not insinuating. I'm offering my thoughts (as you requested) as to how the mechanics of the working relationship between a foundry, the foundry's client, and the client's client affect the design of a custom type. I'd be interested in your insights, rather than just a straight assertion of how perfectly the design delivers on the brief.

Whether or not you drew it completely from scratch, or modified another of your designs, is not the issue. There is certainly nothing unprofessional about modifying one's own work to produce new designs; at the same time, drawing completely from scratch is no guarantee of quality. Conceptually, the wine typeface you showed here recently is more thoroughly original.

The rounded bits are not just slapped on here & there to make it ’friendly’.

They aren't? You have said that your client started you off with three rounded types--surely the metaphor that a rounded styling is friendly (not to mention fashionable) is central to the typographic ethos of this project? However, you were, understandably, unwilling to remain at that superficial level, seeking a richer implementation of the desired qualities, with the "humanist" features and proportions that you gave to the face. Nonetheless, the application of rounded corners wherever they don't look too cutsey does seem to be a compromise. Despite your explanation of a system, there still seems to be a certain arbitrariness in the application of round corners. Why, for instance, is the top left of "u" sharp, but not the top left of "n"? Why no rounded corners in "w"?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with making styling decisions with a discriminating eye, in fact, it polishes faces to perfection. But conceptually, when a client specifies not just a brief of abstract qualities, but an execution such as a rounded finish, how can that free the designer to do a completely thorough, from scratch, job?

[hrant]

> Whether or not you drew it completely from scratch,
> or modified another of your designs, is not the issue.

It certainly can be an issue, and I would say generally is, since a "custom" solution does mean something special to the client. Even if a client is not knowledgeable about type, he will feel cheated if the font they paid a lot of money for is based on an existing one. On the other hand, if one tells the client this is what will be happening (as I've done recently for a client in Armenia) then it's OK.

> There is certainly nothing unprofessional about modifying one’s own work to produce new designs

Nick, know that this was not the tone of your previous message.

> surely the metaphor that a rounded styling is friendly (not to mention
> fashionable) is central to the typographic ethos of this project?

You don't know that. Even if you or I think it's friendly, that doesn't mean the client thought so.

> how can that free the designer to do a completely thorough, from scratch, job?

Of course, nothing is completely from scratch. Duh.

hhp

[eliason]

Why, for instance, is the top left of “u” sharp, but not the top left of “n”? Why no rounded corners in “w”?

I see logic in this, as Kris already explained - compare Bookman:

[billtroop]

Wow, Kris ! Looks like your design has touched some sensitive nerves. Bravo!

[hrant]

Segue from Craig: https://typography.guru/forums/topic/27047-forwarding
"Head-serifs on lc 'u' - decision process?"

hhp

[Nick Shinn]

Nick, know that this was not the tone of your previous message.

Look again. I'm situating the discussion in terms of the professional process.

You don’t know that. Even if you or I think it’s friendly, that doesn’t mean the client thought so.

That's why I'm asking Kris, "Surely....?
From my perspective, the equation of rounded type with friendliness is pretty obvious.

Of course, nothing is completely from scratch. Duh.

Of course it is. If your brief consists of abstract qualities, then the conceptualization is entirely up to you; and if you draw all your characters (no tracing or re-using exisiting paths), that's from scratch. Duh.

[William Berkson]

On the "slightly reversed contrast" I meant as I said the a, which goes from relatively thick to the reduced, curved terminal, doesn't work so well, whereas the g tail, which tapers first, to me is very successful. And for me the top of the e and the r seem to have a little too much 'meat' also. The s is better, and again the g just right.

I don't 'get' the illustration with Bookman; it seems to me totally different than Serrano. As to the treatment on the other verticals of the lower case, if you compare Meta, for example, on this there is not just horizontal sheers, but different treatment to go with the bent stem tops on the mnr. To me this is more harmonious.

[hrant]

> “Surely....?

That's a classic rhetorical-question structure.

> ... if you draw all your characters ...

But to do that you have to have looked
at something during your lifetime!

> I don’t ’get’ the illustration with Bookman

Look at the head serifs.

hhp

[Nick Shinn]

That’s a classic rhetorical-question structure.

Surely not when directly addressing somebody?

But to do that you have to have looked at something during your lifetime!

Are you saying that "drawing from scratch" has no meaning?
I take it to mean that one starts with a blank page and works without tracing or pasting.

