Is there a TRUE definition for "sans serif"?
Forgive me if this question has been asked before as I’m a new poster, but what exactly seems to be the definition of sans serif these days? Fonts such as Goudy Sans, Optima, Officina and newer faces such as Sebastian and Vialog seem to really be pushing the boundaries of the definition. Large stroke contrast, pseudo and half serifs...are these breaking the rules, or is there really no clear defintion? I ask with a particular leaning towards typefaces for signage.
24.May.2005 8.26am
The only real qualification is that they have no serifs. Generally, most sans have little or no difference between strokes. However, there are some that do have stroke contrast, and some that taper at the end; but if they don’t have serifs - they are stills sans.
A few have tried to blur the line - like Rotis Semi Serif and Semi Sans; as well as Theis, which has a serif (theserif), a sans (thesans), and a mix (themix). But as far as I know, there is no ’catagory’ of fonts called semi-serif.
There are subcatagories of sans serifs, like sloped, and stressed. As there is a subcatagory for serifs - hybrid serif (tiny serifs). So, for now, most fonts still fit neatly within catagories (for those that don’t, I just call ’em display type ;)
Hope that helped…
24.May.2005 10.03am
Well, I’m speaking more about about changes within the letterform itself. The examples you list make clear deliniations of differences. Thesis and Rotis have completely different fonts within their family. What I mean is, for example if Goudy Sans is classified as a sans serif, then why isn’t ITC Serif Gothic?
10.Jun.2005 6.08pm
“What I mean is, for example if Goudy Sans is classified as a sans serif, then why isn’t ITC Serif Gothic?” - tbiddy
————————————————
Goudy Sans and ITC Serif Gothic were both created by their respective designers in order to “be different” from the norm, and as such, were named by the designers themselves to reflect the intent.
Goudy Sans
In 1929 Frederic W. Goudy developed a three-weight family for Lanston Monotype with an intent of being “different”. The result was more playful than the formal types of the time. Also, the italics followed a more cursive feeling which, by the way, are some of my personal favorites.
At Agfa-Compugraphic, Goudy Sans was expanded to six-weights and released initially for phototypesetters, and afterwards, digital imagesetters. It was later licensed to ITC where they expanded the family to eight weights.
The most unique aspect of the Goudy Sans type family is that it offered an almost complete set of incredible cap alternates which are no longer available in fonts today.
ITC Serif Gothic
Around 1972, as the urban legend goes, (Herb) “Lubalin felt that the industry needed a typeface to fill the gap between Gothic and Roman. So, he and Tony Di Spigna developed Serif Gothic.”
-Herb Lubalin Art Director, Graphic Designer and Typographer.
Gertrude Snyder & Alan Peckolick
Filling the gap resulted in a design that was neither truly sans nor really serif, and its name reflects the attempt at cross-pollination.
So, to finally answer your question, both of these type families were meant to different from the start and to intentionally defy pigeon-holding.
——————————————————-
Yes, I’m old, but I’m back in style!
11.Jun.2005 6.57am
The most unique aspect of the Goudy Sans type family is that it offered an almost complete set of incredible cap alternates which are no longer available in fonts today.
I may get around to it eventually...