Some display face

ovaalk's picture



I will make a family of different widths. This is the most condensed. Should all glyphs compress and extend with the alphabet? What do you think?

ovaalk's picture

Sorry for the double post, I got error both times.

ric's picture

it's happened to me too... but in this case, since the thread was posted twice, maybe the forum's moderator could remove the repeat thread, to avoid confusion.

eomine's picture

Nice, Timo. This kind of thing is not my "cup of tea", but I like this one.
I just think that your {curly brackes} and your

ovaalk's picture

Thanks for the comment. I've tried to curl the brackets but no success, I have to work it and do some spacing.

What's wrong with the guillemets?

>> Should all glyphs compress and extend with the alphabet?

>Yes, I think... but I'm not sure if I understand your question.

I mean it's kind of hard to make for example an extended period, exept by spacing... should I just leave some glyphs identical in different widths of the face, like punctuation and math signs, if yes, which ones?

Which ampersand?

eomine's picture

The guillemets, I think they're too narrow and too tight.
The ampersands, they're all nice. But maybe the regular one (the first from left to right) is the more useful.

> should I just leave some glyphs identical in
> different widths of the face

Now I understand your question. In fact it's a good question. I guess my answer to this question is no, don't make glyphs identical through different widths.
An extended typeface usually should be slightly heavier than its lighter companions, for optical compensation.

ovaalk's picture

I guess I got too much into condensing with the guillemets. I have to open them more, and even more for the extended versions.

>An extended typeface usually should be slightly heavier than its lighter companions, for optical compensation.

That's a good answer, Thanks

Syndicate content Syndicate content