|
New Johnston typeface changes
I'm a bit late with this as I believe the changes were introduced by TfL
last October, but I don't think anyone else has mentioned it on utl, so for anyone interested in LU/TfL typography . . . TfL have made at least two changes to the New Johnston typeface that is their corporate standard. The figure "1" has lost the sloping stroke at the top. (Some might call it a serif, but it's really part of the basic shape of a printed "1" in nearly all sanserif typefaces.) They have reverted to a single vertical stroke, with a sloping top edge to it, very similar to the original Johnston shape. The figure "4" has also changed, with the top and left hand points of the triangle becoming sharp points instead of being cut off in the previous design. Again this takes the "4" back towards the original Johnston design which also had sharp points, though the horizontal bar doesn't project as far to the right in New New Johnston as it did in old Johnston. I am amazed that these changes have been made to an established typeface which has so much exposure to the general public. Presumably the new designs will only appear on new signs and publications, so for the forseeable future the superseded designs will still be on show all over the network. I'm also surprised that the design standards documents on the TfL website don't make any reference to the changes. Can anyone throw any light on why these changes were made? Samples of the revised fonts are in the various design standards documents on the TfL site, for example, the Line Diagram Standard at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/...rd-issue03.pdf This shows the new New Johnston Medium font on page 4. The old "1" and "4" can still be seen on page 18, where the example of the Heathrow Piccadilly Line layout has not been revised. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
New Johnston typeface changes
"Richard J." wrote in
m: I am amazed that these changes have been made to an established typeface which has so much exposure to the general public. Presumably the new designs will only appear on new signs and publications, so for the forseeable future the superseded designs will still be on show all over the network. I'm also surprised that the design standards documents on the TfL website don't make any reference to the changes. Can anyone throw any light on why these changes were made? Good question. I noticed a while ago (probably over a year ago now) that the Old Johnstone-style "1" was used on bus destination blinds - I spotted it on the 111. |
New Johnston typeface changes
Richard J. wrote on Sat, 2 May 2009:
I am amazed that these changes have been made to an established typeface which has so much exposure to the general public. Presumably the new designs will only appear on new signs and publications, so for the forseeable future the superseded designs will still be on show all over the network. I know little of these things, but it looks to me as if they may, for reasons unknown, have switched to 'ITC Johnston': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnston_(typeface). http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/itc/joh...m/charmap.html -- lemming |
New Johnston typeface changes
Long after the new "1" in New Johnston had become widespread in bus
blinds and elsewhere, route "11" Routemaster blinds retained the original figure "1", i.e. without the serif, which was most noticeable when the buses were route-branded with "11" in New Johnston on each side of the blind box, but the blind itself continued to contain the old lettering. I always thought that the serif on the "1" in New Johnston was an aberration on what is meant to be a sans serif font, and am delighted to see the return of the old elegant "1", and the more logical and attractive "4" as well. Marc. |
New Johnston typeface changes
On May 2, 12:42�pm, Lemuel wrote:
Richard J. wrote on Sat, 2 May 2009: I am amazed that these changes have been made to an established typeface which has so much exposure to the general public. �Presumably the new designs will only appear on new signs and publications, so for the forseeable future the superseded designs will still be on show all over the network. I know little of these things, but it looks to me as if they may, for reasons unknown, have switched to 'ITC Johnston':http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnsto...m/charmap.html -- lemming Lemming, I'm not sure that you are right, since the L.T. document referred to above has, for example, full-stops etc. as diamond-shaped rather than squares as shown on the ITC Johnston page you quote. Marc. |
New Johnston typeface changes
I've just visited the Bus sign section of the T.F.L. website and,
interestingly, the old form of "1", i.e with the serif, is retained there! Marc. |
New Johnston typeface changes
|
New Johnston typeface changes
|
New Johnston typeface changes
On Sat, 2 May 2009, Richard J. wrote:
wrote on 02 May 2009 13:27:51 ... I always thought that the serif on the "1" in New Johnston was an aberration on what is meant to be a sans serif font, and am delighted to see the return of the old elegant "1", and the more logical and attractive "4" as well. As I said in my original post, I don't regard it as merely a serif. It nearly always slopes down to the left, reflecting the way in which the figure 1 is written by millions of people. I'm with Richard on this one: i don't consider that little downtick a serif any more than the crossbar on the t is. Furthermore, i like the tick - i think the tickless 1 lacks clarity and gravitas. I thought i'd have a look to see if there was an official term for the tick on the 1, but couldn't find anything in my one book on typography and a bit of googling. But i did find this fascinating post about typesetting a huge prime number: http://www.typography.com/ask/showBlog.php?blogID=183 And this article about, well, it's in the title: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_tele...misconceptions tom -- If you're going to print crazy, ridiculous things, you might as well make them extra crazy. -- Mark Rein |
New Johnston typeface changes
Tom Anderson wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_tele...misconceptions "However, according to research by regulator Ofcom in February 2005, only 13% of respondents identified the code for London correctly without prompting: 59% incorrectly identified it as 0207 or 0208." What annoys me is when you give office staff your phone number correctly and they then read it back to you as "0208... ". I think Ofcom should run an ad campaign "If you say 0207 or 0208 in a phone number, you are an idiot." What have they got to lose? Ofcom is a monopoly. It can offend people without losing anything. |
New Johnston typeface changes
John Rowland wrote on 04 May
2009 01:46:20 ... Tom Anderson wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_tele...misconceptions "However, according to research by regulator Ofcom in February 2005, only 13% of respondents identified the code for London correctly without prompting: 59% incorrectly identified it as 0207 or 0208." What annoys me is when you give office staff your phone number correctly and they then read it back to you as "0208... ". I think Ofcom should run an ad campaign "If you say 0207 or 0208 in a phone number, you are an idiot." What have they got to lose? Ofcom is a monopoly. It can offend people without losing anything. Is this discussion meant to have some relevance to New Johnston? -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
New Johnston typeface changes
On Mon, 4 May 2009, Richard J. wrote:
John Rowland wrote on 04 May 2009 01:46:20 ... Tom Anderson wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_tele...misconceptions "However, according to research by regulator Ofcom in February 2005, only 13% of respondents identified the code for London correctly without prompting: 59% incorrectly identified it as 0207 or 0208." What annoys me is when you give office staff your phone number correctly and they then read it back to you as "0208... ". I think Ofcom should run an ad campaign "If you say 0207 or 0208 in a phone number, you are an idiot." What have they got to lose? Ofcom is a monopoly. It can offend people without losing anything. Although its bosses might lose their jobs. My business card says 0207 on it. My boss actually gave me the design to check before sending it for printing, and i mumbled something about the area code being wrong, but he'd done everyone else's that way, and i didn't want to actually tell him he'd got it wrong. So now my name is on it millimetres away from a duff number. So it goes. Perhaps the solution is to require everyone to always dial area codes all the time, as you do for mobiles, such that the issue of where the area code ends becomes moot. Is this discussion meant to have some relevance to New Johnston? No, i don't think so. tom -- And dear lord, its like peaches in a lacy napkin. -- James Dearden |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk