Typography Application Project

Proof required

Submit your typeface research document (three typefaces researched, each with designer/date/context/characteristics/usage notes — minimum 150 words per typeface) and your selection rationale (minimum 200 words explaining why these two typefaces work together for your project).

What gets checked

• All three typefaces have designer, date, and original context documented — not just visual description
• Formal characteristics go beyond 'it has serifs' — x-height, contrast, spacing noted
• Selection rationale explains the contrast or harmony between the two chosen typefaces specifically

Common mistakes

• Typeface research is visual description only — 'it looks elegant' without historical or formal analysis
• Selection rationale picks typefaces for personal taste rather than project fit
• Two selected typefaces have no clear relationship — either too similar (redundant) or too clashing (no harmony)

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check all three typefaces have designer, date, and historical context — visual description alone fails the research standard
• Verify formal characteristics are specific — ask student to describe one typeface's x-height compared to another
• Ask student: what context would make your selected pair fail? If they can't name one, the selection hasn't been stress-tested

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your three typographic applications as a PDF: long-form piece, display piece, and small-scale piece, each on its own page.

What gets checked

• Three surfaces are genuinely distinct contexts — not three similar documents
• Long-form piece shows full hierarchy across at minimum three levels (body, subhead, heading)
• Small-scale piece demonstrates that the typeface works at small sizes — not just scaled down from a larger layout

Common mistakes

• All three surfaces are the same format at different sizes — not three distinct contexts
• Display piece treats type as decoration — letter-spacing or sizing choices that undermine readability for stylistic effect
• Small-scale piece has not been tested at actual output size — text becomes illegible

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Verify three surfaces are genuinely distinct contexts — similar documents at different sizes don't satisfy the requirement
• Check long-form piece shows full hierarchy — ask student to point to the three or more hierarchy levels
• Ask student to show the small-scale piece at actual output size — if text is illegible, the size hasn't been tested

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) critique session record (date, reviewer, specific challenges to typographic decisions — minimum half page), (2) type specimen document (minimum four pages).

What gets checked

• Critique record documents specific typographic challenges — not general aesthetic feedback
• Type specimen shows typeface at minimum four sizes and at least two weights
• Type specimen includes notes on failure cases — where not to use this typeface

Common mistakes

• Type specimen is only a display showcase — no failure case notes or contextual guidance
• Critique focuses on visual preference rather than typographic decisions
• Type specimen produced before the critique — not informed by the review

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Check type specimen covers minimum four sizes and two weights
• Verify specimen includes failure case notes — absence indicates uncritical approach to typeface selection
• Ask student: what is the most important thing your type specimen communicates about this typeface that a font preview site doesn't? Inability to answer shows the specimen is a showcase, not a usage guide

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.