Just showing what is my latest idea for a possible typeface … and asking what you think of it.
I can see it working great as an advertising text face. Display, not so much.
I like it. Left side of /u clearly needs a decision.
Nice. There’s a little bit of Menhart in it, isn’t there? I like the top-heaviness, it gives it an interesting dynamic. In ‘a’ and ‘g’ the effect seems perhaps a bit overdone. What kind of usage/sizes would this be for?
oh ja – Menhardt, of course. And: Koch!
For your suggestions about a, g, u: I’m wondering. Glad you like it, though.
What kind of usage? well, I think mainly for advertising, branding, packaging, stationary, titlings, covers, labels, short or medium-lenght texts. In first trials it proves to be rather handsome for reading. We’ll see.
To be entirely honest, my current whisky has been (subconciously) a key source of inspiration for the type’s flavour ;-}
I agree that the overall letter shape tapering of /a/ and /g/ might be more subtly done, and I'd add /n/m/h/.
well, I actually like that tapering how it is now, but thanks anyway.
Craig, this is your current digitization project?
I gather that "I'm wondering" means my criticism was much too vague.
u has a dent partway up the left side from which the stroke flares in both directions. It should continue to taper downward through the curve, or, if you feel the weight in that bottom curve is necessary, taper upward.
no – not too vague. I see your point with the u. The general rule here is that a stroke flares towards the top. But the left side of the u (and the t!) have a bottom bow which usually is a place for a stress, too. A contradiction, sort of. I left it as it was because I think it works that way. I think the disturbance is minimal.
Similar with a and g. Yes they are slightly overdone, a calculated twist within the framework of the whole set. Also the z is a bit overdone … I like it and, again, in testing with text those details did not seem to disturb readability.
Sorry to say that, but for now it’s too late for more changes. [[http://typophile.com/node/118915|It’s out.]]
Nice! The top-heaviness-as-text-face-feature idea reminds me of [[http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/paratype/new-journal/|New Journal]].
Were you genuinely interested in critique with this thread?
You're free to disagree with any received advice, of course, but the dismissal of every observation and subsequent quick release gives the impression that this was more about starting buzz than seeking help in editing the design.
Hm. I was hoping the spacing would get a bit more love before this is released... didn’t comment on it because it sounded like you were still in the early stages.
> Were you genuinely interested in critique with this thread?
yes I was. And I considered every point of critique raised. You know that I’m really open for improvement suggestions. But I came in this case, apparently, to different conclusions regarding the details.
Which spacing is not satisfactory?
I am (and was before) fully aware of that such a quick release would cause critique as well. I’m sorry if you are disappointed about that. This was not my intention. I would not have released it if I were not convinced that the font is mature for use.
Hope you are not too angry about me.
I’m not angry, just a bit surprised :) Personally I think this could have been even more.
Spacing: What made me wonder is that in the sample above, the “o” looks like it’s shifted left – too tight on the left and/or loose on the right. And maybe the arches are a little loose? On MyFonts, it looks better, but even a “nnnnonnnn” or “nnninnnonnn” string looks still not entirely evenly spaced to me... And in the specimen images, the smaller text (in the address of the solicitors) has a bunch of really strange pairs (“ng” loose, “il” tight…) Words like “Building” do not look great to me in the preview, either. I’m not sure if that can be the rendering, or maybe I’m misunderstanding something.
I use TextEdit for setting the examples, because it does very good and even font rendering (much better than InDesign!). But it has one shortcoming: in small sizes it does not always reproduce the spacing very good. Maybe I neglected this a bit … therefore some parts in the smaller lines appear to be a little odd. However, I would not say that there are really severe faults here, I would have seen them.
This shows TextEdit (top) and Firefox (bottom). When viewed at such a size, I’d say this is OK. Nevertheless, at a closer look there is some unevenness in the spacing, but for some good reason:
Because of the more narrow area at top right (of the o, red) there is a matching slight constriction on the left side. This should balance the wider parts around the o, which are distributet reversely.
I like it a lot! Especially the /a.
The only disturbance I see is the intrusion of the /g's ear into the bowl, it feels out of character among all the other intrusion-free characters.
y so sad?