1
Reflection on Practice
Makeda
ማክዳ · מאקדהIn three scripts: Latin, Hebrew, Amharic
Liron Turkenich
University of Reading,Department of Typography and Graphic Communication,July 2013
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of theMaster of Arts in Typeface Design at the University of Reading, UK
3
Introduction 5
Approach to designing three scripts 5
Introduction to the non-Latin scripts 9
Beginning 11
Innovation vs. Traditionalism 13
Flowing towards a typeface 15
Black and forth 17
Conclusions and lessoned learned 19
Contents
a
ሙש
Hebrew Bold
Latin Black
Amharic Regular
5
Introduction
Designing a typeface. Designing a multi script typeface.Creating original letterforms and controlling the curves for the design of a multi script typeface. Researching in order to create original letterforms and controlling the curves for the design a multi script typeface.
If three words had to be chosen to describe the matd course experience they would be “process of learning”. A process that starts without knowing much and as time goes by, not only you realise that indeed you don‘t know much and that there is much more to learn - you also grow an appetite to learn more, experience, research, design. This rop will attempt to give an insight to the process of designing Makeda, a multi script typeface family consisting Latin, Hebrew and Amharic (Ethiopic). It should be considered a learning document that covers the main issues of the design.
In Israel, where Hebrew, English and Arabic are official languages,a large Jewish Ethiopian community lives. In the daily life there are several cases that the different scripts are used side by side: Road signs are always printed in Hebrew, Arabic and English, Ministry offices provide forms and pamphlets in Amharic as well as the other languages (although the translation to Amharic is mostly not available.) However, the harmony between them is often disregarded. Up until now, no single typeface family was designed and used for Hebrew, Latin and Amharic together. Makeda is the first to address this issue. The main goal of the design is to provide a respected typeface that three scripts are equally important in.
Working on three scripts, is by no means a ‘one script at a time‘ process. It was critical to address and design them at the same time due to the influences taken and given from each other. The structure of the rop will be similar to the design of the three writing systems. Therefore, it will not be written in separate sections but combined, by going back and forth, providing general and specific details about the process.
Approach to designing three scripts
Harmonising three scripts is a challenging process; a lot has to be taken into account. The overall colour and texture on the page should be similar, so that no writing system would look darker or lighter than the others and stand out.
Can you even read Amharic? Questions like this are not rare and usually asked in relation to the matd at Reading. How can a person design a typeface that he cannot read? A separation needs to be made between reading and understanding a language and being familiar with the writing system. After extensive research, one can be very knowledgeable with the conceptions regarding the script in past and
Fig 1: It is important to look at contemporary uses of type. A spread from an Ethiopic magazine.
Fig 2: Amharic typeface designed by Giambattista Bodoni, Manuale Tipografico. In this case, the Amharic was Latinised, and the nature of the script is disregarded.
Fig 3: First sketches of the Amharic.
←
←
←
7
present, the structure, its oddities and exceptions. As for the reactions of the native speakers, about “the designer
that has come to save the native people and offer them (finely) a good typeface” one has to reply with a humble and educated response. In those cases, the designer needs to provide well established reasoning to all of the decisions. During the design of Makeda I felt lucky to be on both sides - of the native (Hebrew) and the non native (Amharic). Feeling obliged to support any decision undoubtedly leads to a better design process.
Explaining the characteristics of the typeface in relation to existing typefaces is valuable. It is important to look at both local and international uses of the type, since they could have different characteristics (Fig 1). One may agree or disagree with the present conventions any stand taken will lead to a more defined and clear work. Understanding the history of the non‐Latin type must be done through critical eyes. The geographic origin of typefaces that were designed and produced alongside with the social, political and cultural aspects of the local users of the script can sometimes show that the development of the typefaces in use today was not determined by needs or natural development – but by technical issues or ignorance of some designers (Fig 2). It is important to not blindly follow the present conventions. Observing rather than looking would be a better approach, while trying to be as objective as possible (i.e trying not be charmed be the exotic shapes).
