Oh no! Another Humanist Sans

sevenfingers's picture

Oh well, I brought home my work computer and decided to dabble a bit with illustrator.

Is it worth continuing?

I know we have a s***load of humanist sans serif typefaces already,but I sort of liked how it turned out.

COmments and Crits are as always welcome.

rcapeto's picture

Hi.

Seeing these few characters...
I'm not sure whether n,m,u,h are too wide or they
just appear like that because they're tight.
r is definitely wide.
o seems a bit pointy, as if you needed to pull the
BCPs a little farther from the nodes. The same
goes for the bottom bowl of the g which is BTW
too dark.
i's dot should be higher.
s needs a lot of work.

Is it worth continuing?

Even though there are similar faces, if you manage
to instill some character and personality, why not?
For example: see the use Irma Boon has made of
Frank Blokland's Documenta Sans - a face similar to
this and not overused - in her Treumann book. The
fact that it's not Gill Sans or the other staples gives
it a special freshness. God's in the details.

sevenfingers's picture

>I'm not sure whether n,m,u,h are too wide or they just appear like that because they're tight.

Isn't this contradictive? Or do you mean that the spacing is tight,and therefore they look too wide?

>r is definitely wide.

Yeah, fixed.

>o seems a bit pointy, as if you needed to pull the BCPs a little farther from the nodes. The same goes for the bottom bowl of the g which is BTW too dark.

It's not based ona super elipse, rather a *slightly* modified true circle... G was too dark though.

>i's dot should be higher.

Saw that also, I fixed it last night.

>s needs a lot of work.

I scrapped the 's'.. reworked it completely, update whenI have some more characters to show.

>Even though there are similar faces, if you manage to instill some character and personality, why not?

That's a my problem, how "quirky" should it be? I mean,there's million of uses for a "bland" sans serif... but there are also millions of bland sans serifs. oh well, I guess I'll just haveto finish it.

>For example: see the use Irma Boon has made of Frank Blokland's Documenta Sans - a face similar to this and not overused - in her Treumann book. The fact that it's not Gill Sans or the other staples gives it a special freshness.

I'll check.... URL?

>God's in the details.

He sure is.

eolson's picture

Gill Bold for headers and Documenta for the body in the Otto Treumann book. Nice call Rodolfo.

http://www.dutchtypelibrary.nl/DocumentaSans.html

sevenfingers's picture

I adore the uppercase 'Q' and 'R'... Nice. How nice with a Serif and a Sans in the same family. I like that.

rcapeto's picture

Isn't this contradictive? Or do you mean that the spacing is
tight,and therefore they look too wide?


Yes, that's precisely what I meant.

[o] It's not based on a super elipse, rather a *slightly* modified
true circle...


Well, OK, but it still looks a bit egg-shaped to me, especially
at north and south.

That's a my problem, how "quirky" should it be? I mean, there's
million of uses for a "bland" sans serif... but there are also millions
of bland sans serifs.


But my point in mentioning Documenta Sans is that it doesn't need
to be quirky at all to have personality and make an effect. The
only quirky detail in Documenta Sans is exactly the only thing that
bothers me in the face: the very narrow disconnection of the
P's bowl, which is truly irrelevant.

Stephen Coles's picture

Amen, Rodolfo! Documenta is one of my favorites on all
other counts.

Syndicate content Syndicate content