Hmmm... When thinking of the new alphabet, a few words come to mind. The readability issues up the wall and Far too abstract for my liking... Although the new alphabet is artistic, it wouldn't be a type form that I would recommend a Designer use for more than a display font. According to Ellen Lupton's Thinking With Type, it is a typeface consisting of "no diagonals or curves".
As any typographer would know, a typeface is defined as useful or poor based, partially, on it's readability, legibility, and scalability. The new typeface has a unique style and interpretation of Roman letter forms, but there is far too much negative space which, in turn, reduces the readers ability easily recognize words or phrases. For example, the "W" in the New Alphabet looks much like the "U" in most recognizable type faces, and the "A" looks like a backwards "L". When placed next to other letter forms, some faces of the New Alphabet blend in with others further distorting the reliability of the New Alphabet.
This is one typographer's look on the issue. What do you think?
Check out the New Alphabet at: http://www.papress.com/thinkingwithtype/teachers/type_lecture/history_crouwel.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment