An Examination of Typographic Dissection

Breaking Univers

Jasper Jon Crocker

Table of Contents

Reductive Process 9

Iconic Dissection 10

Ambiguous Dissection 20

Shape Dissection 28

Univers Minus 33

The Excess 34

The Weights 38

Introduction 5

Exploration 45

Cut 48

Cover 52

Blur 56

Corrupt 62

Pattern 66

Conclusion 70

Univers is a simple font of subtlety and flawless execution. This elegant

san-serif boasts a massive family and has weathered the test of

time. Despite its success, it is far from perfect. The beauty of life is that

everything is subjective and nothing can be objectively called perfect.

Instead of taking this as an insurmountable or trivializing fact, it can

be freeing to your creativity. No matter how objective, well respected,

or developed something may be, there is always a place for

experimentation and growth. Everything is either growing or dying.

This is how the world works and this is how design works. Nothing

remains static forever. Typefaces are continually redrawn, styles and

innovations grow and fade, designers are iconized and forgotten.

This book was made out of love for Adrian Frutiger’s Univers. By process

of dissection, I considered the font’s fundamental makeup and use it as

a foundation for discovery. This book takes an analytical approach

when dealing with studies and processes. Through reductive and

additive methods, I break the font down to its fundamentals and build

up through creative studies. The mind is a flexible and responsive tool

with the phenomenal ability to take great departures of abstraction.

I present my view of language; a beautiful, perhaps novel, understanding

of our most indelible form of communication: typography.

“Typography has one plain duty before

it and that is to convey information in

writing. No argument or consideration

can absolve typography from this duty.

A printed work which cannot be read

becomes a product without purpose.”

Emil Ruder

Reduction is the study of true form. It is only when

we remove everything that surrounds our subject that

we begin to understand what we are truly examining.

The signature of each letter is revealed. In each form, the

slightest hint of a curve or the particular height of a point,

is all that is necessary convey the letter. Univers 55 can

be reduced in many ways, some of which leave legibility

intact and others which subvert and obfuscate meaning.

This Section will go deep into reducing the forms by three

different methods which I have categorized as Iconic,

Ambiguous and Shape dissection.

1 The RedUCT Ive PRoCeSS

9

Each letter of the Univers typeface

can be reduced to a certain point

and remain legible. I pushed each

letter to the verge of abstraction

both vertically and horizontally from

all sides, looking for the most legible

partition of each letter. Where I

needed to leave part of a stroke, I

left enough to retain consistent line

weight. Through numerous studies

considering how best to dissect the

forms, I found a number of patterns

and considerations for the legibility

of each letter. I have put half the

alphabet into three very distinctive

families. The thirteen remaining

characters are talked about on their

own or in pairs. Each letter here is

considered in respect to readability

out of context. Studies can be far

more reductive when the context of

words is there to add consistency.

I examine context in later sections.

ICoNIC d ISSeCT IoN

The Bowl Family

Reductions of b, d, p & q look similar

to each other. These four letters are

essentially just mirrors of one vector

form. The bowl family holds on to

its legibility if the taper and joint to

the stem are retained, suggesting

the projected trajectory of the bowl.

If reduced vertically, their forms will

instantly blend in with each other.

Their definition comes from the

interaction between the bowl and

the ascender or descender.

The Shoulder Family

I classify m, n, h & u as the shoulder

family. These letters work on the

opposite axis from the bowl family,

keeping legibility with horizontal

retention. The shoulder and taper are

iconic of these forms. In conjunction

with the direction of the bowl and the

number of counters, the legibility of

each letter becomes very clear, even

when out of context.

The Toppers and Tails

The third set is iconized by toppers

and tails. Each has a distinctive

terminal, unique to that particular

letter. Technically, the topper of the

r could be mistaken for the joint

of a letter m or n, however, in and

out of context, its first read is r.

The f is technically unique without

the crossbar, but only someone

who knew the shapes of Univers

intimately would be able to conclude

that this form was indeed an f.

c is distinguished by a gap;

by an absence, not a form.

Unique Apertures

The letter a and the e have a similar

aperture halfway up the x-height.

These two are some of the most

easily distinguished letters in the

alphabet. They also happen to be

two of the most common letters

which is far from a coincidence.

only verticals

These are the verticals. The letter l

(el) has no real iconic part since half

the alphabet uses the vertical as a

backbone. Its solidarity is its only

distinguishing factor. Since the letter

i is essentially the letter l (el) with a

chunk missing, the gap is necessary

for the form’s legibility.

