[meepmorp]

> I wish it'd tempt more designers to bring their knowledge and experience to bear on the script, given the opportunity to make critical contributions.

I wonder if non-Korean type designers are hesitant to work on Hangul fonts because they're illiterate in Korean. I could imagine that it would be hard to have good intuitions about readability and appearance for a writing scheme one doesn't understand.

[sho_hn]

You need to separate writing systems and language there, though. Unlike the Chinese writing system that it bears superficial resemblance to, Hangul is an alphabet, and it's more purely and consistently phonographic than most writing systems in widespread use. Many of the letter shapes are actually based on things like tongue position and mouth shape when making a particular sound - and there's only roughly as many of them as there are Latin letters. It was specifically designed to be fast and easy to learn, to promote mass literacy. (Both the scientific rigor and the noble motivation that went into it, and the resulting elegance, give it a lot of geeky appeal really.)

So it's actually quite easy to pick up and be able to read it fluently (you can have your first successes within 15 minutes, and have it pretty much down within days). Here, have a comic: http://www.ryanestrada.com/learntoreadkoreanin15minutes/inde...

Actually learning Korean OTOH is another matter entirely, though :) (don't I know it ...).

Anyway, I think even without the ability to understand the words, type designers have experience and knowledge they could usefully apply to the Hangul script. I recently read this nice series by William Berkson on a new revival of Caslon's designs he's been making:

http://ilovetypography.com/2010/11/02/reviving-caslon-part-2...

All that stuff he touches on there - rhythm, visualizations of regularity, avoiding the picket fence effect, etc. - should apply equally to making a good Hangul typeface. Or if not that, then the same sort of thinking and methodology could lead to new truths about what makes a good Hangul typeface.

I think what might actually be keeping designers from it though is the awareness that Hangul design is embedded into a very different typographic lineage, i.e. Chinese calligraphy and such. Their own Latin designs frequently pay homage to the past - reviving Caslon is a good example - and it must be a stark naked feeling to lack the same sort of historical and cultural awareness when trying to navigate Hangul typography. It definitely takes a lot of ego for someone from the West to show up and say they can just make a better Hangul font, I suppose - but I still wish more would be that ballsy.

After all, eyeballs and computer screens work the same everywhere.

[neltnerb]

I mean, yes this is true, but I think the point was that if someone isn't fluent in Korean, and isn't familiar enough with the alphabet, they'll not feel qualified to say if to a native Korean it would look good.

I studied Japanese for many years, and know the two phonographic alphabets quite well, yet I'd still defer to my native Japanese speaking friends when it came to determining if something was legible. I've found that things that are legible to me are sometimes not to them, and vice versa enough that I suspect a font designer with any humility would be quite uncomfortable designing a font with characters they weren't very familiar with.

[DanBC]

But wouldn't being illiterate in Hangul be the most effective "Lorem Ipsum"?

[meepmorp]

Not really.

Have you ever seen type in print that you find difficult to read because some of the characters are so stylized that they're difficult to make out? That'd be my concern as a non-Korean speaking/reading person developing a typeface. I believe that Hangul is an alphabetic system, but that the parts of a character block are somehow grouped according to syllabic units. I'd be very wary of developing a typeface for such a system because I'd be more likely to design a typeface that doesn't present the necessary information in a readable way.