Title Contemporary processes of text typeface design Type The sis URL https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/13455/ Dat e 2 0 1 8 Citation Harkins, Michael (2018) Contemporary processes of text typeface design. PhD thesis, University of the Arts London. Cr e a to rs Harkins, Michael Usage Guidelines Please refer to usage guidelines at http://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/policies.html or alternatively contact [email protected] . License: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives Unless otherwise stated, copyright owned by the author Contemporary processes of text typeface design Michael Harkins Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Central Saint Martins University of the Arts London April 2018 This thesis is dedicated to the memory of my brother, Lee Anthony Harkins 22.01.17† and my father, Michael Harkins 11.04.17† Abstract Abstract Text typeface design can often be a lengthy and solitary endeavour on the part of the designer. An endeavour for which, there is little in terms of guidance to draw upon regarding the design processes involved. This is not only a contemporary problem but also an historical one. Examination of extant accounts that reference text typeface design aided the orientation of this research (Literature Review 2.0). This identified the lack of documented knowledge specific to the design processes involved. Identifying expert and non-expert/emic and etic (Pike 1967) perspectives within the existing literature helped account for such paucity. In relation to this, the main research question developed is: Can knowledge of text typeface design process be revealed, and if so can this be explicated theoretically? A qualitative, Grounded Theory Methodology (Glaser & Strauss 1967) was adopted (Methodology 3.0), appropriate where often a ‘topic of interest has been relatively ignored in the literature’ (Goulding 2002, p.55). This research is specifically concerned with knowledge of design process relating to world-leading experts in the field. Data was derived via recorded in-depth interviews, these were transcribed, analysed and coded in accordance with Grounded Theory’s constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss 1967, p.105). From the analysis, raised concepts and themes resolved in the generation of three unique Grounded Theory core categories, these have been named: Trajectorizing, Homologizing and Attenuating (chapters 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3). The core categories describe how experts negotiate the initiation of design, relational qualities with respect to design and continual accretive refinement of design. The core categories combine to resolve together (chapters 5.0 and 6.0) as workable, conceptual theory that describes and explains text typeface design process generally. The developed theory this research contributes, is anticipated suitable to be applied as analytical and/or prescriptive tools for future study, research and pedagogy in the specific subject area. Beyond this, disciplines such as graphic design, typography, information design etc. may also benefit from this research. IV Acknowledgements Acknowledgements Firstly I have to thank my supervisors Professor Phil Baines, Professor Janet McDonnell and Doctor Catherine Dixon who have offered valuable advice throughout this part-time research project. They have also been hugely supportive, patient and tolerant at all times. I must also thank Andrew Haslam who encouraged and guided me towards applying to study for a research degree based on early conversations we shared regarding knowledge of typeface design. I would also like to thank staff at the University of Portsmouth for their support and encouragement throughout this study. In particular Michèle– Anne Dauppe, Sarah Houghton, Estelle Taylor, Dan McCabe, Andrew Denham, Doctor Michael Wamposzyc, Sandra Zellmer, Doctor Marius Kwint, Doctor Simone Gumtau, Doctor Jenny Walden, Professor Catherine Harper, Tom Clulee, Professor Trevor Keeble and Sarah Turner. Thanks also go to Monotype for access to their archives and to the St. Bride Library for access to books and sources not readily available elsewhere. Huge thanks go to the participants of this research. They are: Matthew Carter, Gerry Leonidas, Martin Majoor, Robin Nicholas, Jean François Porchez, Christian Schwartz, Erik Spiekermann, Jeremy Tankard and Gerard Unger who generously offered their time and knowledge of the subject of text typeface design. It is their participation and assistance that allows this research to exist. I have to acknowledge a great debt to my wife Lynne and daughter Georgie for the years of support they have given and the lost family time they have endured along the journey with me in completing this research. Finally, thank you to my