Announcing Paragraph Stretch

When merely "extended" just would not do, here is Paragraph Stretch™: a super extended or elongated geometric display typeface. It is a modular unicase typeface: the capitals and lower case fit the same height and width, so they are interchangeable: fancy a round "W" in all caps? Use the lower case. Want a straight "x" in lower case? Use the cap. And so on. Designed for use at larger sizes for logotypes, short titles or headings. It supports Western plus Nordic, Eastern European and Turkish languages.

Available from MyFonts.

J Weltin's picture

Porsche!

paragraph's picture

Yes, very similar. So, if you design fast cars for a living, buy it :-)

Nick Shinn's picture

… it is a modular unicase typeface …

Modular and unicase are the wrong words.
Linotype faces were modular, for instance, but not monowidth/monospace/tabular, which would be more correct.
And some glyphs (t and i) aren't in fact monowidth.
Nor is a typeface with both upper and lower case a unicase.

The inventor of the monowidth + unicase system of type design named it the "panoptic alphabet", after its first demonstration in the Panoptica typeface. So you could say that upper and lower case may be combined for a panoptic effect.

Is this an OpenType feature in your typeface?

***

BTW, I'm getting a kind of 1995 rave flashback, as well as the Porsche thang :-)

Té Rowan's picture

Tha noo, folken, were I designing high-end (aka mucho eckspensif) hi-fi gear, I'd probably want this for the gold-coated letters in the brand name.

paragraph's picture

Nick, with "unicase" I wanted to say that the upper and lower are freely interchangeable (they are on the same height, and similar visual width). What should I call it instead? As for "modular", it was meant to say that identical, repeating parts are used to create the glyphs. Should I change the description? And no OpenType feature for the changing of U/c and l/c: it is left to the designer/user.

Té, I hope that there are thousands upon thousands of people designing eckspensif hi-fi gear and they'll all buy it :o)

Nick Shinn's picture

Jan, "modular" does not mean monowidth/monospace/tabular. The old Linotype system had a width module of which all character widths were a multiple. Some digital fonts are constructed similarly, to improve hinting. Pixel fonts are also modular, though rarely monowidth.

I would say that this typeface accommodates a "unicase effect", because there is no unicase font and it is not a unicase typeface, but the effect is genuine.

Monowidth is another issue, because the "t" and "i" at least are not monowidth.

I think you should cut to the chase and make the "unicase effect" and "monowidth effect" OpenType features, so that users can dial them up with either a Stylistic Set, or perhaps in the Titling feature (more easily accessible). Or you could do it as a separate font, perhaps a free incentive.

AFAIK, no layout apps support the "unic" feature, but I have dutifully include it in several fonts, in anticipation.

Justin_Ch's picture

I immediatly recognise it as a modular construction. A wide gaspipe. But I also think that your use of modular in the description sounds like something to do with how the font will be used, rather than how it was drawn.

paragraph's picture

Thanks, gentlemen. Poster here fixed, the text left as before. Shall alter the marketing materials now.

paragraph's picture

All designers of fast machines and other ekspensif stuff please note:
Now on special: single fonts $10, the lot $46!

1985's picture

Can one not say modular, meaning made of limited components or modules, not relating to the spacing, just the drawing? I don't understand the confusion.

Nick Shinn's picture

You could, if you qualified it like that.
But Jan said, "It is a modular unicase typeface: the capitals and lower case fit the same height and width."
I criticized that for being incorrect.
To repeat: that is what we typographers call monowidth, monospace or tabular, not modular.
Also, several characters in the lower case are not monowidth.

Although James Mosley refers to "modular" units of sub-character width, the generally-used term appears to be "unitized":
http://www.typophile.com/node/37601

This is a pointedly modular face, so I don't think that something like Paragraph Stretch, which has basically a simple geometric structure, really qualifies as being particular modular, because then you might just as well say that all geometric faces are modular, which is redundant.

1985's picture

Thanks for that Nick, so paragraph was wrong to call this modular, because the characters aren't the same width - the preferred term for which is unitized.

And regarding drawing from basic units - modular is an acceptable term but this design is not an example of it?

Nick Shinn's picture

Right. I think it's fair to say that in design, the modules must be apparent for a piece to qualify as modular.
Copy-and-paste isn't modular, because the repeated elements are not discrete.

Fontstruct is modular.

(BTW, this isn't a criticism of Jan's face, just a discussion of terminology.)

1985's picture

(BTW, this isn't a criticism of Jan's face, just a discussion of terminology.)

Absolutely, sorry Jan!

paragraph's picture

No worries, gents, I agree with both of you. Hey, now at the bottom (No. 42) of Hot New Fonts!

Syndicate content Syndicate content