Typeface compariative study

Comparitive Analysis Objective

To Study and compare letter forms of 3 typefaces of the same classification

Classification

Humanist Sans Serif

Typefaces

Gill Sans MT, Frutiger, Humanist 777

Areas of Analysis

Basic characteristics: List of distinctive characters Comparison between Glyphs Differences in selected characters Ratio of x height and Cap Height Ratio of x height and Ascender Height Ratio of M width and Height Ratio of O width and Height Notes on: Joints Ending Terminals Angle of stress Difference in thickness of strokes Shape of brackets Other characteristics In a paragraph of text count the number of characters in given space for the same type size and line space

Gill Sans Eric Gill |1968-76 Aa Bb Cc Dd Ee Ff Gg Hh Ii Jj Kk Ll Mm Nn Oo Pp Qq Rr Ss Tt Uu Vv Ww Xx Yy Zz 1234567890

Gill was commissioned to develop his design into a full metal type family by Stanley Morison, an influential Monotype executive and historian of printing. Morison hoped that it could be a competitor to a wave of German sans-serif fonts in a new “geometric” style, which included Erbar, Futura and Kabel families, which were being launched to considerable attention in Germany during the latter 1920s. Gill Sans was released in 1928 by Monotype, initially as a set of titling capitals that was quickly followed by a lower-case. Gill’s aim was to blend the influences of Johnston, classic serif typefaces and Roman inscriptions to create a design that looked both cleanly modern and classical at the same time.

Marketed by Monotype as a design of “classic simplicity and real beauty”, it was intended as a display typeface that could be used for posters and advertisements, as well as for the text of documents that need to be clearly legible at small sizes or from a distance, such as book blurbs, timetables and price lists. Designed before setting documents entirely in sans-serif text was common, its standard weight is noticeably bolder than most modern body text fonts.

Other Fonts by Eric Gill Perpetua Joanna

Frutiger Adrian Frutiger |1971 Aa Bb Cc Dd Ee Ff Gg Hh Ii Jj Kk Ll Mm Nn Oo Pp Qq Rr Ss Tt Uu Vv Ww Xx Yy Zz 1234567890

In 1970, Frutiger was asked to design signage at the new Charles de Gaulle Airport in the Roissy suburb of Paris. The “way-finding-signage� commission brief required a typeface both legible from afar and from an angle. Frutiger decided to adapt Concorde using legibility research as a guide, and titled the new design Roissy.[25][26] In 1974, the Mergenthaler Linotype Company commissioned Frutiger to develop a print version of Roissy with improvements such as better spacing, which was released for public use under the name of Frutiger in 1976. Extremely legible at a distance or at small size, Frutiger became hugely influential on the development of future humanist sans-serif typefaces

Other Fonts by Adrian Frutiger Univers Avenir

Humanist

777

Adrian Frutiger |1968-76 Aa Bb Cc Dd Ee Ff Gg Hh Ii Jj Kk Ll Mm Nn Oo Pp Qq Rr Ss Tt Uu Vv Ww Xx Yy Zz 1234567890

Bitstream is known among type enthusiasts and professionals alike as being one of the companies that lead the way towards the democratization of type. For centuries, the type world had been the exclusive domain of skilled typographers who worked large, cumbersome presses. With the birth of digital type though, came a revolution in the industry that enabled Bitstream, one of the first digital type foundries, to help grow the desktop publishing industry.

Frutiger was also released by Bitstream under the name Humanist 777 and by Fontsite as FrontPage.

Other Fonts by Adrian Frutiger Frutiger Next Frutiger Serif

Size comparison 55pt Gill Sans MT regular

55pt Frutiger Regular

55pt Humanist Regular

Comparison of X height to cap height

xX

8.7mm

13.225mm

xX

9.9mm

13.6mm

xX

9.75mm

13.47mm

Comparison of x height to Ascender height

xb

8.7mm

13.225mm

xb

9.9mm

13.6mm

xb

9.75mm

13.47mm

Comparison of the width to height ratio of letter forms M & O

14.25mm

14mm

O 13mm

13.55 mm

13.5mm

13.25mm

O

0.928

M

1.066

14.8mm

13.57mm

12.3mm

1.050

M

1.096

14.45mm

O

0.871

12.2mm

14mm

M

0.928

Comparison on Anatomy

O O O Angle of stress

Terminals

Joints

Ending

Difference in thickness of strokes

Typeface comparison Font: Gill Sans MT Weight: Regular Text size: 12pt Leading: 14.4pt Size of Text block: W- 136.525mm H- 52.808mm Lines: 10 Word count: 110 Character count: 784

Il ide entibus, eos eos ne ma volorem et eturiaectat peruntiis qui iur?