As will be explained in the following section, the three writing systems have a completely different structure. Trying to change the basic structure just for sake of matching would be wrong and therefore it would be preferable to focus on harmonising the ‘macro‘ and the ‘micro‘ - but not the ‘middle‘ (the skeleton or the core). The ‘macro‘ refers to the colour on the page. For instance, the Amharic usually tends to be heavier than the Latin. My approach after some research was to design the Amharic lighter so it would result in a more even texture when type is set next to the Latin and Hebrew. Also, in the macro level decisions about contrast across the scripts needed to be made. Deciding on the contrast of the typeface does not mean reverting the native stress of the script so that all scripts would share the same stress direction (that case would create a forced matching), but figuring out the level of contrast. Whether it should be high contrast, low contrast or even monolinear - the decision will have to be applied on all scripts. However, the nature of the writing system also must be an essential factor. For example, the Hebrew cannot have very high contrast because the thin vertical strokes will not be able to hold the letter.
The ‘micro‘ level would refer to the small details in the glyphs. In and out strokes can be interpreted to have a similar appearance and feeling, curtain features or oddities can find ways to be repeated in similar shapes. Once again, always keeping in mind to be loyal to the nature of the script.
Fig 6: Examples of Hebrew typefaces designed to match Latin typefaces. (a) Rutz typeface, designed by Oded Ezer in 2010, was intended to match Vesper typeface. (b) Oron typeface, designed by Asher Oron in 1966, was intended to match Univers typeface. Both designers chose to reverse the Hebrew stress to be the same like the Latin. (c) Makeda typeface.
nה nה nה
Fig 4: Amharic Numerals. Linotype Amharic.
Fig 5: Hadassah typeface, designed by Henri Friedlaender. The design was inspired both by Ashkenazi and Sephardic styles. From the Monotype archive.
←
←
←
a b c
9
Introduction to the non-Latin scripts
Both Hebrew and Amharic derive from the same origin and they are considered Semitic writing systems. The Amharic, a South Semitic script is defined as Abugida writing system, consonants-vowel letters are in use. The vowels are similar to diacritical marks that became an integral part of the consonant. There are 26 basic forms of letters, and each of them has seven ‘vocalised variations‘, a total of 182 characters. The numerals (Fig 4) and punctuation are unique to the script, but nowadays are not always in use. The Amharic is written from right to left with no joining glyphs.
In Hebrew there are 22 letters and 5 different letters that serve as final forms. Similar to Arabic, it is written from right to left. The Hebrew is an Abjad writing system in which characters indicate consonants but not vowels. Diacritical marks used for vowels are called ‘Nikkud‘ (ניקוד) but are not considered an integral part of the letters and are not required in order to read. Today, the ‘Nikkud‘ is only used as an aid in specific cases: in poetry, children books and biblical content. What is commonly called in Israel a ‘Serif ‘, would be more precisely defined as an instroke. Hebrew has two main calligraphic styles which were developed within the Jewish communities in different parts of the world. In Europe (mostly north and east) - the Ashkenazi style and in North Africa and Arabic speaking countries (as well as Spain and Portugal) - Sephardic. The typographic forms developed from these two, which have stylistic and structural differences. Therefore, there is no one common form of some letters (such as א, ש, ט, ס) and the designer may choose which style will influence his typeface (Fig 5). In contemporary typefaces, it is more common to use the Sephardic model due to its lower contrast and better legibility.
Some attempts were made to design Hebrew companions to existing Latin scripts. One is Oron typeface, designed in 1966 by Asher Oron and was intended to act as the Hebrew version of Univers by Adrian Frutiger. In this case, the Hebrew horizontal stress was reverted to be the same as the Latin, and the basic squareness of the Hebrew was rounded in an unnatural way. Another typeface that was inspired from a Latin typeface and intended to be used with it is Rutz typeface, designed in 2011 by Oded Ezer (for the use with Vesper by Rob Keller). This design is more recent, and much better than the previous case, because the traditional structure of the Hebrew was preserved. However, the horizontal stress was still changed to be equal to the Latin (Fig 6). Those are cases in which a native Hebrew reader was the designer. In other cases such as Myriad Hebrew, to my humble opinion, there is not much connection between the scripts, and the Hebrew seems odd and unbalanced. As far As I am aware, no Hebrew typeface was designed simultaneously with the Latin. There were times however, that the Latin was developed after the Hebrew to accompany it. For instance, the new typeface that was designed by Michal Sahar for the Tel Aviv Art Museum. In this case, the Latin like the Hebrew is monolinear.
