Initial Reflection

A large period of my time on the Visual Communication course has been affected by the Corona Virus Pandemic. This has had an affect on my ability to access certain resources (such as closures at the University and other academic institutions like specialist libraries) as well as on my overall motivation to create new works. It has been a struggle at times to push onwards and generate my own insight through experimentation. On reflecting on my feedback from my proposal it was suggested that “there is a little too much context and existing (past tense or factual) than proposed material.”, which I would agree with. Always in the back of my mind throughout the course has been a desire to not half do things, to not only rely on my own knowledge and to push my skills further. Autumn 2020 left me quite uninspired and I felt it was better to generate secondary research that fills in gaps in my knowledge (as this was something outlined in my SWOT analysis), so that at least I was moving forward with something.

In the time since I submitted my proposal I have circled back to my initial statement of intent:

Explore randomness, legibility and process in typographic design through the expansion of the Odd Foundry website and the creation of a new range of experimental typefaces informed by experimentation and modularity. 

When I teach typography to my graphic design students I often make use of analogies to explain concepts relating to types use so to borrow from my own teaching process here’s one:

“Typefaces are a vehicle, they are designed to do different things. Some are pretty, some are fast, some are comfortable.”

I think my proposal research has focused too heavily on the design of a typeface (the car) and it’s construction and not enough on the journey and destination. Any written language is designed to communicate a message, the typeface it has been set in would be picked to aid and reinforce the communication of this message. So what am I actually aiming to do with my proposed typeface? What is the journey that I want the viewer and designer who uses the typeface to go on? These are questions that I aim to answer in the next stage of my research

Reflections on SWOT analysis and SMART objectives

In my SWOT analysis, many of my weaknesses revolved around a lack of knowledge about the creation of a typeface.  I feel I have successfully gained the knowledge I was lacking in this field, but in aiming to remedy this my research has narrowed my perspective and made me focus too much on the micro detail of the design of a typeface and not enough on what I want to create my typeface to do. Now I need to focus on my strengths of experimentation and research in order for me to enjoy the Masters Project and engage with it at a level when I will feel personally happy with what I create.

At the proposal stage I set myself SMART objectives and worked to complete them throughout the project. They were a great aid in providing methods to address the weaknesses I had previously outlined. I will need to cultivate a new set of objectives for the project ahead to ensure I remain on track.

Legibility

Example of Atkinson Hyperlegible (Applied Design 2020)

As part of my further research for this module I attended an online lecture presented by Applied Design about the development of their typeface Atkinson Hyperlegible(2020). The typeface was designed for the Braille institute to be read by people with low vision and one thing they identified was the need to prioritise a distinction between individual letterforms that appear similar to people with low vision, for instance r, n, f and t. As noted in an interview with Dezeen about the publication of the typeface (Crook 2020), Applied Design aimed to “break with the longstanding tradition of letterform harmony and focus instead on letterform distinction to increase character recognition.”. So rather than creating a typeface of similar forms, a readers recognition of the single characters was prioritised.

Throughout the lecture Applied Design, a 3 man design team, detail the level of focus that they brought to the construction of the letterforms throughout a 1 year development period and their breakthroughs. It was during the lecture while making notes I realised that perhaps the mention of legibility within my proposal confines my output to something more mathematical and scientific than I’d like. I think it will still be a metric with which I will judge my outputs but I don’t want it to adversely restrict my creativity. Though something that I did take from the lecture was a renewed focus on a readers perceptions of individual letters and how a typeface should be designed for a specific reason and specific audience.

Prompts for Further Research

1.Frameworks for Analysis, Criticism and Evaluation

With working in a medium that I feel comfortable with (Typography and Letterpress) there have been times in the proposal stage where I found it hard to critically evaluate my work. I feel I need to research further methods of criticism and evaluation in order to help push my work forward, this is something I aim to revisit throughout the course of the module.

2.3D Printing

During my proposal I experimented with many different ways of creating type, from carving to casting. My proposal aimed to integrate that research into the final outcome by continuing to explore technologies available at the university such as laser cutters. With the University shut I have decided to explore consumer grade 3D printers as a possible avenue for exploration. If these seem suitable, the purchasing of one will allow me to continue to explore the intersection between digital and analogue type design that I started in my earlier work on the course.

3.Redefine the aims of my project

What am I aiming to do with my proposed typeface?

Who am I designing my typeface for?

What is the journey that I want the viewer and designer who uses the typeface to go on?

References