Sofa: a cosy typeface

Sebastian Nagel's picture

Dear forum members,

besides Terra Nova, I have started another Typeface out of an urge to do "something different".

After doing some pencil-drawings of some letters, I started working on "Sofa – a cosy typeface". It is kind of a humanist egyptienne with no (or almost no) sharp edges, slightly curved outlines, and flowing, handwritten flavour in the basic shapes.

Sofa won't be a "monster" like Terra Nova, I don't plan to do that much opentype-scripting, alternate forms, ligatures etc. as I've done so far there. At the moment, there is a basic character set with Upper- and Lowercase, numerals and some punctuation. Also, some basic spacing is done to test the font in text-sizes.

Do you have any suggestions or objections on the general concept, or (if you like it) on single glyphs?

Thanks a lot for your feedback and your help, I hope I can give some knowhow back later (after a lot more years of learning...)


More members of this family
Sofa italic
Sofa sans

sofa_120_125.pdf642.55 KB
a2z's picture

quite nice. the 'y' and 'f' specifically seem like they could use some kind of terminal.

Sebastian Nagel's picture


You are right, they need a terminal too.

hrant's picture

I wonder why nobody's reacted to this - it's quite nice I think.

First of all: those white overlaps are distracting.
Please make a normal version.

I'd pull in the descenders.

Just the lc for now:
"b": Really really nice.
"f": Extend the right side of the foot serif.
"g": Quite nice. The head-bottom gap could be wider, and the ear longer.
"k": Bring the lower leg forward (partly to relieve the weight in the join).
"r": Same as "f".
"s": Slightly dark.
"t": Extend rightward.
"u": Make top serifs leftward only. When you do, make the whole narrower.
eszet: Clotting at the bottom.
long-s: Same as "f".

One last thing: Underware's Sauna (I think) was
initially called Sofa - and I remember they had
to change the name for legal reasons. You might
have to do the same maybe. Just don't change it
to Sauna though. ;-)


paul d hunt's picture

sebilar, to merge paths:
select all the characters you want your change to effect
go to contour>transform>merge countours

i suggest before doing this you put a copy of your characters in the mask layer. you can do this by going to
Tools>Mask>Copy outline to mask

there are also keyboard shortcuts for these actions that are quite helpful. these will show up to the right of the command in the drop down menus.

i hope this helps!

btw, very nice work! it looks lovely.

Sebastian Nagel's picture

Thanks a lot for your help and your nice words, hrant and paul.

There is a new version attached, with some changes made from your feedback. I think I can also revise some of the uppercase with hrant's comments. Partially, this is already done as well (F, P – but not too consistent yet).
In the meantime, I also have done some more glyphs and diacritics, which are included in v08 as well.

Today I did the first printout on a 600dpi laser-printer (bad quality, but best I can get at the moment...), and the results in small text-sizes are surprisingly well already. The spacing is still done with indd cs2 optical spacing, but if I can get this done with metrics, I would be quite content already.

I also did merge the paths in this version (thanks for that – Terra Nova would have been much more easy knowing that... but I learn :).
The only things still overlapping are about 10 composited glyphs like oslash, were I can't merge without decompose them.

What do you think is the best method to go on? Get near perfection with the basic glyphs first, or start things like smallcaps or lowercase figures already?

And maybe I should do three-quarter figures instead of lowercase and lining figures in this face... I don't know yet.

On the naming: Maybe I will call it ... Sauna ... for changing it again because of legal issues ;-) Thanks for the tip, I did not know that.


paul d hunt's picture

now i can see to critique!
a few things:
B seems a tad wide
C looks like it had a bit of an overbite (as does the G)
F seems too wide
J tail looks too heavy
K top bar is too long, bottom bar too stiff
L a bit wide
M looks a bit wonky over all would look better if the midpoint came to the baseline
P the bowl could be a bit larger
Q the tail could be stronger
R the bowl could be larger and the leg is too stiff

b could do without the tail
g the join could be smoother
j tail seems too heavy
k the arms are too angular
q could use a quiter ear
r i'll let hrant address
y the tail feels out of joint
fi and fl ligs seem too wide

2 looks like it's leaning right
4 could do without the serif on the horizontal
5 has an underbite
7 too wide/leaning right

currency symbols: i'd try to harmonize these. i would work towards forms that fit within the same character width, making Euro and yen narrower.

