I just love typography and the depth to which one can obsess about the nuances of type face, kerning and stroke weight. I’ve always been envious of the clever way that designers incorporate typography into their design.
Due to the small number of cross-platform web friendly fonts we see less typography creativity online than in print, but thanks to creative engineering (SiFR, CSS image replacement etc) we’re starting to see a rise in typography in web design and the internet is a more enjoyable place because of it. A fabulous subject for a blog post…
However, the subject of this post is about anpther typography issue altogather. The struggle to incorporate a new term into the typographer’s lexicon.
The area of a stencil font which (a) adds structural integrity to the letterform, and (b) increases aesthetic value and/or legibility through the inclusion of counters.
Most students of graphic design, even many self directed fans of typography, will be familiar with terms like ascenders, arms, crossbars, counters, spines, shoulders, tails, stems and spurs. Knowing and making reference to the basic anatomy of the various letters is essential to communicate certain ideas or intentions when working with clients and other designers.
With over 20 components in the anatomy of type one would expect that there was sufficient vocabulary reference any typographical element necessary. However the folks over at Fwis felt that there was need for one more phrase to describe/refer to the gap between parts of a stenciled letter.
On ThisIsaPylon.com Fwis goes as far as to call it a “A gross oversight by the standards of any industry, let alone one with as rich and respected a history as typography”
While I’m a lover of fine typography I haven’t suited up to pick a side yet on this arguement. Should the term be added to the designers alread-rich lexicon? Does the term “Pylon” adequetly descrive the element?