Fig 7: Examples of Amharic typefaces designed with a Latin companion. (a) Nyala typeface, designed by John Hudson,(b) Kefa typeface, designed by Jérémie Hornus, (c) Makeda typeface. The decisions regarding the letter‘s relative height in the typefaces are different and are worth thinking about.
Fig 8: Conducting a visual research helps in understanding the nature of the scripts.
Fig 9: Breaking down the letterforms to elementary shapes is a useful method which allows to find methods to harmonise the different writing systems.
a b c
Fnሁ Fnሁ Fnሁ←
←
←
11
Currently the trend in the Israeli typographic scene is to design monolinear typefaces. One reason for it is globalisation, because that way the stress issues involving combing the Hebrew and the Latin id easily solved. Furthermore, the tendency among Israeli type designers (and for graphic designers as users of type) is to design ‘San serif ‘ typefaces. Except Rutz typeface, there was no ‘serif ‘ typeface designed for long texts since the 50‘s.
Like in Israel, in Ethiopia there is one prominent typeface that is being used. The Amharic typeface was designed by Antoine d‘Abbadie in 1573. The typeface is very similar to the written letters in manuscripts. Outside Ethiopia, some versions of Amharic typefaces can be seen, most of them are Latinsed and seem very stiff in relation to the natural flowing lines of the writing tool. A detailed review of the changes in Amharic typefaces is beyond this rop‘s scope, and can be read in Jeremie Hornus dissertation ‘The Ethiopic Writing System‘.
In most typefaces that were designed for the use of both Latin and Amharic, there is a big difference in the relative height of the letters - the Amharic is much taller than the Latin (Fig 7). Possibly, the reason for that is the horizontal complexity of some of the characters. Because Makeda‘s main purpose is to be a multi script typeface that works well in script combination, the x-heights (for convenience reasons I will use the term x-height although it is not how the non-Latin‘s height would be defined) could not be too different from each other and none should stand out. Therefore, I had to come up with different solutions to prevent white spaces to clog in small sizes. In addition, most Amharic typefaces (similar to manuscripts) don‘t have a well defined baseline and x-height. Once again, because of the brief, some adjustments had to be made. Research and judgment were necessary in order to decide when the upper and lower parts of the characters are present due to the nature of the script, and when they are just a direct influence from the handwritten forms. In the second case, allowing a more prominent x-height and baseline was possible.
Beginning
After reading and looking at existing typefaces, the next step was to conduct a visual research (Fig 8). The broad nib pen is the traditional writing tool in all three scripts. Therefore, even though the letterform‘s structure is different, there are still similar characteristics determined by the tool: thicks and thins, in and out strokes and more. The difference is the angel the nib is held in, and the direction of writing. Because of the angel the Amharic is written in, the letters have higher contrast. The Hebrew‘s nib direction determines the stress, which is opposite to the Latin and the Amharic. Breaking down the letterforms to elementary shapes is a useful method in deciding how a respectful harmonising process can be done (Fig 9). By writing, it is possible to understand the limitations, the nature of the scripts, reasons for the writing angles and structure.
hדሐ
LatinHebrewAmharic
Although not identical in all scripts, relative letter heights were carefully examined and chosen to work together and be read easily.
onחשክጸRdpiהקלቅድህ
bቸח
Fig 10: Experimenting with the Amharic. A feature that was drawn was later transferred to all scripts.
Fig 11: In and out strokes were not transferred automatically to all scripts. Adjustments were made according to the nature of each script.