[Miss Tiffany]

I wonder if all of this isn't just subjective. I mean if someone goes to a specific foundry, already knowing their other work, perhaps they are hoping for traces of what they like in the other typefaces. Whether or not something originates from a blank slate shouldn't matter. It is the final result that matters.

[John Hudson]

Kris wrote: I’m not seeing the reversed contrast, there isn’t any in there. Serrano has a fairly standard contrast. Where are you seeing it?

I suspect the comments re. 'reversed contrast' are in response to the strong x-height and baseline horizontals and the correspondingly reduced weight in the mid-zone in the frequent letters a e and s, most notable in the heavier weight. You're right, Kris, this isn't 'reversed contrast', but I can see how this kind of weight manipulation might remind people of Evert's Balance. What Serrano actually has is Jean François Porchez-style ’orizontalité. Very nice, too.

[k.l.]

I am not sure the problem is that these matters are subjective. Describing or comparing visual features of typefaces, their roundness, edgyness etc, is part of our job, whether explicitly done or not. My problem is with describing type as "cute", "friendly", "beautiful". What we associate with a typeface is what happens in our's minds but is nothing found on paper as such. We better stick to describing what we see, like "rounded" (Nick) or "curve-to-a-point terminals"* (Kris) -- and then, maybe, if we feel like it, utter what we associate with this.

* Finally I have a term for this.  :)

Trying to make sense of what has been said: Maybe the issue is that quite a few typefaces use a curve-vs-corner trick so they look either a bit rounded or less rounded. 1. With curve-to-a-point terminals -- especially Underware's work (Dolly, Sauna) stimulated others to adopt this feature. 2. With point-in-curve counter, a corner inside "e" or "o" counters -- that's the opposite, to make it look less round, part of the Reading house-style. Both found in sanserif and serif typefaces alike. In so far it's not a "just slapped on" issue (using Kris' term, cannot find who brought this up), but that curve-to-a-point or point-in-curve appear as just two ingredients that can be switched on/off with virtually every kind of typeface -- 1. like "e" or "c" curve-to-a-point terminals in very different styles like Serrano or Omnes or seriffed Sauna, and 2. there was an entire Typophile thread dedicated to typefaces with point-in-curve counters (cannot find it now).

[hrant]

> part of the Reading house-style.

Really? That seems more Dutch to me.
The Reading drive isn't so chirographic.

BTW, have you guys heard of the term "foxtail terminal"?

hhp

[paul d hunt]

My problem is with describing type as “cute”, “friendly”, “beautiful”. What we associate with a typeface is what happens in our’s minds but is nothing found on paper as such.

I talked further with Kris about this and it's so hard to describe what you are seeing that what you are feeling is sometimes easier (and maybe clearer, even if less precise). It's not the terminal treatments that make this work 'cute', it's the handling of all of the curves: they're all a bit over-plump you might say (or tend towards the super-ellipse if you want more techy terminology). It's this feature that makes all of Kris' work 'friendly', IMO. To me it's this feature that really sets Seranno and Foco apart: despite the rounded terminals of Foco, it feels more 'neutral' (throw me a more techinical term for that!) to me because the handling of the curves is different (to my eyes at least).

terminology is such a tricky thing, really. even seemingly universal terms such as 'yellow' are cultural constructs and mean different things to different people. To me it's obvious that Kris' concept of a 'curve' is different from my own.

[Florian Hardwig]

> part of the Reading house-style.

Well, judge for yourself: http://www.typefacedesign.org
I can see what Karsten means: most diversely implemented – for instance – in Paul Hunt’s Grandia, Rob Keller’s Vesper, Fermello’s Frida … Jelmar Geertsma digs that kind of counters, too.

Then again, this preference is not limited to Reading, of course. Jarno Lukkarila’s Xtra Sans is a prime example for the point-in-curve counter – and he studied at KABK.

There are a lot of other examples in this thread: Cut and then curved

[paul d hunt]

in Paul Hunt’s Grandia

you'll see it to less an extent in the display sizes... here i'm using it mainly as a device for keeping counters open for fonts intended for small sizes for a calligraphicly-flavoured typeface. The rationlized cousin of Grandia will dispense with this device.

