Bruno Maag Quotes.
There isn’t really a stylistic recipe for fonts to make them particularly suitable to be translated into different scripts.
There’s a simplicity in typography that demands absolute accuracy… the only way you can experience it is by doing it, and you can’t do it on a screen because a screen never gives you the entire picture.
Lower case Ss are notoriously difficult to get right. But in Helvetica it’s not straight – you want to go in there and tighten it up. And the ‘a’ looks so woolly and ill-conceived, it really winds me up.
Each script has its own calligraphic and cultural history. It is more a question of matching different calligraphic styles to one another, without the features of one script dominating another.
I do believe that organizations can certainly improve lives by specifying better fonts, which of course has an effect on how you read your e-mail.
When we design for non-Latin, we always aim to create a rhythm and texture that is sympathetic so when you have the two scripts running side by side, they create, ideally, the same tonal value on the page.
If you think of ice cream, it (Helvetica) is a cheap, nasty, supermarket brand made of water, substitutes and vegetable fats. The texture is wrong and it leaves a little bit of a funny aftertaste.
Type is your brand.
The Cyrillic and Greek scripts in particular have an alien beauty in their unfamiliar letterforms. Five weights of stroke thickness create subtle variations in light and dark that reflect the emerging and fading of the stars.
If you imagine b, d, p, and q, those are letter forms that all the children always mess up. They are mirror forms of one another. That feature is emphasized in a font like Arial, where the shapes are literally mirror forms.
The argument that a serif font is too fussy doesn’t cut it anymore. You want a font where the letter forms are not ambiguous.
Why do only the Latin script when Nokia has a billion consumers? Typography is the bedrock of communication; it can really connect people.