I like the diacritics, the bar on the Lslash could extend further into the character

hrant's picture

"a": Bottom-left curve malformed.
"r": Beak too long.
"y": Terminal awkward.
"D": Stem seems too much thinner compared to curve.
"K": Slightly dark.
"L": Too wide.
"M": Too narrow.
"Q": Could work! But give the tail a better finish.
"T": Too wide.
"U": Too narrow.
"Y": Head slightly too small.
Thorn: Too small.

End-of-time, sorry.

Numerals: I'm thinking lining nums might work best here. And since your caps are pretty short, I would align them to the caps. Alternate figures if provided might then be hybrids.


Sebastian Nagel's picture

Thanks for your detailed feedback, and thanks for putting this on the startpage, I'm feeling honoured :)

There is a new version V10 attached, with detail correction based on your comments.


- narrower "B"
- "C" and "G" overbite corrected
- more even "D"
- narrower "F"
- Tail of "J" thinner
- corrected "K" (not sure about that yet, as well as with the "R")
- narrower "L"
- down-to-bottom and wider "M"
- bigger bowl of "P"
- new tail on the "Q"
- minor changes to "S"
- narrower "T"
- wider "U"
- what do you think about the "W"? should it be analogous to "M"?
- bigger head of "Y"
- bigger "Thorn"


- "a": I did not quite understand what you meant that, hrant. Tried something...
- alternate form for "b" without tail (not sure which to use, i like both of them)
- what do you think about the alternate form of the "e"? It's the older one, and i like the new one with the "edge", but I'm not sure.
- alternate form for the "g" (smoother loop, but not perfect yet).
- thinner tail of "j"
- small changes to "k"
- alternate form for "q" (like with "b")
- shorter right part of the "r" (not short enough yet?)
- "s" lighter
- "y": not sure what you meant, hrant and paul. Tried some things again...
- "sz": still cluttered... don't know how to solve that yet.
- "thorn": is it correct to have it the height of ascender?
- fi- and fl-lig: In old versions i tried to keep the metrics of "f" and "i", and "f" and "l". Now they are narrower.


- better "2"
- no changes on "4" yet, but I think you ar right with the horzontal bar
- "5" no underbite anymore, but maybe too much?
- "7" more upwards now

You are right, hrant, I will provide hybrid-figures as alternates.


- "asciitilde" too small
- no changes on currency symbols yet, but you are right paul, they should be equal width
- "Lslash": longer bar

Thanks a lot for your feedback, without it, this would take much more time and trial and error. Towards most of the things you said, my reaction was "This is quite obvious, why didn't I see this?". typophile is great :)


hrant's picture

"M": Still slightly narrow; armpits need declotting.
"W": I think it's fine.
"g": lowest curve too thick.
"y": Just don't make it curl back so much.
eszet: First get rid of that serif stub - don't be afraid,
the Internal Consistency Gestapo are all huff&puff.
And then you might possibly even get rid of that last
terminal serif.
thorn: The ascender/descender disproportion is buggin' ya, eh? :-)
Well, if you want to really push things, make not only its ascender
shorter, but also those of some other letters...

"b" and "q": Good as alternates.
"e": May be better than the original.
"g": Too clotted in the join.

> I did not quite understand what you meant

The curve seems wobbly at the bottom-leftmost.

> not short enough yet?



Sebastian Nagel's picture

So, V11 is attached now...

Made the changes you proposed, hrant (M, g, y, eszet, a, r).

thorn: No changes yet (don't like it, so i ignore it...). What would be other characters that need to be modified? Or would it be a general ascender-change?

alternate g: No changes yet.

Euro and yen: narrowed, but they are not unicase to Dollar but still wider.

New glyphs: More currencies, mu, logicalnot, greater/lesser, braces (not very good yet), paragraph sign, Et, at, percent (bad), superior figures (experimental, maybe too thin yet, as found out with percent fiasco...)

greetings from cold cold Austria

hrant's picture

Not a general ascender change. I might make one or more of the "b", "d" or especially the "el" shorter. Maybe. But really, certainly not on account of the thorn looking funny! It's such a secondary character (unless you're Icelandic). I might do it simply to liven things up (not that this font is boring). In which case I'd make some of the descenders shorter too, like the "p" and "q" and maybe the "j".

