Typography: I frequently perceive fonts to be simply too wide. Somehow, for me, there is no limit to how (horizontally) condensed a font can be, but conversely, any font that exceeds a certain degree of wideness immediately looks cheap, unprofessional, (vertically) squashed ... in fact I literally perceive those as having been unproportionally scaled on the X axis from an originally good font.

... Is it just me? (*/▽\*)

The attached still (from a cinema documentary) is what triggered the question for me (again) - I trust whoever designed the titles probably does it professionally (i.e. no unproportional scaling accidents), and the cinematography itself is beautifully executed throughout the movie, but looking at the titles my brain just goes "this is wrong", while I simultaneously feel bad about thinking that way, I mean it's just a wide font, why isn't this ok too, when even extremely condensed fonts are to me as well? ... :D


Titles from the Alien franchise are an interesting case study for this as well, as they permutate through different wideness/condensedness qualities (letter wideness vs. letter spacing, etc.). Interestingly enough, the further a font diverges from a "nondescript standard sans serif" design, the more my brain finds it ok if the letters are really wide (because it is more convinced that professionals were at work? that more manual labor and love went into crafting the glyphs? xD fascninating.)

· · Web · 0 · 0 · 0
Sign in to participate in the conversation

Welcome to post.lurk.org, an instance for discussions around cultural freedom, experimental, new media art, net and computational culture, and things like that.