Ravenscar

Chasing the ideal setting.

There are many books on typography that explain the art of how to craft the visual form of language, and through examples one can see the myriad of styles and effects that typefaces can produce. When creating a type the aim is to design one that sets well and catches the eye. In addition to the skill of the type designer, the quality of how well it performs is controlled by the skill of the user. A text typeface is required to function in different ways to a display one, and reading about the detail of typography by designers such as Jost Hochuli and Geoffrey Dowding, raises questions as to what other ways there might be in approaching the design of a text typeface to achieve better setting [figs 1, 2].

3. Monotype specimen sheets along with printed books provided the typographic settings that were photographed and studied

Usually the process starts with a vague style which is tried on a key letter, then developed across a test word. But with Ravenscar a different approach was taken. Instead of choosing a specific style from the outset, the idea was to review a range of typographic settings, and decide on what features contribute to its success, then develop a typeface to meet a desired textual image.

It was important to focus on the texture of text at a general reading size, and that no individual letter should stand out or draw attention. The textual pattern should be alive and visually attractive but not overpowering. Have a subtle contemporary feel, but be rooted in traditions. Several examples of typesetting were studied – itself a can of worms [fig 3]. Of course personal preferences come into play. There’s so much good stuff it quickly became a nightmare and limits had to be imposed (such as production method, serif, text size). However, this exercise resulted in useful questions, such as;

Why does some set text work so well and others not? What is going on that contributes to our interpretation and appreciation of set text? What other factors are involved? What do we indirectly and subconsciously respond to? What does the eye see or not see?

Details of observation
A basic set of observations were made on a selection of printed examples [fig 4]. These helped to focus the attention and provide possible answers to the success of the printed image. It is obvious that a lot more is going on than just setting the text, and it isn’t all about the typeface or the skill of the typographer. Of course weight and proportion play a vital role, but there is also the quality of font manufacture, printing and choice of stock that all directly affect the final printed text. A first round of observations included notes on overall impression, presentation, shading, terminal details, serif style, fit, italic and so on [figs 5–12]. This resulted in a preference toward an old face letter, the shaping of which allows for a more varied visual pattern.

14. ‘Designing type revivals’
by Riccardo Olocco and Michele Patanè

Work on Ravenscar began in May 2022 which coincided with the publication of Designing type revivals by Riccardo Olocco and Michele Patanè [fig 14]. Olocco had previously presented a new method of analysing printed type as part of his PhD research at University of Reading in 2019. This forensic level of study was adopted and a second round of observations were made using a digital microscope on a few 14pt typefaces [fig 13]. The aim was to better ascertain the proportions, shapes and details that not only described the shape, but also contributed to the success of the overall text image.

15. Imprint compared with Joanna (shown in red) which was enlarged 110% to match the x-height of Imprint. This comparison highlighted several similarities in proportion, stem weight and ascender height

16. The uppercase of Joanna was enlarge 120% to match Imprint. More variation in width than with the lowercase.

17. Similarities of stem angle in the diagonal letters, and consistency of repeated arches of n and h

18. Imprint compared with Bembo (shown in red) which was enlarged 116% to match the x-height of Imprint. Greater variation in letter width than between Imprint and Joanna. Stems are similar weight but ascenders and descenders are much longer in Bembo

19. The uppercase of Bembo were enlarged 116% to match Imprint. Generally the capitals are more similar in width than between Imprint and Joanna. Imprint’s E and F are wide

20. Imprint is more mannered in its construction. H M N have a close relationship to a square and the O is a circle. Sloped M legs in Bembo allow for a better balance of internal spaces

The magnified images were overlayed to allow a clear comparison of proportional details across the types. This process further revealed individual differences made to each letter, such as serif length, changes in stem weight and curve structure. Are these details the result of manufacture and print processes, or are they actually intended parts of the letter as it was made? If they are intrinsic to the letter, then this brings into question the reliance on using repeated elements in letter construction. The differences are only slight and subtle, but this is the world of type and our eyes are highly adept at discerning difference. It may be that the use of repeated elements were softened through previous methods of manufacture with the result that the text image benefits from subtle variations. This is lost through digital repetition which is 100% accurate with no variation; further compounded on screen which has no additional benefit of print variation. What benefit could these observations have in the designing a type to deliver an ideal setting? [figs 15–20]

Two articles greatly contributed to the early thinking of Ravenscar; one by Charles Bigelow, the other by Harry Carter. Written in different times but with approaches that are easily applicable to contemporary type and its functioanility. They both deal with the visual form of text and how this changes in different conditions [figs 21, 22].

21. Detail from an article by Charles Bigelow. ‘Form, pattern, & texture in the typographic image’ in Fine Print, April 1989.