I'm only really looking at the alphabetics, but the florin, it's gotta lean.


Sebastian Nagel's picture

I will certainly try this and check the effect. What amount of change are you talking about? Ten 1000em-units? Fifty? One hundred? I know I have to check this "live", but it helps me to think in the right dimensions...

I didn't have much time last week to work on, but now I've made a lot more characters in V17:

complete default encoding and Latin Extended A-Diacritics
I don't have a slight clue whether letter kra (greenlandic small k) is correct (see page 2, black line 3). Some special characters like (C) (R) etc. are not good yet.

f-ligatures, longs-ligatures, and also some discretionary ones
I think especially the discretionary are livening things up when used in display-sizes). I'm not sure about c_r- and g_i-ligs, and I don't know whether the style of the two alternative c_k-ligs and c_h-ligs (sharp entrance instead of round one) would be better.

with some glitches yet, like too heavy Nsmall

started opentype-coding
ligs, smallcaps

Next step will be to clean up some things and to create better spacing and kerning (the pdf is still kerned with optical setting in Indesign).
I'm also thinking about an italic and bold version, and maybe also about a sans serif one. But last one is far future yet...

What do you think about the "new" name?
Thanks once more for every feedback, especially critical one.

Greetings from Austria,

hrant's picture

> What amount of change are you talking about?

Not sure. But at least enough to be noticeable by the layman.

Name: What about Chaise? Or Divan?


Sebastian Nagel's picture

So after weeks of absence (job, private issues) I can update this one (see PDF v24).

There are only details changed, the spacing is done, but must be tweaked in some details yet, kerning not yet. All you can see in the pdf is metric-setting in indesign, not optical, and spacing is not tweaked afterwards.

Opentype-coding is complete now.

I've used the font in some semi-professional works already to test it.
I think it is rather final, but I will for sure give hrant's suggestion a try (ascender change for living up things more).
I just wanted to give it a final touch, before diversify it again: Things start to become very confusing when working on multiple lines of developement.

Do you see any "no-way" in this font? Otherwise I will try to make it final.

And I'll have to do some more brainstorming about the name... I like Divan and Canapé, I don't like Chaise, it sounds strange when used in german talking: Divan and Canapé are known here as well, Chaise is not.
I also like Ottoman. Sounds funny :)

Thanks for your feedback,

hrant's picture

So let me get this straight:
Nobody at all has anything whatsoever to say about
this face? Like not even the OS numerals, people?!

It seems what used to be the single best
thing about Typophile has wilted away.


Randy's picture


Hrant calls everyone out.

Here are a few comments on the lc:

Serifs: They are all the same length. This is giving you spacing problems and balance problems. Spacing: wvy etc and Balance: rf.

r: too wide. What about a beak like to be consistent.
t: narrow. I might try the bottom less hooked.
bdqp: you'll probably need to thin the bowls slightly where they join, like you have on the n
s: the terminals make this very closed. May need to thin the top and bottom so it doesn't get too dark.
lining numerals: have weight/modulation problems see the 5. 1 is narrow :-) 4. I'm not liking the serif on the end of the arm. It makes an already awkwardly spaced glyph even more so. It's also narrow.

Consider Ben Keil's smart generate font robofab script. It creates a duplicate vbf, removes the overlaps, generates the fonts, and deletes the vbf in seconds. Very handy for testing.


cerulean's picture

The extra serif on the 4 bothers me too. And before reading all the comments, I was sure that "obviously deformed or wrong characters are placeholders" referred to the Q. For such a cozy typeface, the Q is rather uncozy. A medium-length, very gently s-curved tail is called for here.

marcox's picture

I agree with Cerulean on the Q. Its current form would probably prevent me from buying this typeface, although I otherwise quite like the direction it's headed.

Sebastian Nagel's picture

Thanks for the feedback, and thanks to hrant for startle people up. I have no pretension to feedback, as I can give back so little at the moment...

