Advanced Typography: Task 3 Type Exploration & Application
Advanced Typography: Task 3 Type Exploration & Application
|| Yang Shumeng 0378848
|| Advanced Typography
|| Task 3 Type Exploration & Application
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Instructions
2. Process Work
- Task 3 Final Outcome
3. Feedback
4. Reflections
5. Further Reading
1.Instructions
2.Process Work
This task requires the creation of a complete typeface family. Students are expected to choose one of the following three main directions:
1. Problem-Driven Typeface Design
Design a typeface that addresses a broader problem or functions as part of a solution within a specific area of interest. This may relate to graphic design, animation, new media, entertainment design, or other relevant fields, and does not need to align directly with the student’s specialisation.
Final outcome: A fully generated typeface file (.ttf) accompanied by demonstrated applications.
2. Exploration and Enhancement of Existing Letterforms
Investigate an existing letterform within an area of interest by analysing its current structure, relationships, and usage. Identify potential areas for improvement and develop design solutions or combinations that add value to the original letterform or lettering style.
Final outcome: A fully generated typeface file (.ttf) accompanied by demonstrated applications.
3. Experimental Typography
Pursue an experimental approach where the concept must be original and innovative. This may involve three-dimensional materials, digital augmentation, edible or unconventional media, typographic music videos, or fine-art-based practices.
Final outcome: Defined by the student.
During class, I received feedback from Mr. Vinod, who expressed dissatisfaction with my initial design proposal. He explained that in order to modify or improve a typeface effectively, it is essential to first gain a thorough understanding of the chosen font, including its origin and the context in which it is used.
He also emphasised that a typeface should not be described as “bad,” but rather evaluated in terms of whether it is appropriate or inappropriate for a specific context.
Based on this feedback, I reconsidered my approach and decided to change direction by designing an entirely new typeface.
Reference：
 |
| Figure 3.5 Font Reference, Week 9 (November 19, 2025) |
 |
| Figure 3.6 Font Reference, Week 9 (November 19, 2025) |
 | |
|
First attempt：
| Figure 3.8 First design attempt, Week 10 (November 25, 2025) |
During the class critique, Mr. Vinod emphasized the importance of maintaining consistent stroke widths across all vertical and horizontal elements.
In response to this feedback, I refined the typeface and developed a complete set of both uppercase and lowercase characters.
| Figure 3.9 Font design process, Week 11 (December 2, 2025) |
After a series of further adjustments and refinements, the final design was resolved.
Font digitization：
| Figure 3.10 Font digitization, Week 11 (December 6, 2025) |
 |
| Figure 3.11 Font digitization, Week 11 (December 6, 2025) |
After I finished designing the letters, numbers, and symbols in Illustrator, I started importing them into FontLab.
 |
| Figure 3.12 FontLab screenshot, Week 12 (December 9, 2025) |
 |
| Figure 3.13 FontLab screenshot, Week 12 (December 9, 2025) |
 |
| Figure 3.14 FontLab screenshot, Week 12 (December 9, 2025) |
Font Presentation：
After importing the font into FontLab, I began creating font demos.
At this stage, we needed to create five font demos and five font application examples.
 |
Figure 3.15 Font demonstration process, Week 12 (December 10, 2025) |
Finalised Font Presentation Work
| ||||||||||||
Font Application For font applications, I chose products such as T-shirts, hang tags , Apple Watches, notebook, and bag. 
|
|
 | |
|
 | |
|
|
 | |
|
Task 3 Final Outcome
Figure 3.26 Unicase PDF, Week 12 (December 10, 2025)
Figure 3.27 FontLab Screengrab, Week 12 (December 10, 2025)
Figure 3.28 Font Presentation 1, Week 12 (December 10, 2025)
Figure 3.29 Font Presentation 2, Week 12 (December 10, 2025)
Figure 3.30 Font Presentation 3, Week 12 (December 10, 2025)
Figure 3.32 Font Presentation 4, Week 12 (December 10, 2025)
Figure 3.33 Font Presentation 5, Week 12 (December 10, 2025)
Figure 3.34 Font Application 1, Week 12 (December 10, 2025)
Figure 3.35 Font Application 2, Week 12 (December 10, 2025)
Figure 3.37 Font Application 4, Week 12 (December 10, 2025)
Figure 3.38 Font Application 5, Week 12 (December 10, 2025)
Figure 3.39 Font Presentation and Font Application - PDF, Week 12 (December 10, 2025)
|
| Figure 3.27 FontLab Screengrab, Week 12 (December 10, 2025) |
|
| Figure 3.28 Font Presentation 1, Week 12 (December 10, 2025) |
 |
| Figure 3.29 Font Presentation 2, Week 12 (December 10, 2025) |
 |
| Figure 3.30 Font Presentation 3, Week 12 (December 10, 2025) |
 |
| Figure 3.32 Font Presentation 4, Week 12 (December 10, 2025) |
 |
| Figure 3.33 Font Presentation 5, Week 12 (December 10, 2025) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
3.Feedback
Week 12
Overall Feedback: This week, Mr. Vinod reviewed and provided online feedback on the font in FontLab. He explained that a font demo and product application were required to be completed this week.
