A vs. a

Hi everybody, first time posting so I hope it’s interesting :slight_smile:

Is there a way of calling the two main different types of drawing a lowercase “a” like in this picture:

Captura de pantalla 2020-11-12 a las 14.21.28
vs.
Captura de pantalla 2020-11-12 a las 14.21.45

Also see the “g vs. g” styles as well, does that have a name for each variation?

Thanks a lot!

They’re typically called single-story and double-story a’s and g’s — at least in the crowd I hang out with. (I suppose that would be storey in British English.) It’s interesting that italics are almost always single-story — even in those typefaces where the upright version is double-story.

While I’m at it, welcome to the forum!

3 Likes

To add on to that, you could also say (figures on the right) contain an element called a “decender” as part of the character falls below the base line of type. An “ascender” would be an element that rises above the ceiling line of type

Same answer that was given for the ‘a’, but the more complex version of the g is also called ‘binocular’

2 Likes

Absolutely never heard of ‘binocular g’ in 25 years in the business.
It’s a double storey g,
ear
counter
link
counter
loop

Considering binoculars were invented in 1825 (well after the double storey g)

I’m going to stick with Double Storey G as the correct description.

1 Like

The term binocular refers to something having two eyes. More recent definitions include telescopes or microscopes that enable the use of both eyes.

I’ve never encountered the term used to describe a double-story g or a. However, I suppose it does make some sense if one views the counters in those letters as resembling eyes.

Or if one considers the “dumbing down” of the design lexicon over the years, where, if enough laymen use the wrong term long enough, even those who know better just give up.

A quick Google search didn’t locate many uses of the term binocular for double-story letters.

However, I did find instances where @Typography.Guru (Ralf Herrmann), Stephen Coles, Martin Silvertant, and Hrant Papazian used the term. None of these guys are laymen. For that matter, they’re all rather well-known typography experts.

That’s even worse

I’ll just grab my capote and get back in my horeless carriage and drive for a few cables!

Somehow, I see one pro here having a slip of the tongue during an online presentation, and everyone else saying, “Well he is the guru, he must be right.” LOL!
Wars have started for less.

I love the letter o and the telescope they have. Or is it mono-ocular? Or monocle?
Or just call it by it’s name given centuries ago, that everyone else uses.

I’ve always called that hole a “counter.” But the youngsters I’ve worked with from other sign shops call them “islands.” WhatEVer.

May as well call the double storey ‘g’ Isiah - because one eye’s higher than the other :crazy_face:

Ugh. This discussion took a weird turn. First of all, I only pointed out that it is ALSO called binocular g. The ‘also’ meant, it’s an option. An option! No one HAS to use it and no one has a good reason to be offended by the mere existence of an alternative.
I’ve also heard people from our field use ‘monocle g’. Those are all just ways to describe the shape in a way that is easy to understand without prior knowledge. And that what words are for. To communicate something. Using words people will understand isn’t automatically “dumbing down” something. It would be silly not to consider who you are talking to and not to choose your words accordingly.
And referring to “stor(e)ys”, while certainly somewhat more established, is far from self-explanatory or a usage that absolutely everyone in the field of graphic design understands. And that’s the problem. So it’s no wonder that people get creative and use more descriptive terms in general or in certain situations. They have all the right to do that. Language is a tool we created for ourselves and we shape it as we see fit. There is no Global Committee for Typography Terms and there is no such thing as an intrinsically “correct” word in general. Words don’t have intrinsic meanings, they have usages. Not even a dictionary defines a word. It describes common usages.
A term isn’t ‘correct’ just because it is older than another word. All terms were made up at some point. It’s a logical fallacy to consider a word more ‘correct’ just because it is older. One just needs to think these things through. How did a term come into existence to begin with? An individual made it up, just started to use it and it spread from there. But that’s exactly the same situation that was ridiculed above when talking about the so-called “gurus”. So the entire complaint doesn’t work because it is based on a double-standard. Yes, anyone with influence in our field today (e.g. through a popular text book or website) could use that influence to establish a new term—with totally legitimate reasons, e.g. because the term fills a need, resolves misunderstandings or increases understanding of something. And if it sticks and becomes the dominant term for the described object or concept, conservative people in 200 years will defend that term as the only ‘correct’ term. After all, it’s what they used during their entire career and it’s even in the text books for more than 100 years – while conservative people today ridicule the very same term just because it wasn’t part of THEIR vocabulary during THEIR career. The only variable in this thought experiment is time and I think that clearly exposes the logical flaw in the way some people argued in this discussion.

By the way: if people say the use of stor(e)ys is ‘centuries old’, then I’m sure the have a source that demonstrates that claim, right? Would love to check it out.

1 Like

Yeh but it’s wrong terminology in a field. You don’t see doctors/mechanics/florists etc. making up terms because it suits them to do it.

Your name is typography guru - and you don’t know this?

Vigils Opera printed in 1501 has a double storey G.If you want to check it out.

Haha, I didn’t even notice your screen name when I made that comment.

Someone the other day went off on us straying off topic too. Get over it. It’s a discussion forum. And my opinion on this particular matter is just as valid as yours.

The whole idea behind a professionally static lexicon is to be able to communicate with other professionals in the field. If you want to call your double-story G “the Goggle Version,” I don’t care.
I really don’t. And when I retire from this goshforsaken so-called profession, I will care even less. In the meantime, I will just look at you funny until you explain yourself. That takes time. Yours and mine. But you are paying me while I listen. Cuz I’m a printer/sign cutter.

(shrug)

I remember a study from Johns Hopkins University regarding people’s familiarity with the “double-story” g.

My memory is sketchy on details, but the study concluded that most people had no clear idea that an alternate g existed — despite seeing it dozens of times each day.

When asked to draw a g, the participants always drew the open-tailed letter. When asked to draw the alternate version, many participants were baffled. Those familiar with the double-story variety rarely knew how to draw it. As often as not, they drew it backward, didn’t know how to connect the upper bowl to the bottom bowl, or placed the ear on the wrong side.

Some Googling led me to this video about the study.

1 Like

I think I’m in agreement with @Typograhy.Guru on this one.

Double-story, binocular, loop-tailed, fancy g & a, single-story, monocular, open-tailed, standard g & a, whatever. There seems to be no standard, agreed-upon term for one or the other. Double-story seems to be the most common, but I’m not sure I ever heard that term used prior to, maybe, a dozen years ago.

The words appear to be insider lingo more than standard terminology.

A few years back, I saw an infographic on safety pins. There was industry terminology for every conceivable part of a safety pin — from the pointy end to the little hole in the clasp-like thing that holds the pointy part in position. I suspect that terminology differed considerably from one manufacturer to the next.

When I worked at a newspaper here in Utah, the union backshop guys had lingo for most every little thing. When a new guy was hired from, say, the East Coast, arguments would break out over conflicting terminology. One of the foremen was a guy from Manchester, England. Nobody knew what he was talking about half the time.