Here is PDF V25.
I've considered your comments, and those I got for Sofa Sans (the ones that are applicable on serif as well). Italic, Sans and Antiqua is is put on ice at the moment, as I want to finish this first.

bdpq: thinned bowels a bit. they were too heavy in print.
g: slightly less weight, based on my printing results.
k: lower part slightly more heavy (printing results).
r: narrower, beak. what do you think about it? first real life feedback was positive.
s: a bit wider and lighter. But I think it's too gaunt now. Difficult...
t: less hooked, you are absolutly right, this was inconsistent. Maybe I have to open it even more.
u: slightly wider.
vwxy: shorter serifs. goodbye elegance, welcome practice...

Q: You are right, Q was a problem I have ignored yet. there are 4 alternates now. see the image below for details. I like Number 3 in the image best.

ae: smoother now
eth: bigger (based on my printouts, it turned out to be too small)

ring: more weight
breve: more weight

1: redesign
2: a bit wider
4: goodbye serifs... Should I kill the bottom one as well?
5: stroke weight redesigned
6: lighter
9: lighter

Hrant: what were your concerns about OS-numerals?
Randy: Thanks for the Robofab-Link. I try to get this working, but I'm no programming crack, so this could take some time :)


hrant's picture

> what were your concerns about OS-numerals?

Their up/down distribution, which is unique. Unique isn't
necessarily bad (depending not least on how much text the
design is intended for) but Unique does benefit from some
sort of justification (in a craft).


cerulean's picture

Hrant, I think you may have misinterpreted the sample on page 3, which shows five os numerals and five lining numerals. Both sets are on the last page. I must admit, though, that the way you saw it does have some intriguing potential. A numeric progression from small to descenders to ascenders would mean that you would get a vague idea of how big a number is with only a glance. That alone wouldn't necessarily be worth flaunting convention, though.

hrant's picture

Oh. Sorry. :-/

> you would get a vague idea of how big a number is

Hadn't thought of that! Sort of how the visual density of
a glyph in Hangul indicates its grammatical function,
providing an extra layer of information for the reader.

> That alone wouldn’t necessarily be worth flaunting convention, though.

I dunno. The conventional scheme is not only partly arbitrary, but it has problems too, most of all that the overall height position is too low compared to the lc. The old French OS scheme -with 3 and 5 ascending- is better in my view, and readers don't consciously notice the difference, so it probably has a "subvisible" functional advantage. In addition, one could argue for an acending 2 as well.

See also: _ _ (Looks like a monologue because anonymous posts have been supressed.)

Numeral design really has superb potential for growth.


Sebastian Nagel's picture

Argh, sorry... my fault.
I will correct this in the next PDF :)

piccic's picture

The third Q is definitely better (and suited to the whole).
I would drop the others. Other solutions (like the 2nd), although initially original, have been a little abused recently.

Besides, as a general remark, I think the face would benefit from a general spacing tighten-up. At least the Roman.

Sebastian Nagel's picture


Lots of finetuning, optical tweaking, kerning, some opentype-scripting, etc.

How do you like the new "4"?
compare it directly to V_25 on Page 9 (black=new, red=old)

New: Smallcaps-Versions of currency symbols and some others. Some of them still have wrong stroke weight though.
Are there any other glyphs left that could need a smallcaps-version too?

Thanks to this thread I'm motivated again. Want to come to an end with it soon, then polish the italic, do a lot of beta-testing, publish it and then getting RICH RICH RICH (or die tryin' ;-).

Palatine's picture

I love this so far. It truly is a "cozy" face. It reminds of something Underware would do, actually. I'd certainly purchase this.

crossgrove's picture

Hi Sebastian,

Sorry to take so long to make comments. I have to budget the time I give for online critiques; your fine craftsmanship and thoroughness tell me you intend to develop this fully. Very nice specimen texts as well.

I still see some big kinks in the basic set; with a design like this whose modelling is so subtle, these stand out and snag the eye:

* Center crossbars on EF too short. Serifs in these letters do tend to clash or close up, but see Dante for an example of a successful application of long serifs in these shapes.
* Joint of diagonals of K with vertical very dark and crowded, makes letter look narrow. Rearrange where these strokes meet.
* Some serifs are still much too long; see AVWY and tails of K and R. Conversely, the serifs on C, E, L, T and Z are unnecessarily short.
* The obvious humanist proportions of the lowercase call for corresponding variation in width proportions in the uppercase. Homogenizing the UC widths creates a deadening feel which doesn't fit the lowercase. See E, F, T (wide) and K, M (narrow). A will look better if the outside serifs are shortened.
* Do the R and K need to have a drooping, bowed leg? Elsewhere in the design, stems seem rigid (in a pleasing way) and these sagging elements seem like they were left out in the sun. Consider reversing the bow, for more pleasing tension.
* The nice tapered serifs and the tapered stems imply a range of contrast that the general stroke weights don't deliver except in a few letters: d, e, h, r, z. Consider bringing the contrast modeling, with the color benefits it brings, to the rest of the letters. Especially caps like B, D, E, F, G, M, N, O, R, S, W will benefit from some lightening in appropriate spots. Also a, g, k, w and z will improve with some adjustment in contrast. A striking example is how monoline W and S look compared to d and n. Look at S and T together.
* Why does the y have such an emphatic tail? The bend at the end of the stroke is already eye-catching; adding a serif at an abrupt angle makes it inescapable. The angle and density of the serifs on s and S also act as snags to the reader's eye. Consider at least changing the angle of these.
* Apply the corner-lightening trick more in letters like m, n, u, r. the odd horizontal serifs on those letters add weight at the x-height that is continued in their monoline arches and other serifs like those of vwy. LC a would really improve with some thinning of joints.
* The i-t ligature should be removed: When I read your sample text, it appears exactly to my eye as an f-i ligature. Consider removing other ligatures which distort the components beyond readable recognition: cr, cl, sl. Also consider eliminating ligatures that aren't necessary; is reading enhanced by an sk ligature? It isn't strictly an improvement.
* The oldstyle figures look preliminary. Contrast, proportions, shapes, and especially the 4 look thrown together. I realize you've put a lot of attention on the 4, but it doesn't even appear to be from the same font. Not because of the unconventional shape, but because it's still so monoline, and appears to be leaning and bent. Balance is what it needs. 5 also looks like a transplant from a grotesque sans. Look at other typefaces to get ideas about where to apply weight in the shapes of 2, 5, and 7.
* The weight issue of g can be solved with *redistribution* of weight, rather than simply making it lighter overall. This shape, because of its complexity, needs this kind of modeling anyway, especially in a Slab or Sans design where horizontal stems pile up and make a letter dark. You see this in a, e, g, s, and B.

The spacing in the text samples is very loose, especially considering the narrow space character. Is that text tracked? I think the letters need closer fitting overall. Put two m's together to see what I mean.

Many of my comments seem to ignore the "program" or "logic" of this design. If there is any rule I think worth following in type design, it is: Rules of logic fall apart more and more as a typeface is realized, and the result should only appear to the untrained observer as if serifs are actually the same, stems are identical, etc. In this design, I see that the sharp serif angle and low contrast are apparent themes. However, where they impede smooth reading or distract the eye, they are only mannerisms.

Other than these comments, I see the potential for this design to be very useful in many settings. It does convey the comfortable quality you intend. Eliminate the few scratchy, lumpy elements, and it will be a chaise worthy of weekly afternoon naps for years to come....

hrant's picture

Ooooh, Carl ups the ante. Very nice.


Sebastian Nagel's picture

Wow, thanks a lot for taking the time for this feedback, Carl! These are the details that I missed so far, without knowing where to get them from.

I will need a dictionary to understand everything and and it will take me a lot of time to introduce the improvements beside my job, but this is very appreciated and it will not be forgotten.


AnalogSystm's picture

Beautiful font!
I'd buy it the minute it was released.

Good job!

Oscar Bjarna

Sebastian Nagel's picture

So version 40 is up (see first post).

There are lots of changes suggested by crossgrove, though not all yet.

I ...

  • seriously redesigned the uppercase (serifs, proportions, stroke weight, details)
  • made some changes to the lowercase (stroke weight, serif angles, details)
  • tried some changes for the figures (I'm not very satisfied with them yet)

Concerning ligatures: The using in small sizes in the sample sheet actually is "wrong" (respectively only for testing the spacing of them). I am aware that they should only be used (with deliberation) for display purposes.

Concerning loose spacing: The sample is not tracked, the setting is that loose at the moment, which might be a relict of even longer serifes. I'm considering to tighten it a bit, though I'm not sure to which extent: in Europe, typographers tend to prefer a bit looser spacing than in America, if my perception is right. I am influenced by that obviously, but anyway, spacing is too loose at the moment.