Charles Bigelow wrote ‘Form, Pattern, & Texture in April 1989. A truly important article in which Bigelow compares two famous approaches; one from Beatrice Warde where she argues that typography is not an art, the other from Jan Tschichold where he advocates that typography is an art. The article continues to examine two fundamental typographic principles, size and combination, out of which emerge three qualitative levels: form, pattern, and texture. An extended pdf is available at https://tug.org/TUGboat/tb42-3/tb132bigelow-form.pdf [fig 21].

22. Detail from ‘The optical scale in typefounding’ by Harry Carter. Published in Typography, Number 4, 1937.

Harry Carter explains some of the differences between big and small sizes of the same type. Carter suggests that the reading eye needs humouring in special ways which vary with the size of the characters. As the article is from 1937, it focuses on metal type, but the premise holds true for type designed digitally. Much of this thinking is now applied to digital type through optical masters. Carter draws attention to the skill (and freedom) of the punchcutter in making size specific modifications, and questions the reliance on mathematical rules overriding skilled judgement [fig 22].

The studies suggested that smaller type sizes show greater difference across their details. For instance, all serifs are not the same, and neither are the repeated shapes such as arches, counters, and curves. The use of repeated elements in the design process has been relied on for many years, and has increasingly been a fundamental part of digital type design. It is interesting to consider that previous methods of production operated within tolerances that added a layer of variety which indirectly removed monotony. Each letter has its own shape and is its own shape, and they all function together as a unit. This is important in making each glyph individual and therefore less ambiguous to another, seemingly similar one. At some point differences can become annoying and hinder rather than help. As type size increases dramatically, the details are finessed, proportions change and other ideas come into play. At these larger sizes, type design becomes lettering often with its own, more extreme needs.

A simple slab serif produced a cleaner and less fussy image at smaller sizes. Also there is less visual bulking up of weight to disrupt the shaping, and its structure is adaptable across a range of sizes and weights.

A degree of softness is added across the type image to counterbalance the hardness of the slab. This is achieved by incorporating a roundness at various points, most obviously seen in the slab foot of a, d and u, and the opening serif strokes of m, n, p and r. Careful attention to the flow and weighting of curves help to shift the visual movement along and make sure no single letter stands out, but a lively texture is maintained throughout set text [figs 24, 25].

31. Other cursive details are applied across the capitals of Ravenscar

Cursive strokes are added to k v w, and a soft tail to g which is mirrored in the u-shaped y. The slightly sloped crossbar on the f and t is echoed in the strong directional legs of K and R, and in the tail of the Q. A weighted left leg to the A M N is mirrored in the right strokes of K V W. Soft head strokes on B P R curled terminals of C G S and fluid waves on T & Z [fig 31].

33. A grid is marked up with capital, ascender and descender heights

Details of space
There is so much unseen that contributes to the typographic image; throughout the design of Ravenscar attention was given to how the type worked en masse. Typography serves a range of purposes where some typefaces are better suited to specific uses and functions than others. No single element should standout or hinder the flow of reading, whilst at the same time, the intent of the textual pattern was to seduce the eye. It became obvious from the initial studies that the level of typographic handling has a massive effect on the success of set text. A lot is down to the shape of letters and their fit, but equally a lot is down to the skill of the user.

Computer applications have advanced to assimilate typographical knowledge in order to provide a best catch all approach. The typeface increasingly has the ability to provide advanced typography. We see this through an expanded glyph set which can offer all manner of typographical treats; small caps, superiors, ligatures, swashes, alternates etc. The limit really is the imagination, or perhaps use and practicality is. Although we have this potential at our fingertips, we increasingly encounter rudimentary typography. So much so that when we see ‘correct’ typography we consider it perhaps old-fashioned, bookish, arty or highbrow.

Efficient typography is elusive and we increasingly rely on our applications to provide quick and easy solutions – the side effect of which is a reduction in the need to think, apply skill or even individuality. Space between letters, words and elements of typography is equally important to the success of a piece of text. The consideration of this invisible detail is expanded on by Will Hill in his book Space as language [fig 35].

One important detail of space is that it was once common practice, in previous typesetting methods, to swap out the word space (or append it) with mid, thick, thin or even hair spaces depending on the context of use. Such detailing is explained by expert typographers including Geoffrey Dowding, Jost Hochuli, and Jan Tschichold.

Using the potential of digital technology, and in addition to standard pair kerning, Ravenscar incorporates an extra level of contextual spacing. This applies a range of adjustments to the standard word space in order to amend visually inconsistent gaps and balance the line of set text [fig 36]. This approach makes the Ravenscar Text and Large Text fonts more adequately tuned for text setting and is very much designed for typographers. In addition, many details are adjusted across Ravenscar’s size range with tighter proportions and features seen in the Fine fonts.