The diagonals

The diagonal angles of the letters

v and w are enough to understand

their meaning. Our brain is able to

connect points and follow paths very

well and has no problem seeing the

trajectory of these lines. The top or

the bottom of each of these letters

signifies them clearly.

The hardest Circles

c is the hardest letter to reduce and

retain legibility. Its only unique form

is its aperture. The conclusion of the

curve is the letter’s best signifier.

The solution is to make the aperture

look characteristic of the letter and

not like a stroke, cut for the sake of

reduction. The letter o requires its

top for legibility and the more it is

reduced, the more readability fades.

14

Unique and Common

s is always an s. Almost any part of

the form can signify the letter. The

suggestion of two stories of curves

iconizes it quickly. It is an extremely

unique letter in the alphabet and

as a common letter seen in writing,

it is quickly recognized.

Unique and Uncommon

The x is a picky letter. It only needs a

small portion to be a unique shape,

but our mind doesn’t recognize with

less than a hint at all four angles. The

image of the cross is what makes it

an x, not its legs and arms.

The outsider

z is the only letter in Univers that

has two horizontal crossbars and

the only one with a crossbar on

the bottom of the x-height. Despite

its unique and unused properties,

it easily becomes illegible to the

human mind, perhaps because of

how rarely it appears in writing. It

is strained by any reduction.

15

Testing Possibilities

Here I reduced the letters as much

as I could without losing legibility

or stroke consistency. In general,

typography is read by scanning the

tops of the letters. Most text could

be cropped in half horizontally and

your mind could read it successfully.

However, many letters are unique

by their bottom halves or sides. It is

only context that would make their

tops read clearly.

16

Increasing Reduction

Legibility diminishes as the content

of the form disappears. Even so,

our mind is able to read things that

are, for all intensive purposes, not

there. Slowly removing more and

more of each letter leaves me with

the point of abstraction, when the

letter loses meaning. This point of

abstraction varies on an individual

basis. Most people find that legibility

of the letters drops off somewhere

between the words ‘jumped’ & ‘lazy.’

Iconic to Ambiguous

Don’t get frustrated with the legibility

of this line. You are not suppose

to be able to read it. The means of

dissection slowly changes as the

sentence progresses. I started by

drawing from the iconic pieces of

this section and then move towards

ambiguous forms that I discuss in

the next section.

17

The Second Layer

Iconic dissection needs no second

layer to convey meaning. Each

letter holds it meaning successfully.

This makes any additions simply

embellishment. This secondary layer

can choose to enhance or diminish

the legibility based on its interactions

with the reduced forms. Since the

mind is intent on navigating meaning,

it will recognize the superfluous

nature of the second level and try to

ignore its contributions.

Ambiguous forms are the reductions

which could be mistaken for a great

number of different letters. The

ambiguous letter forms are useful

for many illustrative typographic

experiments. No form of dissection

pushes illegibility so far. The shapes

are a hungry foundation, waiting for

additional layers of enhancement to

divulge meaning. It is necessary to

work additively with these shapes if

legibility is the intended goal of the

process. Otherwise your viewer will

AmBIgUoUS d ISSeCT IoN

be left pondering the meaningless

forms. Ambiguous dissection works

on the opposite assumptions from

Iconic dissection. In my breakdown,

I grouped the similar forms, reducing

the letters to bowls and verticals

that appear consistently throughout

Univers. The families of shapes

that have emerged are similar letter

groups found in the Iconic section.

The Bowls

b, d, g, p & q each have similar

bowls that, when the letters are

disconnected from their ascenders

and descenders, completely

lose legibility and they become

interchangeable.

The verticals

Most of Univers has verticals of

varying length. Taking the top

off of m, n, f & i leaves you with

indistinguishable forms. The

verticals are the framework –

backbone, if you will – of the font.

The lowercase a of Univers is surprisingly

unique. It has the only bowl that is smaller

vertically than the x-height.

Two Tees

The t & f share the same form with

delineation only in their toppers and

tails. The curvature of the bottom

of the t references the traditional

form of the handwritten letter

and distinguishes both the top and

bottom of the t from the f.

Joints

h, m, n & r have joints of great

similarity. When reduced, each

of them can look like the r. Even

among these forms, the r is still

distinguished by the severity of

the taper and a flare in the top

of the stem.