Concerning program of a font: I am aware of, that one has to leave the path of strict guidelines when giving a design perfection. But as a beginner, this can be dangerous: I'm afraid of getting stuck in small optical changes and lose track of things. This is why I tried to avoid as much of "irrational" tweaks as possible until now, but I know that this keeps me from finishing it. I have to grope my way piece by piece now :)

Thanks for your encouraging and detailed comments. Without this feedback I'd be stuck in this state of work...

Oscar: thanks for your comment, this tells me that I'm not doing this all just to file the whole thing in the end...

I specially like the ornamental/floral works on your homepage (that doesn't mean that I don't like the rest...)

Greetings from Austria

crossgrove's picture

Sebastian, I'm glad my comments were useful to you. Sometimes a design gets stuck in a dead end and it's hard to back it out without a fresh look.

"should only be used (with deliberation) for display purposes"

I hope you are ready for all the horrible things people will do with your font that they shouldn't.... Stretching, condensing, skewing, outlining, tracking, hitting the "punk" filter in Illustrator.... and of course turning on all ligatures and setting a book. ;)

I see the improvements you've made. It's stronger already. Caps look much more settled. Your work is very subtle and decisive. The spacing, I think, is still too loose for general use, even if the trend is toward loose spacing. This design is somewhat unique in that the serifs are not all equal to stem weights, and there's a lot of proportionality to the design, so spacing will be very tricky. When that's done thoughtfully, I'm sure you'll like it better. If your monitor is big enough, I suggest viewing spacing at 2 very different sizes, such as 16 point and 80 point. Some spacing decisions look right at one size that simply are bad at another. I'm sure you noticed that already.

I like it!

Sebastian Nagel's picture

> Sometimes a design gets stuck in a dead end and it’s hard to back it out without a fresh look.

A few months ago I couldn't believe how some typedesigners could work on several fonts the same time. Now I know why :). That's why I'm working on a new one (working title "dark chocolate", sketch-stadium). A very early version can be seen in typebattle#12, and a newer one, if chosen, in typecon exhibition. It's a pity that it is the least-thought-about one I have to offer...
And I'm even thinking about getting Terra Nova back on track. When looking at that one now, I see about 200.000 improvements to be made :)

> I hope you are ready for all the horrible things people will do with your font that they shouldn’t…

At the moment, I'm arguing with a friend of mine (a graphics designer), because he wanted a bold version of Sofa/Canapé, and used an outline to achieve that, even without asking me to redraw the four glyphs he actually needed... It will be shown about 4*3m in size – Beautiful! :(

> spacing

I'm so shy about that because I'm afraid that it will destroy the kerning time already invested. But that's my fault, if doing such things before having the letter shapes settled down... Just need some overcoming to get it started.

What I've learned is that typedesign is suffering, especially as a beginner :). And what is needed, but understandably rare, is feedback from people who really "know". Amsterdam, Reading and other schools are far from here, and the decision to go there is not easy, so I'm dependant on friendly people who like to help.


crossgrove's picture


Don't do any kerning until the shapes and spacing are final! In fact, remove all your kerning (argghhh!) so you can look at just default spacing.

This isn't so bad; when all the shapes and default spacing are done, you'll discover much less kerning is necessary. Kerning is just to fix pairs that can't look good by default spacing, like LT.

"Typedesign is suffering" ; D

Sebastian Nagel's picture

So, 13 weeks later, here is the update :)

I've been working on Sofa Serif Roman to get it almost finished. To achieve this, I made some detours to a Black and Ultralight version and to the Roman Italic, to explore more about the general shape principles (and of course I proped heavily on Carls comments). This was very useful for me, it made me have a new look at the principles of the design, and I think I could improve the Roman based on that experience. (You can see Black and Ultralight them compared to the roman in the end of the PDF. They are not perfect yet and won't be until Roman is finished.)

Then I returned to the Roman, and I won't stop for another typeface until it's finished. I did a lot of finetuning of proportions, stroke weight and details, and I think now I can say the basic character set is almost finished.
Please be critical and tell me about every minor error you still find! I think there are no major ones anymore, but I'm willing to negotiate ;-)

I've completely re-done the metrics. Spacing is finished, kerning is in finetuning and correction phase, and yes Carl, of course you were right: there is less to do now than in my first attempt.