Fig 12: Breaking down the letterforms to elementary shapes is a useful method which allows to find methods to harmonise the different writing systems.
Fig 13: Relative heights and basic proportions in Makeda.
←
←
←
←
13
Deciding on a script to start the design with, was a dilemma. The Amharic was chosen because for me, it‘s a new writing system and I felt it could help experimenting with new shapes (Fig 10). Also the option that it will introduce some interesting features to both other scripts that I am more familiar with was appealing. As being told to us, the Latin is more flexible to design. As for the Hebrew, I felt that years of reading the script might prevent me from innovation on its own without an outside inspiration. After experimenting, I decided on some basic details - the in and out stokes, which were applied to the Amharic and the Latin. Finding a way to transfer them to the Hebrew was a challenge because of the different writing angle. The instrokes were rotated and reflected, but some adjustments had to take place (Fig 11). The Hebrew‘s outstrokes needed a different angle, and this was only realised later on in the process.
After feeling that I have some sketches and directions for specific features in the typeface, it was time to finalise my thoughts about the major decisions that will give the three scripts a harmonised look (if referring to the last chapter - the macro): The contrast and the relative heights. Regarding the contrast (Fig 12)- there were some limitations that emerged from the nature of the scripts. The Amharic could not be monoliniar because it will get too busy and ink would fill the spaces, and the Hebrew could not have a very high contrast because it will not be stable on the baseline. Low contrast seemed like the best option, although in the first few weeks some experimenting with different contrasts were done. Relative heights and basic proportions (Fig 13) were decided on, but widened a couple of times because it seemed too condensed. At the phase of moving from sketching ideas to actually drawing the glyphs, a big gap was noticed between what I perceived was a letter structure and what it really was. Since I came to the matd without any experience in designing Latin, and just some with Hebrew, going back to specimens was necessary to understand the flow of the stroke, the difference between similar looking letters (e.g the b is not a flipped d) and the letter‘s proportions amongst themselves.
Innovation vs. Traditionalism
“The balance between being too traditional and loyal to the current state of the type and introducing new letterforms should be carefully defined...It is a struggle, but also an interesting journey to find the spot which combines innovation and proper Hebrew structure” (from the research report, March)
Coming up with a good design that will introduce new forms and interesting styles but also would maintain loyalty to the tradition of the script is a great challenge. Working on the Latin, I was extremely careful. Not being confident about what can and cannot be done, and not knowing by heart the way a letter should be structured, led at first to very regular (some even said boring) shapes. On a personal note, I was
Fig 14: The development of (g) throughout the process. Deciding to design an open bottom counter in order to extend the counter size. This feature aims to support the wide counters in the rest of the characters.
Fig 15: The development of (א, Alef). Trying to find a balance between traditional and innovative. Moving from ‘san serif ’ letter structure to ‘serif ’ structure.
Fig 16: Changing the ‘branches’ to be more curved and to follow the Amharic's nature.
←←
←
15
very satisfied when my typeface printouts were considered boring. That meant that the letters was legible and that was enough for me for that time. Not long after, I wanted more from my typeface then being legible. Receiving much feedback on the Latin allowed more experimenting. With time, feeling more confident and free, I changed the letterforms a lot. (Fig 14) An opposite route was with the other two scripts.
In designing the Amharic, most likely because I didn‘t have much prior knowledge of the script, I felt very daring. Many problems were spotted in the existing typefaces, and most commonly they did not fit very well with the Latin companion. Many Amharic typefaces were examined and there was no single typeface that served as the model for all structure and stylistic elements. Each glyph was examined individually, and trying to understand why in one typeface the designer chose to change something was helpful in finding my own direction. Approaching Aleme Tadesse, an Ethiopic type designer that is currently based in New York was only done in a later stage of the design, once it was more coherent. The feedback from Aleme was very helpful, both in understanding how the typeface looks in a native speaker‘s eyes and in explaining about the basic structure and proportion.
