Curioſity and experience regarding the Verſion 2 ſtyle.

[Alice196498]

I’ve been rather curious about it ſince the initial change in ſtyle from the more traditional and common deſign to the newer cut-ſerif glyph ſtyling, and I’d like to know whether it be baſed on any hiſtorical or primary ſources from either the original Oxford Univerſity Preſs types, or any of the common Dutch types with which they ſhare lineage.
 I perſonally prefer the earlier deſign, and find it more pleaſing and eaſy to read, and generally feel it’s more uſeful as a hiſtorically-informed or revival typeface in the earlier ſtyle. One thing that drew me to Elſtob originally, other than the great features and good character ſet, is the ſlightly later tranſitional deſign : whereas Junicode tends toward a middle-point between the old-ſtyle of earlier typefaces ſuch as Garamond and the later deſigns of Caſlon, I’ve had the impreſſion that Elſtob is more ſimilar to Caſlon and the common Dutch types of the 18th century, with a tiny bit of an early influence from the ſame early tranſitional types on which Junicode is baſed. This greater ſimilarity to the later tranſitional ſtage is ſomething that I’ve greatly enjoyed with the earlier ſtyle, but I find the new V2 deſign is unfortunately lacking, and with more glyphs changing to this ſtyle, particularly noticeable in the mark of interrogation and mark of admiration in the newer releaſe, it’s enough of a departure from the familiar ſtyle to be diſtracting when reading. The earlier iterations were alſo, in my experience, diſtracting in their departure from the common ſtyle, and were particularly wont to draw attention to the type in a way that was injurious to the reading experience, eſpecially when ſet at larger ſizes, but the neweſt iteration makes it all the more apparent.
 I feel that the earlier V1 deſign gave a good contraſt between the later 17th and 18th century ſtyle of Elſtob with the 17th century deſign of Junicode, but with the new V2 ſtyle, there is much leſs of a repreſentation of this later tranſitional period, and it is become a bit of a peculiar and difficult to place typeface, and it ſeems to me to be a great departure from its original deſign and utility as a repreſentative of that period of type. I do think that the V2 ſtyle iſn’t *bad—*it’s rather modern and legible, and perhaps that is the goal with this typeface. But I muſt ſay that I find it a bit unfortunate to loſe the repreſentative power afforded by the V1 ſtyle, which is, in my opinion, more warm and readable ; and as ſomeone who uſes this typeface extenſively in her reading of books, on Web pages, and UI, the V2 ſtyle being ſuch a departure from the familiarity and ſimilarity to the 17th and 18th century typefaces which were repreſented more clearly in the V1 deſign leaves me feeling a little melancholick.

[psb1558]

I'm sorry that you don't like the later style of Elstob. From your earlier contributions here, I can understand why: you like early typography, and you like a font that reproduces the experience of reading early books. Though version 1 already took great liberties with its model (the "Fell" double pica used by the Oxford Press in the 16th and 17th centuries), it was much closer to that model than version 2.

But my purpose has never been to create a historical revival with Elstob—or Junicode, for that matter. Instead, I took the Fell types as convenient starting points for fonts that, I hoped, would have pretty broad appeal. With both, I (for the most part) stopped consulting the models as soon as the basic designs were established and took the designs where they seemed to want to go. With Elstob, I had something more modern in mind from the beginning, and in fact I started with the double pica because it already had features that seemed to gesture towards a more modern, incised look. I could talk endlessly about individul design choices, but will settle for saying that I knew that some might not like the design changes that mark the transition from v1 to v2 of Elstob, but they seemed to me to answer something already in the font.

The happy news, of course, is that version 1 will always be available, and Elstob is, and always will be, Open Source. You can stick with version 1, and if you like, import features from version 2 or develop it in your own direction.

[Alice196498]

I didn’t mean to give the impreſſion that I diſlike the verſion 2 ſtyle—I don’t. I like it very much. You are right, however, in your noting that I prefer and moſt enjoy a typeface that reproduces the experience of reading early books. But deſpite that, Elſtob is ſtill one of my favourite typefaces, and is generally one I’d turn to firſt in recommending for general uſe.

Both Elſtob V1 and Junicode are both rather different from thoſe Fell types, but ſo is Caſlon. They’re all taking cues from them, and making changes, improvements, or differentiating where the type deſigner feels it beſt for that particular typeface, its needs, and the goals of the deſigner, which thus inform the end uſer and the choice of uſing that typeface or not for a particular project.

I very much appreciate the work you do with typefaces, and I’m happy that I’ve been able to help, and ſhall continue to help where I can, in ſuggeſting or aſſiſting in details of implementation regarding certain features or elements of the typeſyſtem. I’d love to hear more about the individual deſign choices, what guides them, the goals you have, and the general outlook in the paſt, how that’s changed moving into the preſent, and whither you deſire or expect to take things moving forward. You’re right that the change in terminals do follow from v1 to v2—I noticed ſimilar qualities in both : v1 had rounded terminals, but they were ſomewhat compreſſed ; whereas, in v2, they are entirely cut flat, which is ſomething that one could conſider to be a natural movement from the more elongated yet round terminals of the traditional Fell types, to the ſomewhat compreſſed terminals of v1, and now the totally flat terminals of v2, which may be thought of as a perfect and complete compreſſion of the form. I don’t diſlike it, but it does give the typeface a ſomewhat clipped air. This can be good, depending on the environment and needs of the project, but perhaps is a little more digital in nature, departing from the more rounded tendencies of analogue print. I find theſe kinds of details and diſcuſſions to be faſcinating, and alſo important. The better I underſtand theſe details, the better feedback and help I can give. Speaking of diſcuſſions, I wonder whether a diſcuſſions tab, ſimilar to the one in Junicode’s page, would be of any uſe here. This particular diſcuſſion iſn’t quite fitting for an iſſue, which is one reaſon I was apprehensive about poſting it, but I could alſo ſee ſuch a page cauſing clutter. There’s a rather blurry line between a diſcuſſion ſuch as this, and diſcuſſion of potential features or bugs, after all.

Open Source is always happy news. That’s another thing I appreciate about your projects and ſenſibilities.