mother Diana and brother John for your continued support through such difficult recent times. VI Contents 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Introduction 3 1.1.1 Motivation for the research 5 1.1.2 Research questions and aims 6 1.2 Contextual and historical framing for the research 7 1.3 Methodology 10 1.3.1 Participants and data 11 1.4 Terminology 12 1.5 Thesis chapters 12 2.0 Literature Review 2.1 Introduction 18 2.2 A lack of specific documented knowledge in relation to the processes of text typeface design 19 2.2.1 Examples of restriction of type-founding as a practice and the secrecy of punch-cutting as possible contributors to a state of paucity in epistemological articulation 20 2.2.2 Extant texts in relation to typeface design process 21 2.2.3 Etic and emic accounts in relation to type design processes 22 2.2.4 Etic ‘non-expert’ accounts of process and type design 25 2.2.5 Emic ‘expert’ accounting of process in punch-cutting and type founding 28 2.2.6 Elucidated understanding, decision-making and described method in relation to type design process 30 2.3 Describing design knowledge 33 2.4 Further considerations of etic and emic accounts 37 2.5 Summary – Epistemological and ontological proximity 38 3.0 Methodology 3.1 Introduction 42 3.1.1 Research design overview 43 3.1.2 The considerations of this chapter 45 3.2 General considerations in relation to the research 46 3.2.1 Basic research 46 3.2.2 Qualitative research 47 3.2.3 Emergent research 47 3.2.4 Interpretive – Abductive research 48 VIII 3.3 Specific considerations in relation to the research methodology 49 3.3.1 Rationale for a Grounded Theory approach 49 3.3.2 Naturalistic inquiry 50 3.3.3 Ethnomethodology 51 3.3.4 Phenomenology/Phenomenography 52 3.3.5 Hermeneutics 52 3.3.6 Emic/Etic perspectives and considerations 54 3.3.7 Investigator’s background and experience 54 3.3.8 Methodological ‘fit’ in terms of Grounded Theory Methodology 55 3.3.9 Grounded Theory perspectives 55 3.4 Data collection 56 3.4.1 Sampling 56 3.4.2 Sample 58 3.4.3 Ethical approval 58 3.4.4 Interview schedule/guide 59 3.4.5 Interviews 60 3.4.6 Recording data 61 3.5 Processing data 62 3.5.1 Transcription 62 3.5.2 Hardware and software used in processing data 63 3.6 Analysis of data 63 3.6.1 Coding 64 3.6.2 Constant comparison 67 3.7 Development of theory from data analysis 67 3.7.1 Memoing 67 3.7.2 Empathic Memoing 68 3.7.3 Emerging and developing theory 71 3.8 Summary 72 4.0 Processes of text typeface design: Introduction 4.0.1 Introduction 76 4.0.2 Presentation of the Grounded Theory 76 4.0.3 Definitions of developed core categories and sub-categories 78 4.0.4 Core categories and their interrelationship 79 4.0.5 Summary 80 4.1 Trajectorizing 4.1.1 Introduction 83 4.1.2 Trajectorizing 85 IX 4.1.3 Contextualizing 86 4.1.3.1 Contextualizing Initial influences – broad to focusing 87 4.1.3.2 Contextualizing specifically through language 91 4.1.3.3 Contextualizing via specific influences and precedents 92 4.1.3.4 Referencing own prior work as precedent 95 4.1.4 Precedent Constructing and Constructed Precedents 97 4.1.4.1 Precedent Constructing from own prior work 98 4.1.4.2 Precedent Constructing from other prior work 102 4.1.4.3 Control Characters and Constructed Precedents 108 4.1.5 Summary – Trajectorizing 111 4.2 Homologizing 4.2.1 Introduction 115 4.2.2 Homologizing 117 4.2.2.1 Endogenous Generation and Endogenous Generator 117 4.2.2.2 Homologizing – procedural development and mutability 119 4.2.2.3 Homologizing beyond obvious relational form 124 4.2.2.4 Homologizing – facilitating self-informing design 126 4.2.2.5 Homologous Mapping and Homologous Drift 128 4.2.2.6 Homologizing – Extrapolation and Interpolation 130 4.2.2.6.1 Synthetic Displacement and Synthetic Acquiescence 133 4.2.3 Homologizing Summary 137 4.3 Attenuating 4.3.1 Introduction 143 4.3.2 Attenuation 145 4.3.2.1 Accretive Amelioration 145 4.3.2.2 Attenuation of incongruity through testing 146 4.3.2.3 Attenuation via comparison 147 4.3.2.4 Attenuation via developed corrective judgment 149 4.3.2.5 Attenuation and Improvement 151 4.3.3 Historical Immersion 153 4.3.3.1 Innate referencing to historical context 153 4.3.3.2 Direct referencing to historical context 155 4.3.3.3 A broad view of convention in relation to historical context 156 4.3.3.4 Specifics of convention in relation to historical context 159 4.3.3.5 Historical Immersion summary 160 X 4.3.4 Envisioning 161 4.3.4.1 Experience and Envisioning 161 4.3.4.2 Envisioning a personal approach 163 4.3.4.3 Envisioning and originality 165 4.3.4.4 Autonomy and overseeing in design 166 4.3.4.5 Envisioning context and usage 168 4.3.4.6 Reflection, Envisioning and Attenuating 170 4.3.4.7 Envisioning summary 172 4.3.5 Summary 172 5.0 Discussion 5.1 Introduction 176 5.2 Interaction of the core categories