The Hebrew was the most challenging script to design. This might come as a surprise, as I should have felt the most comfortable with it. Possibly, because of being ‘over exposed‘ to it, I wanted to design something new and fresh. My aim was to design a text typeface, which was seldom done in the past sixty years. Trying not to make it too old and ‘biblical‘ in a native speaker‘s eyes but still legible and convenient for long texts and small sizes was a real balancing act. In an Israeli perspective, every typeface with instroks and calligraphic nature may be accused of being too traditional. On the other hand, it seems like the solution to design a ‘sans serif ‘ just for trying to appear contemporary is wrong. While designing, I received feedback from the Israeli type designer Oded Ezer. He pointed, that in many cases I was using the structure of the ‘sans serif ‘ version of the Hebrew, and pasting the ‘serifs‘ on it. Going back to the broad nib pen and practicing calligraphy in combination with extensive observations of existing Hebrew typefaces was crucial at that stage to the progress of the typeface. I understood more about the joints and in which ways the ‘serif ‘ and ‘sans serif ‘ (can also be defined as monoliniar) have different structure. (Fig 15)
I spent a lot of time thinking about how much I should be innovating. Very easily, a typeface can be condemned as ‘too Latinised‘ or too freaky. Equally, it can be referred as old, dusty and religious. Giving character to the typeface is better done elegantly and in a sophisticated way. With time, all the ‘crazy‘ new features both in Hebrew and Amharic were relaxed, and only the most convincing ones stayed. This allowed me to see very clearly, the process of the design.
Flowing towards a typeface
After the basic letters were designed, and setting a block of text was
Fig 17: Some characters changed very late in the process.
Fig 18: Initial sketches for the bold weight.
Fig 19: Frank Ruël regular and bold weights in use. The difference between them is not as prominent as in Latin. Ha'aratz newspaper.
←
←←
←
←
←
Frank Ruël bold
Frank Ruël regular
17
possible I noticed that the whole feeling of the type (in all scripts) was too stiff and the shapes were too square. (in the Latin the ‘o‘ was almost a rectangle) It was time for refining it. The Amharic was the most problematic. Both in manuscripts and existing typeface, the letterforms are very flowing but for Makeda it was too much - mainly because it has to work with the Hebrew which has a squarish nature. Still, some curviness could be introduced. Curves replaced straight lines in the ‘branches‘ and helped to emphasise the flow of the letters (Fig 16). In addition, I had realised that I went too far with regularising the letters, feeling that by this I could provide a strong typographic approach and avoid a manuscript style. I had to bring back some of the natural forms, even on the expanse of having a less harmonised typeface and less letters that are derived from others.
Adding the curviness in the Hebrew was done very late in the year. A very gentle curve was introduced to all the straight lines, to both horizontal and the vertical strokes. These light changes are not very visible, but they contribute greatly to the warm feeling of the typeface. The changes in the Latin were introduced even later in the year and were influenced by the design of the black weight. Tiny curves were added on the upper part of the glyphs. This also allowed better harmonisation with the Hebrew, which already had curves in those place. In Makeda, there are no straight lines. Because of the in and out strokes, optical adjustments were necessary in order to help the eye move smoothly and not get disturbed. Furthermore, at this stage of refinements, specific features of some letters that I insisted on during the design process were re-examined and changed (Fig 17).
Black and forth
A topic that was discussed a lot during the course regarding my bold version is something I named ‘cultural weight‘. When I was designing my bold weight, I received many comments that what I am designing is not bold like I think, but semi-bold (Fig 18). At some point, it occurred to me that perhaps there is a reason for this gap in perception. After returning to look at Hebrew typefaces and printed matters, I realised that the tendency with Hebrew is to make the bold just slightly heavier than the regular (Fig 19). However, my bold across all scripts must have a similar weight, and be proper to use in text sizes. Therefore, I decided to keep my ‘not-so-bold‘ version and to add a black weight, which can be used either for text or display.
