Van

ricardo's picture

INTRODUCTION

Van is a Sans-Serif typography with a geometric style.
This version is expanded and don´t have contrast between the
different types of strokes, giving a uniform esthetic and visual in
each character, word or a column of text.
The family of van typography that is constitued by two different
width: normal and condensed wich one have the versions: Ultra Light, Light, Regular, Medium, Bold and all the respectives italics versions. I designed and plannificated this
typography to use as text and display but I think that they must be
corrected to use as font screen because some caracters have more
visual impact that others like for exemple LC-V, E, M, Z and SC-a, y.
Figures 5, 6, 9. All the critics are welcome to corrected and fininshed the work.GIF / JPG:
Text Description

ricardo's picture

GIF / JPG:
Text Description

ricardo's picture

GIF / JPG:
Text Description

ricardo's picture

GIF / JPG:
Text Description

ricardo's picture

GIF / JPG:
Text Description

ricardo's picture

GIF / JPG:
Text Description

ricardo's picture

GIF / JPG:
Text Description

ricardo's picture

GIF / JPG:
Text Description

ricardo's picture

GIF / JPG:
Text Description

ricardo's picture

GIF / JPG:
Text Description

ricardo's picture

GIF / JPG:
Text Description

ricardo's picture

GIF / JPG:
Text Description

ricardo's picture

GIF / JPG:
Text Description

hrant's picture

Pretty nice!
I especially like the lightest weight - very elegant. And the design as a whole has an appealing individuality without being strange. The only glyph that I didn't like was the lc "g": although the open-bottom bicameral "g" is my favorite form of that letter, I think the head needs to be bigger, to match the style of the lc "a" and lc "e", for example.

Keep it up,
Hrant

flingford's picture

Van seems to be coming along nicely. It has some nice nuances. I'm liking the condensed regular italic a lot.

The particulars of the face aside, however, I've been thinking about some advice I once heard that might be useful--depending on how complete your font is I guess.

The gist of the advice was that it's best not to pursue multiple weights of a face until you have the main weight completed and polished. And only when it's complete would you translate it to other weights or widths (bold, light, condensed, etc.)

I'm curious. Would others agree with this advice in general? Would you agree in the case of Ricardo's Van? If you were planning a font with lots of weights and/or widths, would you start with the regular weight?

//joe

objekt's picture

Joe,

In general, yes because it's a pain to fix multiple faces if you decide after the fact to make changes. Shouldn't the purpose of the typefaces dictate their development? For instance if you're designing a display face with a corresponding text version, doesn't it make sense to not go too far with either one before working on the other?

anonymous's picture

In fact you are totally correct, in this moment it's the way that i prefer to work starting by regular and italic versions to create the others weights (form/space). But Van was a special case, I had to draw all weights because the limits of the letters round - like I show in this last exemple.
If I created the other weight from the regular version using Fontographer, all that round properties would be destroyed with the transformation, so I prefered to make myself all.
Did you notice any strange differnces between the weights?
Thank's for attention Joe / Hrant / Objeckt

Best Regards_Ricardo
GIF / JPG:
1,Text Description

anonymous's picture

GIF / JPG:
Text Description

anonymous's picture

Sorry about the repetition of the message, I had a problem during the upload file.

anonymous's picture

GIF/JPG:

Syndicate content Syndicate content