Design a typeface (using any graphic primitives you prefer) so that all of the letters of the alphabet are structured by the same software parameters and graphic logic. For example, you might design an alphabet in which every letter is exclusively constructed from three arcs, or from four rectangles, or from a small grid of squares. After you have designed all of your letters, typeset the entire alphabet in a single image so that it can be seen at a glance.
An essential technical goal is for you to store descriptive parameters for your letters in some kind of array or object-oriented data structure, and then create a single function that renders any requested letter from this data. If you're writing individual functions to draw each letter, you're doing something wrong.
Extending from Adrian Frutiger's Univers (1954), Donald Knuth's computational METAFONT (1977), and Adobe's “Multiple Master” fonts (1994), it has become increasingly common practice to design highly adaptable type systems that go far beyond the rigid limits of static typefaces. Peter Biľak writes: “Prior to Univers, type designers concerned themselves with the relationships between letters of the same set, how an ’A’ is different from a ’B’. Univers goes beyond the quest to design individual letters, attempting instead to create a system of relationships between different sets of shapes which share distinctive parameters.” i
This prompt prioritizes the creative value of constraints. Restricted to designing letterforms with shared parameters, it requires modularity, economy, and an ingenuity about shapes whose variety and complexity students often take for granted. The expressive potential for contingent, interactive, and subtly time-varying form systems should not be overlooked. Take a moment to reflect on your resultant type system. For which letters does the structuring pattern succeed best or fail hardest?