Specific Feedback: Several punctuation marks need further adjustment to ensure consistency in size and visual style. Once these refinements are completed, the font demo and product application can proceed. In addition, the blog post for Task 3 must be completed before the deadline.
Week 11
Overall Feedback: This week, Mr. Vinod continued to provide suggestions for improving the font. He explained that the main task was to refine the font in Adobe Illustrator and import it into FontLab, with particular attention to spacing and kerning during the import process.
Specific Feedback: The size of lowercase letters needed to be adjusted to achieve a balanced proportion in relation to uppercase letters. At the same time, the overall stroke weight and spacing had to remain consistent. After making these adjustments, I received approval to import the font into FontLab.
Week 10
Overall Feedback: This week, Mr. Vinod provided feedback on the Task 3 uppercase font and emphasised that original font creation is required. Existing fonts cannot be copied or directly modified and may only be used as references.
Specific Feedback: During class, Mr. Vinod explained that letterforms should be constructed in a modular way—for example, the letter W can be formed from two V shapes. My initial design approach treated each letter individually, which resulted in inconsistent stroke logic across the typeface. As a result, I redesigned the font. Throughout this process, Mr. Vinod offered continuous feedback and improvement suggestions.
Week 9
Overall Feedback: This week, Mr. Vinod provided initial feedback on Task 3. I presented my design proposals to him using slides, and he also outlined the tasks for the following week.
Specific Feedback: Initially, I presented three proposals, all of which focused on optimising existing typefaces that I felt were unsuccessful. After receiving feedback, I decided to abandon modifying existing fonts and instead design a completely new typeface. I subsequently revised and adjusted the design direction and typographic elements accordingly.
Week 12
Overall Feedback: This week, Mr. Vinod reviewed and provided online feedback on the font in FontLab. He explained that a font demo and product application were required to be completed this week.
Specific Feedback: Several punctuation marks need further adjustment to ensure consistency in size and visual style. Once these refinements are completed, the font demo and product application can proceed. In addition, the blog post for Task 3 must be completed before the deadline.
Week 11
Overall Feedback: This week, Mr. Vinod continued to provide suggestions for improving the font. He explained that the main task was to refine the font in Adobe Illustrator and import it into FontLab, with particular attention to spacing and kerning during the import process.
Specific Feedback: The size of lowercase letters needed to be adjusted to achieve a balanced proportion in relation to uppercase letters. At the same time, the overall stroke weight and spacing had to remain consistent. After making these adjustments, I received approval to import the font into FontLab.
Week 10
Overall Feedback: This week, Mr. Vinod provided feedback on the Task 3 uppercase font and emphasised that original font creation is required. Existing fonts cannot be copied or directly modified and may only be used as references.
Specific Feedback: During class, Mr. Vinod explained that letterforms should be constructed in a modular way—for example, the letter W can be formed from two V shapes. My initial design approach treated each letter individually, which resulted in inconsistent stroke logic across the typeface. As a result, I redesigned the font. Throughout this process, Mr. Vinod offered continuous feedback and improvement suggestions.
Week 9
Overall Feedback: This week, Mr. Vinod provided initial feedback on Task 3. I presented my design proposals to him using slides, and he also outlined the tasks for the following week.
Specific Feedback: Initially, I presented three proposals, all of which focused on optimising existing typefaces that I felt were unsuccessful. After receiving feedback, I decided to abandon modifying existing fonts and instead design a completely new typeface. I subsequently revised and adjusted the design direction and typographic elements accordingly.
4.Reflections
Experience:
This project offered in-depth hands-on experience in typeface design, covering the entire process from initial concept development to final production. At the beginning, I struggled with how to achieve innovation in typography, particularly when analysing and reinterpreting existing letterforms. Through ongoing visual research, I gradually formed a clearer design direction and conceptual framework. Although I encountered technical challenges—especially when working with font design software—the workflow became increasingly efficient with practice. Repeated use of FontLab strengthened my understanding of digital font construction and increased my confidence in refining and shaping glyphs. Overall, the process was demanding but highly rewarding.
Observation:
During the research and design stages, I observed that effective typography depends not only on consistency but also on controlled flexibility. Small design decisions can significantly influence the tone, personality, and readability of a typeface. I learned that maintaining a cohesive visual language while selectively adjusting letterforms, spacing, and alignment can greatly enhance both clarity and aesthetic quality. Instructor feedback played a vital role in this process, guiding me to recognise when breaking from convention could improve balance and legibility.
