“The entries were quite diverse and surprisingly innovative,” juror Chad Michael says. “Many of the entries that stuck out in my mind handled type in new and innovative ways, adding to the diversity and evolution of typographic design.”

“There were some definite visual terrain shifts that emerged throughout the bulk of the entries,” says juror Ksenya Samarskaya. “There’s currently a tilt towards monoline scripts, and thankfully, hipster font lock-ups are dying out.”

Not all trends were seen in a positive light.

“There were a large amount of entries using food to create scripted type,” Michael says. “It’s time we hang this execution up to dry. This has been the go-to solution for several food and restaurant ad campaigns over the past few years, and it has become too repetitive. We were looking for not only a beautiful use of type, but also refreshing solutions.”

“The student entries were lacking a bit,” says juror Michael Stinson. “They all seemed to come from just one school.”

“So many entries pulled from the limited, dated set of design school 101 typefaces: Helvetica, Goudy, Optima, etcetera,” Samarskaya says. “It feels like designers still approach type from a viewpoint of fear, going for the safe fallback options instead of opening themselves up towards greater experimentation.”

Among my questions to the jurors, I asked what they’d like to see more of in future competitions.

“It would be great to see more editorial and layout entries rather than just font development and lettering,” says Stinson. “This will give the [Communication Arts Typography Annual] a broader range that will attract more interest. It would also be great to see more film title treatments.”

“My primary career discipline has been focused on packaging, so of course I’d love to see more packaging entries selected in both the design and type annuals,” says Michael. “I’d also like to see the continued growth of conceptual thinking in design. In the packaging categories especially, I’ve seen more and more deep thinking when it comes to the execution of the product and the brand’s story. Designing something that is simply ‘pretty’ is much easier than designing something that’s both ‘pretty’ and smart.”

“I’d love to see more global entries—to see type adapted to different languages, giving nods to different histories and traditions,” says Samarskaya.

I asked which technical developments will change the way we use typography in the future.

“There were a few entries that used typography and augmented reality (AR) to create works that users could physically interact with in real time,” says Michael. “As we move forward, we can expect to see much more AR. It’s going to open up a whole new way of thinking about type, design and the spaces we live in.”

“The technical developments [that have] the potential to shift the output of the typographic community are: augmented reality, in terms of integrating more moving type into our environment; variable fonts and what they can do [to help create] better web type; and greater integration between writing systems and the swapping of languages—this isn’t quite technical, but it seems technically-adjacent,” says Samarskaya.

Stinson is not as optimistic. “The digital landscape and the constant upgrading of software will encourage designers to spend less time on typography in the future,” he says. “As production time frames continue to pinch, we’ll see less time spent on typography.”

Lastly, I asked which challenges the next generation of type designers currently faces.

“Future type designers are going to struggle more due to the immense amount of typefaces available,” Michael predicts. “It’s going to be more diffcult to develop typefaces that bring something new to the table.”

“The limits and high initial investment required for commercial viability have been an issue in type design since I’ve been involved [in the industry],” says Samarskaya. “It continues today and into the foreseeable future. People are still not used to paying for type, and different platforms for monetization are still being tested.”

While a minimum of two out of three votes was required for inclusion in this year’s Typography Annual, more than half of the selected projects received a unanimous vote. Judges were also not permitted to vote on projects in which they were directly involved. I would like to extend our appreciation to our jurors for their conscientious efforts and to Kamal Mansour, linguistic typographer at Monotype, who graciously assisted our jurors by providing insights on the legibility and appropriateness of non-Latin typeface entries. —Patrick Coyne ca