I saw an interview with Wim Crouwell the other day on helvetica the movie. He mentioned that it was not uncommon in the 1990′s for designers to use elements of his new alphabet, but editing specific characters to make it slightly more legible. This sounded like great fun, so with the help of fontstruct, the very cool font constructing website, I had a go. Its called new legible, you can download it by clicking the link here. I love new alphabet, and wanted a practical version I could use for posters and headers. Its quite different with each character kept as simple as possible, whilst true to its classic form.
Anyway, would love some feedback, so let me know what you think? Am getting some of the posters printed so will put a post up to see if anyone wants one. Alternatively drop me an email on the contact page.
Pingback: [User Link:New legible - a new typeface based on Wim Crouwels new alphabet] | Tips for Designers and Developers | tripwire magazine
Pingback: CSS Brigit | New legible – a new typeface based on Wim Crouwels new alphabet
Pingback: 130+ Need to Check Out Posts for Designers and Developers | tripwire magazine
Well…I thought the “charm” of the orginal New Alphabet were it’s, um, “distinct” letters. Just familiar enough to have most words recognizable in context, but obvious “illegible enough” to make it sppear very exotic, even alien.
Not sure if the original font was indeed based on a 9×5 grid; it appear to me more like it was designed for a grid which is only 3 pixels wide. This would have allowed for two characters in a standard 8×8 “character cell”, as they were common in the late 1970s.
I guess your designs goes to far: it trades in far too much of the original’s charm. Try a compromize!
Hi Klaus,
just a bit of fun and a work in progress. I wanted it to be completely legible, but will look at bringing in some more of the original character. Thanks again.
thanks for the feedback. The slants on the letters mean it has to be 5 units high and then allows for the extra 2 at the top or the bottom to accommodate the high and low parts. The width is always 5. 3 pixels would mean the slant is 1/3 of the width. I agree it is no match for the original
awesome!