Loops

Like I mentioned in the Iconic

section, the s is a truly unique

letter. If you remove its middle,

however, it can look similar to

the form of the o and e.

24

diagonals

v & w are made up of the same

diagonals. By removing the forward

leaning diagonals, meaning and

distinction are lost. Removing the

backwards leaning diagonals has

the same effect.

The ending

The final three letters of the Univers

alphabet are surprisingly unique.

The quirky diagonals of the x & y

make them distinguished but not

recognizable. Their idiosyncrasies

make them peculiar in relationship

to the rest of the typeface which is

made of fluid lines.

25

The Second Layer

Ambiguous dissection requires

a secondary layer of information

in order for legibility to emerge.

Depending on how the additions

form and play with the pieces of

Univers they can either transform

it into something quite legible or

obliterate meaning entirely. The

ambiguous shapes act as a shell

upon which the typographer can

imbue meaning. Subtle hints can

easily reveal what the letters have

lost. Consider the u above. The

angled line does not resemble the

curve that was once there yet it

unites the verticals and binds them

into one unified shape that is rather

unmistakable. Even knowing what

it says, the first half of ambiguous is

very hard to see, yet with just a few

hairline strokes, the letters emerge

without any struggle.

With shape dissection the letters

are changed entirely. Through iconic

dissection the letters popped out.

With ambiguous dissection the

letters were unified into generalized

forms. Now the forms are broken

into new shapes, reductive pieces of

their former selves. When a letter’s

shape is unrecognizable we look at

it differently from that of ambiguous

ShAPe d ISSeCT IoN

form. It becomes a new object to be

analyzed and considered without

prior assumptions of what the form

may be intended to represent.

These remaining shapes become

hieroglyphic in nature. They take

on a life of their own as an other

worldly adulteration of language.

Shapes of Strokes

With shape based dissection, the

letters are changed entirely. Isolating

strokes and subverting the joints

and connections of the form can

leave reductive forms that seem

unconnected to expected letters.

Pattern and Texture

Despite inevitable overlap between

shape and ambiguous dissection,

these forms stand free of meaning.

For textural purposes this style is an

excellent means of dissection. In

the previous two styles, the reader

would spend time struggling to

see meaning in the shapes. Here,

value can result from the elegance

of the forms rather than seeking a

message that will never be revealed.

Based on my analysis of dissection I put what I had learned

of each letter’s signifier into building a working reduction

of the Univers Family. Univers Minus is my best reduction of

the typeface that still retains legibility. Taking away more

than half of each letter, I had to solve a myriad of problems.

My final result is four weights and styles of the typeface.

This is meant to impress the remarkable nature of the legible

forms. I did not even expect my results to work quite so well

as they did. So here you are, Univers Minus.

2 CReATINg UNIveRS mINUS

33

34

Removing excess

In examination of each form I had

to determine which parts were

truly necessary for legibility. Unlike

my discussion of Iconic form, I

was blessed with value of context.

Some forms lose a majority of

their substance and certain letters

can fall short of singular legibility.

In context even the most difficult

letters like c & z can prove little

hinderance to a word’s success.

Difficulties

The bowl family proved to be the

most difficult. It is only through the

relationship between the bowl and

the stem that they are differentiated

from each other. I had to create a

system that would allude to the

ascender or descender yet also not

sacrifice the full shape of the bowl.

35

Univers minus 55

This is my final reduction of Univers

Minus in its regular weight of 55.

By design, I was determined that I

would not distort the letters to meet

my needs. No bowl is compressed

or intersection moved. However, in

order to keep each letter as a unified

shape, I had to bring the two halves

of the letter w together. Without

the change, the shapes would read

as two of the letter v and would

have more space within itself than

between any two letters, making it

appear as a word break. The letter a

turned out to be particularly curious.

Here, once again, I was forced to

break the consistency of process

to achieve consistency of form. The

letter a is the only letter which goes

to the ascender height that does not

in the original font.

As always, c is the letter with the

least legibility. Looking like a reduced

piece borrowed from fifteen other

letters, it relies heavily on context in

order to not be misunderstood,

Besides these letters and the bowl

family, the alphabet reduced quite

naturally. Most of the letters read

immediately, even alone. Only one

letter causes trouble as a result of

its commonality and ambiguous

reduction. The letter o has only one

logical way to reduction and that is

to leave as much of it, from the top

down, as possible. Put the letter o

between d & g and you may read

‘day’ instead of ‘dog.’

