Hello, my fellow typophiles,
I would like to invite you all to talk about Xerox Sans, a customized typeface based on FS Albert by FontSmith for Xerox. (Before writing this post, I already Googled the Typohile.com for Xerox Sans, and only found people talked about the logo wordmark in an old thread about Xerox’s rebranding).
A couple days ago, I stumbled upon a document at Xerox.com in which Xerox Sans is embedded. Out of typographic interest, I discussed a little about it with one of my friends (he is a visual communication professor in a university and a nonprofessional type designer). Personally, I like the Xerox Sans as much as FS Smith, but I don't think it’s optimal for Xerox as such a giant multinational company to use this soft, friendly and approachable typeface for its corporate branding. (I don’t like the GE Inspira too much.)
A snapshot of the document:
However, my friend pointed out that Xerox Sans has severe problems with lowercase “a”& “o” and the tight & inconsistent spacing between letters. He did a “blurring test” to back up his opinion on the “a””o ”legibility problem, as shown below:
Essentially, he believes it at least takes 10 years to prove that one-story design of lowercase “a” in a sans serif typeface has good legibility (My friend think FontSmith should pick up two-story design with “a” instead of the single-story).
One of his major claim is no other popular and successful typefaces with good legibility have taken on the two-story design with “a” (and “g”). And he reckons that Xerox Sans has its ancestry in FF Meta (his point is FF Meta is the progenitor of ALL humanist sans serifs).
I think the “a”and “o”is OK with the legibility (as in FS Albert and GE Inspira and others), and spacing is indeed tight in a way like Nokia Sans does. But I don’t know why he insist saying the spacing between letters is NOT inconsistent.
So, I would like to know what you think of Xerox Sans with its legibility and spacing. Thanks. (Sorry about this lengthy post)