Q vs. O
I’ve come across an interesting typographical dillema in the face I’m creating - which happens to be a ’pixel-font’.
The typical thing to do, would be to size the Q and O characters proportionally the same in the grid, simply adding any variation of the cross-bar below to make the Q. The thing that I’m finding, however, is that if I extend the Q character one additional pixel, the cross-bar [at the corner] appears ’aesthetically correct’, even though the two characters are now proportionally distinct.
I guess then, I’m wondering if anyone can offer their feedback - opinions toward to what extent should we feel it necessary to break certain rules in favor of the aesthetic? Or, would making such changes be a severe no-no in your opinions?
And - in referencing some typefaces that are centuries old - it appears that a distinct Q was often used that was non-proportional to the O character. Thus, is there really a ’rule’ afterall, if one can reference typography of the past?
(Perhaps I’m over-thinking this issue?)
18.Jun.2007 7.03am
Break the rule. With a sledgehammer.
Only the colder end of the display face spectrum needs that level of “consistency”.
BTW, you really should look at the “Q” in the context of the “U”/”u”.
hhp
18.Jun.2007 7.09am
Thanks for that vote of confidence, Hrant. I’ve been killing myself over trying to determine whether to go with my gut intuition in this case and stick with the aesthetic that was ’working’ - or conceed to the ’rules’.
One of the environmental procedures I’ve been incorporating in the testing phases of these typefaces - is to use them in a Win 98 theme. (Yes, I’m Windoze.) That’s really where I noticed the extent that it works in this particular face - though, it disturbed me no end!
18.Jun.2007 8.02am
Extending the Q seems like a nice solution. Can you post pictures so that we can see how well it works? Thanks!
18.Jun.2007 11.07am
Apologies for the secrecy, though it appears to be a necessity at this time. Unfortunately, I located someone beginning to ’rip’ where I was going with the typefaces - whom was located through my analytics on my site. I don’t care to point fingers at people - I just take down the demonstrations as a result of anothers’ apparent unoriginality.
It’s a shame that some people do that. Then again, I should probably have learned by now that this is the type of thing that can happen as a result of being open and demonstrating progress. It kind of saps the fun out of it, if you know what I mean.
18.Jun.2007 2.01pm
Certainly, a bitmap font is always highly WYSIWYS:
What You See Is What You Swipe! :-/
hhp
18.Jun.2007 9.41pm
Daniel, I agree with Hrant that you should break the rules and go with what looks right to your eyes — but do post examples, so that folks can give you feedback! :-)
I once expressed my fears of posting my own font projects here to one of Typophile’s founders, and he (I believe it was Jared, but maybe it was both Joe AND Jared) said to me, “If you have something posted on Typophile, with a time and date, it would be proof that it was your idea if someone came along later and tried to rip you off.” Just a thought to encourage you. :-)
19.Jun.2007 1.21pm
Thank you, Ricardo. The original production versions were posted in a Flash file, with logged dates in the process. I’m not particularly concerned with that aspect of it. What I am concerned with, is potentially having gone a particular ’original’ route that can easily become modified by others. At this time, I don’t see it being necessary to post an example as it was primarily a research study question.
To update on that research progress, however, I spent the last few days digging centuries back in the etymology of the ’O’ glyph form. As it turns out, the ’O’ is a very modern representation that’s only more modernly depicted with the ’Q’ character’s geometry. In proper English and in the Western / North-American and in various Latin cultures, for instance — the modern ’O’ (or ’o’) can be considered somewhat of a ’bastardization’ of pronounciations — thus, making it a highly subjective glyph.
Though, I do understand the need for ’balancing’ the ’O’ with the ’Q’ for most aesthetic reasons — I’ve come away with this subtle bit of historical information that has enlightened me to a certain extent as to how I wish to proceed.
I’ll post examples eventually, of course. Don’t mean to be a poopy-head about it. Just that it turned into something rather ’important’ for me at this time.
19.Jun.2007 1.33pm
Citing a David Bowie lyric, “Don’t tell God your plans.”