Findings:
This project deepened my understanding of the importance of precision, experimentation, and iterative refinement in typographic design. I discovered that subtle, well-considered variations do not undermine consistency; instead, they contribute character and functionality to a typeface. The task also demonstrated how a simple visual concept can evolve into a distinctive typographic identity through careful execution. Ultimately, this experience helped develop a more flexible design mindset and prepared me for more advanced typographic exploration in future projects.
Experience:
This project offered in-depth hands-on experience in typeface design, covering the entire process from initial concept development to final production. At the beginning, I struggled with how to achieve innovation in typography, particularly when analysing and reinterpreting existing letterforms. Through ongoing visual research, I gradually formed a clearer design direction and conceptual framework. Although I encountered technical challenges—especially when working with font design software—the workflow became increasingly efficient with practice. Repeated use of FontLab strengthened my understanding of digital font construction and increased my confidence in refining and shaping glyphs. Overall, the process was demanding but highly rewarding.
Observation:
During the research and design stages, I observed that effective typography depends not only on consistency but also on controlled flexibility. Small design decisions can significantly influence the tone, personality, and readability of a typeface. I learned that maintaining a cohesive visual language while selectively adjusting letterforms, spacing, and alignment can greatly enhance both clarity and aesthetic quality. Instructor feedback played a vital role in this process, guiding me to recognise when breaking from convention could improve balance and legibility.
Findings:
This project deepened my understanding of the importance of precision, experimentation, and iterative refinement in typographic design. I discovered that subtle, well-considered variations do not undermine consistency; instead, they contribute character and functionality to a typeface. The task also demonstrated how a simple visual concept can evolve into a distinctive typographic identity through careful execution. Ultimately, this experience helped develop a more flexible design mindset and prepared me for more advanced typographic exploration in future projects.
5.Further Reading
FURTHER READINGS
Typography Reflection: Typography Basics by David Creamer
Among the wide range of typography resources available, I selected Typography Basics by David Creamer as a key reference for this project.
The book strongly highlights readability as the fundamental principle of typographic design. Creamer emphasises that regardless of how visually appealing a typeface may be, a design ultimately fails if it obstructs the clear communication of information. Building on this core idea, the author expands beyond the commonly recognised serif and sans-serif categories, offering a more structured and comprehensive system for understanding type.
One of the most valuable insights from the book is its clear explanation of major type categories, including Serif, Sans Serif, Display, Script, Text, Monospaced, and Dingbats. Each category serves a distinct purpose: serif typefaces support traditional readability; sans-serif fonts convey a modern tone but require careful application; display and script fonts are highly decorative and best suited for limited use, such as headlines or invitations. Monospaced fonts reflect the aesthetics of typewriters and coding environments, while dingbats function as symbolic or ornamental elements within a layout.
This reading helped me realise that effective typography is not only about visual style, but also about understanding how typefaces function and communicate in different contexts. Creamer’s systematic classification encouraged me to reflect critically on the font choices in my previous designs and provided a clearer framework for making more intentional and informed typographic decisions in future work. A particularly impactful statement from the book was:
“If the typography makes the information on the page harder to read, it does not matter how ‘pretty’ a page layout is or how ‘unique’ a font selection is; the page has failed in its main duty—to transfer information to the reader in an efficient manner.”
FURTHER READINGS
Typography Reflection: Typography Basics by David Creamer
Among the wide range of typography resources available, I selected Typography Basics by David Creamer as a key reference for this project.
The book strongly highlights readability as the fundamental principle of typographic design. Creamer emphasises that regardless of how visually appealing a typeface may be, a design ultimately fails if it obstructs the clear communication of information. Building on this core idea, the author expands beyond the commonly recognised serif and sans-serif categories, offering a more structured and comprehensive system for understanding type.
One of the most valuable insights from the book is its clear explanation of major type categories, including Serif, Sans Serif, Display, Script, Text, Monospaced, and Dingbats. Each category serves a distinct purpose: serif typefaces support traditional readability; sans-serif fonts convey a modern tone but require careful application; display and script fonts are highly decorative and best suited for limited use, such as headlines or invitations. Monospaced fonts reflect the aesthetics of typewriters and coding environments, while dingbats function as symbolic or ornamental elements within a layout.
This reading helped me realise that effective typography is not only about visual style, but also about understanding how typefaces function and communicate in different contexts. Creamer’s systematic classification encouraged me to reflect critically on the font choices in my previous designs and provided a clearer framework for making more intentional and informed typographic decisions in future work. A particularly impactful statement from the book was:
“If the typography makes the information on the page harder to read, it does not matter how ‘pretty’ a page layout is or how ‘unique’ a font selection is; the page has failed in its main duty—to transfer information to the reader in an efficient manner.”
Figure: Example from Typography Basics (Page 1)
Figure: Example from Typography Basics (Page 2)
Figure: Example from Typography Basics (Page 3)
评论
发表评论