Exerunt emquam el inctota dolenti oriberumque verferum hillab id maiorem reculles venis moditiorem cuptate mquiandus maionseque veni sit faciassequae nat. Aximus dolorios unto endipsam utat ationsenis consed ea quis dolupid molupta eperit ratureped maxim ent que coreri officidunt quatque vellaboria diore voluptatem apellat apisquaspe numquid et pe pariassum solore num sumquatibus, core pliquasi consedi audae cupta sit rerum aut endit esedis poreperum rehenda ntiam, tem fuga. Atur sequia ne nulparis dipitati qui derum quam sincil modit officiet ipsandiam,ios unto endipsam utat ationsenis consed ea quis dolupid molupta eperit raturepeed ea quis dolupid molupta eperped maxim ent que

Font: Frutiger Weight: Roman 55 Text size: 12pt Leading: 14.4pt Size of Text block: 136.525mm 52.808 Lines: 10 Word count: 100 Character count: 665

Abore pore quis dunt licatia tendel molores mostinctur a doluptatus, inctur audandu cimusdam, quiaepe ritatur eribus dolor audae essunt eici iliqui doloruptat. Uga. Sam nobit aut facerionesed quatis aut aut moluptiatur aut vellut rem apientus quiatem rem nos qui doluptaquam ipsum hiliquat litae mod et aborit optatetur min pra simpore rspiendae cuptatem imus andunti blabo. Nam, omnimen dignat.

Tio. Que de as doles dolupta tempore pliqui di omnissi milluptatur?

Optis excepra il ilitae magnimpedit unt intotas exerumet exerro mostios est essimpores apiendit a que con con cus porerem posseuassitxdt vellut rem apientus quiatem rem noiliquat litae mod et aborit opt

Font: Humanist Weight: Regular Text size: 12pt Leading: 14.4pt Size of Text block: 136.525mm 52.808 Lines: 10 Word count: 101 Character count: 698

Nequasped ex eos quaepud itiumet fugiati onsedi occus.Les utenda vid quia velis dolor arcit plati utem fugitib usantia eperum dolore sinistemos dis vid ea volorro enditio nectemporpos pariore stisqui culparum dendae idunto maiorissequi alita dignim venimini beres simperum adigendis accus dolupta dus et dolupta quaspero que pe od evelibus repra dolo consequis exerchit ipsum dereressitat voloreri optius eossumetur?

Ditiore sequam ssaCaCvfsgfsfgdbvitas etur, vel isquas dis magnate omnihic illantem re non conserchil in et dolupta veles ma nonseria non cones reptiae essi dolupta et, ommolendit volupitata paribus. fdbzdfbfbklv dijskmc sp vmlsm,div splms svhs s;sms r vmslr sv svfjs fs esr s volvs

Conclusion Gill Sans and Frutiger both were created as display type, with Gill Sans being Marketed by Monotype in its early days as a design of "classic simplicity and real beauty", it was intended as a display typeface that could be used for posters and advertisements, as well as for the text of documents that need to be clearly legible at small sizes or from a distance. And Frutiger was created as a part of the signage system for Charles de Gaulle airport and is designed to look modern and legible at various angles, sizes, and distances. Ascenders and descenders are very prominent, and apertures are wide to easily distinguish letters from one another. Humanist 777 on the other hand was an adaptation of Frutiger edited and released for public use by the open source community, and is still credited to Adrian Frutiger.

Some of the noticeable changes in Humanist 777 and Frutiger are The contrast between thick and thin strokes are more evident in Humanist 777 The crotch in the letters are deeper than Frutiger The tittle on the lowercase i and j are smaller when compared to Frutiger The angles of the w are narrower in Humanist 777 The cross bar of the upper case T in Frutiger is wider when compared to Humanist 777 The End on the top of G has a different angle in Frutiger and Humanist And overall Humanist seems to be a slightly condensed version of humanist.

Gill Sans and Frutiger While both have been developed as display fonts the objective and significance are varied, gill sans was developed as a font to be used in print, such as posters and advertising material. Frutiger was developed as a font to be used in a signage system. Gill was developed with the view of having a font that would become a competitor to the German geometric fonts, the main objective behind Frutiger was to make a font that would maximize readability.