[billtroop]

I have not seen anything of Serrano other than the web samples but based on those let me say again: this was conceptualized beautifully from scratch and is the very opposite of the kind of work that is done by designers who take something off the shelf and make a few (or many) changes -- an MO I frown on. Again, as near as I can judge, the Serrano implementation is superb in a way that is still extremely rare today. By implementation I mean primarily truly excellent fitting and other factors that make the typeface harmonious, usable, and useful. For example, I am crazy about Paul's Grandia typeface, which shows such deep understanding of the intangibles of serious reading, but I don't think the fitting is there yet based on the sample referenced here. Great fitting is a skill few great type designers have, and ideally would not have to worry about. Nick, I love your type but Richler proved you were not very comfortable with text fitting, remember? Part of what I am trying to say is that one of the reasons why Kris's decisions to treat this element (n) one way and that element (u) another way is not important is that the overall appearance of the set typeface is so overwhelmingly convincing. No doubt Serrano is open to criticism, but I have not yet heard a pertinent criticism expressed yet. As for prediction that

>Surviving corporations will need to rebrand.

I'll take a bet that this one will stick with Kris's identity for some time to come.

[hrant]

Spacing requires a coupling of abstract analytical skill and the desire to use it. And somebody who feels like an artist is unlikely to enjoy the latter, even if he happens to enjoy the former (which is rare).

> I’ll take a bet that this one will stick with Kris’s identity for some time to come.

Sure. Five years to be exact (the duration of the exclusivity). But that doesn't mean Nick isn't right about it being too "friendly" -hence not sober enough- for these times (through no fault of Kris, since that's what the client asked for - although maybe DNAD should have said something, early on). The age of the straight line might be coming back, which is a shame, since that would seem to preclude organicity, which is just now taking flight for real (and I like it a lot).

hhp

[kris]

I’m offering my thoughts (as you requested) as to how the mechanics of the working relationship between a foundry, the foundry’s client, and the client’s client affect the design of a custom type. I’d be interested in your insights, rather than just a straight assertion of how perfectly the design delivers on the brief.

The mechanics are pretty straight forward. They came to me wanting a custom typeface to fit into their new branding direction. I looked at what they had graphic design wise, their mood boards, which typefaces they were referencing & talked to the AD about what was good & bad about those typefaces. Once I had a clear idea of what they needed I started drawing (yes, from a blank slate). The design was sent through at various stages to get feedback & sign-off, all the way until it was finished. Isn't this how everyone does it?

Nonetheless, the application of rounded corners wherever they don’t look too cutsey does seem to be a compromise. Despite your explanation of a system, there still seems to be a certain arbitrariness in the application of round corners. Why, for instance, is the top left of “u” sharp, but not the top left of “n”? Why no rounded corners in “w”?

I put the curves in where it made visual sense to me. Any more would have ruined it. I tried rounded bits on the 'u' and 'w' but they looked wrong. If that is arbitrary, then so be it!

But conceptually, when a client specifies not just a brief of abstract qualities, but an execution such as a rounded finish, how can that free the designer to do a completely thorough, from scratch, job?

I'm not sure I understand why this is relevant. I'm a designer, not an artist. I want and need their feedback and input to make a typeface suitable for them. They initially wanted rounded corners, like Unit Rounded. I didn't do that, but we arrived at the rounded-to-a-point curve mutually during the collaborative design process. I think that client involvement makes a thorough job.

On the “slightly reversed contrast” I meant as I said the a, which goes from relatively thick to the reduced, curved terminal…

Ah. I thought you meant I had gone totally Antique Olive/Balance! Maybe one day, for something else.

What Serrano actually has is Jean François Porchez-style ’orizontalité.

What a lovely term for it!

I’ll take a bet that this one will stick with Kris’s identity for some time to come.

Hey Bill, just to clarify that the identity isn't mine, only the typeface. I'd hate to take credit where it's not due…

--K

[Nick Shinn]

Richler proved you were not very comfortable with text fitting,

Bill, your opinion doesn't prove anything.

[Nick Shinn]

Kris, thanks for the further detail.

[k.l.]

I tried rounded bits on the ’u’ and ’w’ but they looked wrong. If that is arbitrary, then so be it!

That makes sense. Maybe it's analog to serif typefaces where u v w x y serifs (need to?) differ from the others to look "right", horizontal rather than diagonal. Not arbitrary but by intention.

[Miss Tiffany]

I had heard of fox tail but since forgotten about it. Does the wiki have a page for the terminal? I think a list of descriptive terminals should be added.

[hrant]

https://typography.guru/forums/topic/56990-forwarding

hhp