Serif + Sans Serif Classification

typeface_classification

Interesting poster by Martin Plonka that classifies typefaces by seven major groups: Slab Serif, Serif Old Style, Serif Transitional, Serif Modern, Sans Humanist, Sans (Neo)Grotesque and Sans Geometric.        

20 Comments on "Serif + Sans Serif Classification"

  • Beautiful. Where can I get one?

  • Fantastic poster. Is it possible to buy it?

  • Bardhi says
  • the proportions of this graph match my A_B_ peace & terror graph exactly:

    http://theluxuryofprotest.com/A_B_peaceandterror.html

    should I be flattered or pissed?

  • Robert says

    I think yours is much nicer Peter!

    Just my two penneths worth.

  • Fred says

    Sorry Peter but, as nice is your poster, you didn’t invent the circle graph.
    You shouldn’t then be flattered nor pissed.

  • no, I did not invent the circle graph and that’s not what I was referring to. the relative sizes of the centre white dot to the black filled circle to the length of the radiating lines match my A_B_ poster to the exact mm.

    not sure why someone would want to even bother using a graph as an exact template for data that’s not even related.

  • Peter, I’ve seen many people rip off your circle graphs. It’s the nature of the beast. I am surprised to learn that the proportions are exact down the the mm.

  • I’m more amused than anything – what a odd thing to do.

  • Prin says

    Awesome. How can I get a printable file size?

  • beautiful work. I love the minimalism. There is something quite interesting about the categories of type he has come up with.

  • on a side note: To Peter

    It’s great that you value your own work (to the extent that you feel other similar work might be a direct copy of it). But it’s also a form of self-flattery to believe that in every case where your work bears similarity to another designer’s, your suspicions are founded.

    I guess it is a case of whether you appreciate the flattery that comes from others imitating you, more than you appreciate the flattery that comes via an individual thinking their own work is so good that other designers would be bold enough to replicate it and represent it as original.

    in any case, both your work and the poster displayed here are enjoyable to observe.

  • this isn’t a case of self-flattery – my ego isn’t so fragile that I need to elevate it whenever the opportunity arrises. and to suggest otherwise, is frankly insulting.

    as I have already stated, a designer who takes someone else’s work and traces fundamental elements down to the mm should expect to be called out. influence and inspiration are to be expected, but this?

  • I wholeheartedly agree Peter, and not a grain of insult was intended by my words.

    Cheers.

  • Giles says

    Someone give peter a medal and dry his eyes; it’s painful hearing him whining in the background.

  • Giles I think your snide response towards Peter would be far more apt and at home on youtube. It seems some people, who for the most part lack solemnity, chose to validate themselves there by making loose statements like your own. It was Bardhi who initially drew the comparison between the two so I fail to see why you have directed your attack at Peter.

    As Peter has said work being derivative is one thing but a re-skinning of an existing design/ structure is, in my opinion, reprehensible and is of little creative worth. It is expected we look at existing solutions when approaching a brief but the challenge lies in extracting the nucleus of the solution and not the visual form itself. It is true Peter has not invented the circular graph but there is more than one way to skin a cat and this circular system that Peter has ‘made popular’ lets say, does seem to appear quite often on the web as a safe way to make a nice, contemporary info-graphic poster.

    Finally, I would like to note that although this response comes below Martin’s poster it is a reaction to the comments posted and not a response to the work itself.

  • eloquently stated Patrick.

    perhaps I should clarify my position so that others understand why I took exception to Martin’s graph. the proportional relationships shown in my A_B_ poster took 7 iterations to engineer to a degree of functionality that allowed the enormous amount of data to be displayed in the most compact form possible. each of those iterations took more than a day to complete. before I could even start designing the graph portion of A_B_, I had to spend an entire week manually constructing 7 graphs that were ultimately unusable. no graphing algorithm was used – just painstaking illustrator work. having put so much work into this project, it pains me to see another designer so easily appropriate the graphics for themselves.

    and again – I did not invent the circular graph – not even in the remote sense. but I did create my A_B_ graph as a pure original form to best accommodate the unique data set.

    as designers, we strive to produce work imbued with creativity and originality. as such, it is unacceptable to condone this sort of behaviour. it is at its core lazy, and results in a jaded world view that ultimately kills creativity.

  • Yorit says

    Who invented the wheel?

  • Law says

    To publicly accuse another designer of theft on nothing more than a whim or a hunch is irresponsible. Mr. Crnokrak sees someone’s work, overlays it with his own and then feels the need to “call out” the designer. At best this can be considered tactless.

  • Meh says

    Dude people do the same shit all the time, thanks to the web people see it, and some think they got raped but really its just a trend and style thats popular in the community. At the end of the day its a inspiration of Josef Müller Brockmann´s work.

    Have a nice day.