Although Amharic typeface are generally heavier in weight then the Latin, a black weight is difficult to design. As been written earlier, there are complex shapes that are getting blocked if becoming very heavy. In the Hebrew, the case is even harder to manage because of the horizontal stress. If the typeface should work along a line of regular weight, their x-height should not be much different. Because in a black weight the strokes are becoming heavier on both sides (above and below, right and left) the result would be a black Hebrew which is a lot taller than
አአአ
Fig 20: Black weight in Latin, Hebrew and Amharic. Although the weight is even, different solutions were necessary for each script.
Fig 21: The influence of the black weight on the regular and the bold. Notice the more curved instrokes.
Fig 22: At first The bold weight followed the model of the regular. Later on, it was changed according to the black weight.
←
←
← ←
19
the lighter weights and even its black Latin and Amharic companions. The solution found for this issue, was to increase the weight a lot more towards the counter and not above or below the glyph. (Fig 20)
Designing the Latin black weight, created different design challenges. Just making the stroke wider was not enough, and new solutions had to be found. It had been said to us many times that the heavier weights may influence the regular and by that creating a ‘back and forth‘ process. This indeed happened, and new flowing curves and other design features were added to the other weights. (Fig 21,22)
Conclusions and lessoned learned
Trying to classify the style of the typeface I designed was not easy. On one hand, it is not a serif typeface and doesn‘t have serifs. On the other hand, there are in and out strokes that are visible which shows that it‘s not a regular san serif as well. Perhaps a flared or tapering san serif. The Hebrew, would be considered a ‘serif ‘ typeface. Luckily, it is not mandatory to decide on the exact definition, and finding this spot in a non defined area is certainly okay.
Designing a multi script typeface is a process of finding delicate balances. Balance between accepting and criticising traditions and history. Balance of harmonising the scripts without imposing them on each other. Balance between introducing new forms of the letters and staying loyal to tradition.
During the last months of the design, I spent a lot of time thinking whether I should have done anything difference in the process. Should I have started the actual design earlier in the year? Would it be better if I learned Glyphs program prior to the course? I believe that those questions are natural, especially with the pressure towards the submission date, but I believe that the process was the way it was for a reason. The learning curve is increasing greatly throughout the year, and become steeper. It can be noticed especially while looking back at the initial designs for some glyphs. The pace also gets faster in designing, and there is a feeling that you can look at a glyph and more rapidly to know what needs to be changed in it. The eye gets used to looking at letterforms, especially those of your typeface.
At the beginning of the course I received from a recent graduate an excellent tip that helped me a lot and I would certainly advise it to any designer beginning to work on a multi script typeface: Even when you feel that you must work more on the Latin, it important not to leave the other scripts to the end of the course. This parallel design leads to so many mutual influences, and it would be a shame to cramp the non-Latin‘s design to the last month.
The matd course was the most intensive and educational time that I experienced. Trying to figure out how much I learned during this year is indescribable. Working independently, learning from formal lectures and informal talks, being exposed to the collections and meeting colleagues that became true friends from the rest of the world are all real treasures that are highly appreciated.
פPe, Hebrew
p pWhat do you do when you have a long way to go?
Makeda Italic serves as the luscious side of Makeda. Rounder and faster, with a more prominent out stroke that leads the eye forward, with a wink Makeda's hoofs…
you walk faster!
a a g gv v k k
Fig 23: Each character was examined in three weights to check the flow and coherence of the typeface.
Fig 24: In the Italics, the joints were lowered and the out stroke was lengthened to enhance the forward motion.
←
←
21
Fig 25: First sketches trying to find ways to combine the Amharic and the Hebrew. Those ideas were too extreme, but from them the typeface was developed.
Fig 26: Working on the spacing of the Amharic and the overall texture on the page while setting three scripts.
←
←
23
For her journey to Jerusalem, Makeda took
and precious stones
camelsSchmuckstücke
תכשיטים רבים
spicesወደ ኢየሩሳሌ ስትሄድ የከበረ ድንጋይ፣ወርቅ፣ሽቱ
סוגים שונים של בשמים וזהב
ማክዳ መልከ ፊደል
