Hrant H Papazian wrote:
> Don't know about you, but I have a similar problem with
> most contrasty sans faces, and I think it has to do with
> "modeling": the strong urge to make the strokes (especially
> the thin ones) vary in thickness, like making them thicker
> towards the ends.
> Although this modeling is sometimes a sign of technical
> sophistication (since it compensates for optical illusions),
> it's usually taken too far, and especially at larger sizes
> makes the design very feminine compared to contrasty sans
> fonts with totally straight strokes, which is fine except
> that a planet with no males is pretty boring.
I find the idea of categorizing typefaces as masculine or feminine
interesting. I don't remember actually thinking of them in that way.
I have always been interested in the different ways of distinguishing
between typefaces and also in the various ways of selecting ypefaces
that go well together.
I'm starting to wonder if two typefaces, one being feminine and one
being masculine would look best together?
Anyway, thanks for the insight!