What is still to be done:
- redesign ligatures, swashes, etc.
- check whether smallcaps are too thin (I have the misgiving they are...)
- Kerning of Uppercase<-->Smallcaps
- finetuning of some figures
- have a look at the opentype classes and coding whether it's still appropriate and complete
- rearrange diacritics

So if you have the time and willing, please concentrate your comments on basic character set (A-Z, Asmall-Zsmall, a-z, 0-9 and basic ASCII characters).
Of course, everything else is apprecialted as well, but know that I'm still working on them, so comments too much into detail may be overtaken by my own corrections anyway... But don't feel hesitated to comment conceptional things or major mistakes. For example, I don't know much about diacritics, It's mainly looking at solutions others have done, but's I can't say "now everything is correct".

Thanks for your help

Sebastian Nagel's picture

Short intermezzo: which lig-style do you prefer?

dave bailey's picture

Middle option, I hope you weren't considering just crashing two letters together as an option.

hrant's picture

The middle one. Although it might be worth trying an ironed out version of leftmost "crashed" one (with the beak of the "f" in there).


Sebastian Nagel's picture

No, it was the example how no-lig would look like.
I've chosen the middle one, but have weakened the wavy effect slightly.

Sebastian Nagel's picture

:) I'll try this, hrant (and be it just for fun).

Sebastian Nagel's picture

So here is the next update (first posting, version 61).

I think my last "big" post from 14th October was sabotaged by the shortly after "intermezzo". What I said there is still up-to-date, but I worked on, especially on:

- redesign ligatures, swashes, etc.A
- thickened smallcaps slightly
- a lot more of kerning with quotation marks etc.
- some opentype stuff
- rearranged diacritics

I will go on, but it's mainly bugfixing now, so if you find some of them, you could help me a lot.'s picture

> bugfixing

There is still an overlap in the cursive (alternate italic) lowercase "r" (branch over stem).

Palatine's picture

How is this coming along?

kuroneko's picture

I really like it, especially the "organic" effect created by your stroke variations, the sofa builder is fun, I'm not too sure of your ultralight version but I love the black one, a good looking font that made me think of Bussigny Serif. Nice one!

Sebastian Nagel's picture

Roman can be considered as finished. It is just waiting for the italic and maybe a bold to be released. I have done kyrillic and greek letters, but they won't be included in a first release. They are not good yet.

Italic is on it's way to be finished.

Black and Ultralight haven't moved yet.

Sofa Sans: A modified and improved version is being used in a children's book I've made a view weeks ago. It does not have the same glyph count as Serif at the moment.

I've also done some experiments with an
- Sofa Antiqua: quite okay, but far away from finished, Bussigny reminds me of it...
- Sofa Script (not quite okay, what I want to do needs a lot of opentype and glyph variants).

At the moment, I have 15 hours of work a day, so I don't have the time to go on. I will continue in about one and a half months. I have an urge to do that, but it is not possible right now...

AndersonMaschio's picture

It's beautiful! Congratulations Sebastian.

Sebastian Nagel's picture

So now I have added Version 0.80 to the first posting of this thread.
If no one has objections, this will be final version 1.0 for Sofa Serif Roman.

The forms are settled, the metrics are done, the features are defined and coded, and everything approved in small internal projects.
What is *not* final are the cyrillic and greek letters shown in the pdf. They will not be included in Version 1.0 of the font, but I wanted to show them anyway to get feedback.

I will now concentrate on finishing the two italics (normal and more swashed), which are about 70% on their way, and a bold version (just started). But with roman being "final" I now have something to follow.
And there are still ultrabold and ultralight, which are waiting to be continued. I needed them to go on with the roman, and they will now need some redrawing, but they were no waste of time... And I don't even dare to mention Sans and Antiqua ;-)

So what do you think?

Sebastian Nagel's picture

Oh and there's another question I have: Hinting does not seem to work very well at the moment.

I have tried this:

but as you can see in the PDF, it was not very successful, glyphs are still jumping up and down in some zoom levels, especially the capitals...

Sebastian Nagel's picture

ok, now I am confused: I am sure I have created this thread in the critique -> serif section.
Why is it in the General Discussions section now?

Miss Tiffany's picture

I can move it for you Sebastian. I don't know how it moved.

Syndicate content Syndicate content