Serif + Sans Serif 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?

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


    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.


  • 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.