#

discovering univers

#

Aa Bb Cc Dd Ee Ff Gg Hh Ii Jj Kk Ll Mm Nn Oo Pp Qq Rr Ss Tt Uu Vv Ww Xx Yy Zz ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) , . ; : ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

1

In 1954 the French type foundry Deberny

& Peignot wanted to add a linear sans

serif type in several weights to the range

of the Lumitype fonts. Adrian Frutiger, the

foundry’s art director, suggested refrain-

ing from adapting an existing alphabet.

He wanted to instead make a new font

that would, above all, be suitable for

the typesetting of longer texts — quite

an exciting challenge for a sans-serif

font at that time. In 1957, the family

was released by Deberny & Piegnot, and

afterwards, it was produced by Linotype.

With its sturdy, clean forms Univers can

facilitate an expression of cool elegance

and rational competence.

from the start

2

one big family

Different weights and variations within the type family are designated by the use of numbers rather than names, a system since adopted by Frutiger for other type designs. Frutiger envisioned a large family with multiple widths and weights that maintained a unified design idiom. However, the actual typeface names within Univers family include both number and letter suffixes.

Currently, Univers type family consists of forty-four faces, with sixteen uniquely numbered weight, width, position combinations. Twenty fonts have oblique positions. Eight fonts support Central European character set. Eight support Cyrillic character set.

3

30

40

50

60

70

90

extended

3

5 6 7 8 9

condensed

increasin

g stro

ke weig

ht

4

To achieve the goal of an expansive,

integrated type family, designers must

be sensitive to the nuances of each let-

terform while simultaneously consider-

ing the overall system. In the case of

Univers, this sophisticated approach

to type-family design is supported by

a well-considered set of typographical

characters. Inspired by his study of the

type anatomy

Cap height / Ascender height

For the Univers type family the ascender height is the same as the cap height

x-height Descender height Baseline spine

counter tittle

descender

limitations of existing sans serifs, Frutiger

began with the assumption that “a pure-

ly geometric character is unacceptable in

the long run, for the vertical ones; an O

represented by a perfect circle strikes us

as shapeless and has a disturbing effect

on the word as a whole.”

5

The ascender of the lowercase ‘t’ does not reach the cap height unlike the other ascenders.

Some letters have an overhang to appear as if all letters sit upon the same baseline.

The letter ‘o’ was designed so that it was specifically not a perfect geometric circle. Instead the form is more of an ellipse both in the counterform and the bowl.

However, many letters do use purely geometric forms. This helps to create an integrated sans serif typeface that has a strong and sophisto-cated character.

Q bJust like the ‘o’, many of the letters are not perfectly geometrical. These details, such as the tail of the ‘Q’ and the stem of the ‘b’ give the typeface character.

A l

finial

ascender bowl cross bar

6

The c is smaller than the o because in open

letters the white space achieves greater

penetration into the form, thereby

appearing larger.

By overlapping a Z and a T of the same

point size, variation in stroke thickness

becomes apparent.

The n is slightly larger than the u because

white entering a letterform from the top

appears more active than white entering

from the bottom.

Larger x-heights also provided greater

legibility, addressing the concern that

sans-serif type was more difficult to

read than serif type.

7

Frutiger’s decision to use different stroke

thicknesses for the horizontal, diagonals,

and verticals was a response to his assess-

ment of visual discrepancies in other type-

faces. While Frutiger’s goal was to make

letters that fit together so flawlessly that

the assemblage formed a new satisfying

gestalt, he also deemed it important that

individual letterforms remain distinct from

one another. “Built up from a geometric

basis, the lines must play freely,” Frutiger

wrote, “so that the individuals find their

own expression and join together in a co-

hesive structure in word, line, and page.”

To maintain the integrity of each let-

terform, careful optical adjustments were

made, based on the current knowledge

of the principles of perception. Ascend-

ers and descenders were shortened in

comparison with existing typographic

norms, and x-heights were increased. All

of these innovations contributed to the

overall harmony among letters, allowing

for a smooth line flow.

a varied stroke

Z

8

the opposition

Univers font was created almost simultaneously with other successful alphabets: Helvetica (1957) and Optima (1958). Whereas Helvetica, for example, had a general clarity and a modern, timeless and neutral effect without any conspicuous attributes (lending to its great success), Univers expressed a factual and cool elegance, a rational competence.

Aa - Univers

- Helvetica Neue

Above, Univers is compared to Helvetica Neue. At the same point size we can see the differences in the letter forms. Many of which are not apparent when looking at each font alone. To the right there is a chart that outlines some the key differences between Univers and the type families Gill Sans, Futura, and Helvetica Neue.

9

Univers Gill Sans Futura Helvetica Neue

counter form of lowercase a

tittles

tail of capital Q

terminal of lowercase r

letter form of lowercase t

descender of lowercase y

a aijQr

t

y ytrQ Q

r

ty

ij ija a

ijQrty

#

the creatorAdrian Frutiger is one of the most important type designers to emerge since World ar II. He is the designer of many notable faces—the best known being the sans serifs Univers and Frutiger—and was one of the first designers to create type for film.

Although Frutiger has said that all his types have Univers as their skeleton he felt, when he came to design a face for the Charles de Gaulle Airport at Roissy, that Univers seemed dated, with a 1960’s feel. His airport face, originally known as Roissy but renamed Frutiger for its issue to the trade by Mergenthaler Linotype in 1976, is a humanistic sans serif that has been compared to Gill and Johnston types.

10

#11

“From all these experiences the most important thing I have learned is that

stand close together and that type design, in its restraint, should be only felt but not perceived by the reader.”

legibility and beauty

12

s W. Jaspert, The Encyclopaedia of Dorset: Blandford Press, 1983), 69-70.

references Alexander S. Lawson, Anatomy of a Typeface (Boston: D.R. Godine, 1990), 304.

Jennifer Gibson. Revival of the Fittest: Digital Versions of Classic Typefaces (New York: RC Publications), 171.

Ibid, 173.

Linotype Library GmbH, Available at http://www.linotype.com/7-267-7-13347/univers.html Accessed November 1, 2005

This book was designed

by Kyle Newton in

December 2011 in the

Communication Design

Typography Studio at

the Sam Fox School of

Design & Visual Arts at

Washington University in

St. Louis.

This book is set in the

typefaces Univers,

Fruitger, Gill Sans, Futura,

and Helvtica Neue.

bibliographyBlackwell, Lewis. 20th-Century Type. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. (A&A: Z250.A2 B59 1998 and Vault)

Kunz, Willi. Typography: Macro- and Microaesthetics. Sulgen: Verlag Niggli AG, 2000. (A&A: Z246 .K86 2000 and Vault)

Carter, Sebastian. Twentieth Century Type Designers. Great Britain: Lund Humphries,

2002. (A&A: Z250 A2 C364 1995 and Vault)

Revival of the Fittest: Digital Versions of

Classic Typefaces, essays by Carolyn Annand

... [et al.]; edited by Philip B. Meggs and Roy

McKelvey, New York: RC Publications, 2000.

(A&A: Z250.R45 2000)

http://www.linotype.com

http://www.fonts.com

#

univers discovered