It isn't very readable.

Well, the fact that I've missed the it’s not designed for legibility part only proves my point... LOL

just a pet peave of mine, but, when someone posts up a work in progress, i feel it is better not to offer any feedback at all rather than state something negative, and then offer no constructive feedback on where the designer might turn to make improvements.

i have no trouble reading this text at all. it requires some effort, for sure, but i do not equate effort with trouble. there are many highly regarded designs and works of art that require effort on the viewer's part to get the most out of it.

now, i'm not saying that this or any pixel font is a work of art, but i say, push the envelope. don't be afriad of anything. it's only an idea, after all. experiment. in the long run, you, as a designer will have more fun, and develop your own style that can always be polished over time.

in the mean time, i like your design jordan, it strikes me as a playful little titling font. it may not be the most original design, but there are many directions you may take it to make it your own.

i think it might be served better by gaining in x-height, and even experimenting with rounding off some corners. not all corners, just enough to give the face a unique style.

in the future, if you want your titling fonts to be treated as titling fonts, don't typeset them as paragraph text.

Tyler: you're right about the way I've displayed it -- not exactly showing it as it's intended to be used :)

I like your idea of rounding the corners, given than the heavy strokes are 2px wide, I can chop off a corner pixel and get quite a neat effect I think. I shall definitely have a play with that, thanks for the suggestion and encouragement.

FWIW, I'm fully aware it's not exactly the most original concept (how original can one be with just a 3x3 grid + asc/desc!

Thanks again.

Jordan

Did you try to leave the middle of X empty of one pixel?

Jordan,

I like your revisions. The font is looking really funky!

(I like funky.)

That said, I think the top set is a little tighter than the bottom one, simply because the bottom one is a tad random with its ascenders and descenders.

However, I don't want to discourage your experimental spirit. So I suggest going the other way. Go further with your experiments. Maybe you'll find new things you like. Maybe you'll pull your hair out and curse your monitor. That's all part of it, I suppose.

The bottom f looks wide to me. the h throws me, when compared to the rest of its 'kin' characters—the b, d, p, and q. I'm not sure if it throws me in a good way or a bad way.

Same thing applies to the s. I like the s, but not the z. To me, the z wants to follow the funkiness of the s.

I'm not sure how I feel about the short stem on the v, but I like your willingness to share your experimentation.

As it stands, and please note that I am not an authority on the greater virtues of type design and its rich history, this set hasn't achieved the look and feel of a 'family' yet.

Keep working on it though. See how far you can take the different ideas you show in different characters throughout this set, but try and apply each idea throughout the entire set, such that you end up with potentially for or five completely unique sets.

Whether or not this ever turns into something you want to hang your hat on, you will have learned a lot, not only about the demands of type design, but the unique nuances of your own workflow.

Onward, man. Post up more work!

Tyler