Univers minus 45

This lightweight is marginally more

legible than 55. Its thin lines leave

the letters with more counter space

and optically longer lines.

40

Univers minus 47

The condensed weight held no real

trouble, though any weight which puts

more emphasis on verticality is bound

to have some impact on legibility.

41

Univers minus 73

My means of reduction translated

naturally into a black weight of

Univers. Letters like g, x & y thrived

in their loss of counters. Legibility

remains solid if it has not increased.

3 exPLoRAT IoN The following section is a collection of the studies and

type treatments that I have been working on in conjunction

with my dissections. They address means of creating and

subverting legibility and test a myriad of potential treatments.

My focus was on pushing the line between legibility and

illegibility, finding that sweet spot where the reader is

surprised at the ease with which their mind comprehends

meaning. Some studies meet this goal better than others but

all work from the base of Univers 55. Many of these studies

have influenced my dissections and were completed before

sections 1 & 2. Consider this the exploratory foundation

for my deductions.

45

With these studies I left behind

all the restrictions of Section 1 on

dissection. As I have said before,

much of successful reduction relies

on hinting at the forms you

have removed. Here I have used

the negative space to retain the

letter’s integrity. I found that in

many cases, conclusions

of verticals were enough to relay

meaning. Our mind makes the

connections between slices, like

connecting the dots.

CUT

48

49

I considered what happens when

you replace large portions of letter

forms with consistent obstructions.

Removing counters leaves the

simple yet untarnished silhouettes

of the font's expected form.

CoveR

52

Building with triangles posed a

difficult challenge. The font retains

legibility because of consistency.

Our mind quickly adapts to the new

system and begins to understand

what to expect. Alone, the letters

are too abstract to be understood,

yet context makes it clear. Even

forms that are simply a triangle - c,

o & v - become clear. Systems are

key to the success of any typeface

and this is just as true when lettering.

Here I replaced a majority of each

letter with circles. The legibility

remains extremely clear even when

a circle replaces a straight line.

Consider the m & n. They are both

remarkably legible. Our mind sees

the black form holistically and

excludes whatever isn’t expected.

Blurring letters allows for a wide

variety of forms not seen in more

rigid means of study. More than

focusing on the legibility of letters

and pushing contextual need, I spent

time working on the elegance of

distorting and accentuating curves

and verticals. The more successful

studies came out of a unified merger

of blurred form and vector shape.

BLUR

Using smoke as a tool resulted in

some very beautiful outcomes. I

expected my words would be at the

mercy of the smoke forms but with

only minor adjustments, I was

able to hint at the missing forms and

make the type quite legible.

Corrupting Univers was as much

about engaging the letter forms with

unexpected processes as it was

about reducing legibility. These

studies took into account what the

reader expects to see and what will

surprise with novelty of form.

Implied by the word, my corruption

studies looked to data corruption for

inspiration. Creating texture as the

letters sway between solid form

and abstraction.

CoRRUPT

62

I spent a lot of time in this study

working with my ambiguous

dissections, seeing how little I

needed to add for meaning to shine

through. Abolish only reads as a

result of a few well placed circles.

Consider the s. The shape is new

and unique yet through the word’s

context the s is clearly visible.

63

By digitally scanning calligraphy

and creating swatches from the

words, I made textural elements that

naturally distress the solidity of

the letters. By placing the pattern

within the restrictions of the letters’

original outlines, the original

shapes are organically subtracted

from, leaving a range of legibility

that is easily manipulated.

PATTeRN

Since the secondary layer is made

of letters itself, peculiar forms

start to peak through, hinting at

its source material. This balance

between levels can be used to

enhance meaning and develop a

built in hierarchy inside the form.

Through this process I have come away with a fundemantal

understanding and much greater appreciation for written

language. I hope that my studies can be helpful to your own

considerations of typography and I highly reccomend you try

testing my conclusions. As I began: everything is subjective.

Language is as mutable and unreliant as culture and is

subject to change at whim. We think, speak and live through

language, grammer and typography. Master it as a tool,

don't let it master you.

BReAkINg UNIveRS JASPeR JoN CRoCkeRSenior Capstone Project 2012

www.breakingunivers.com

Maryland Institute College of Art

Bachelor of Fine Arts

Graphic Design Department

www.jasperjon.com