Tosca: Please critique new typeface under development!

Pixion's picture


After being bussy with other things, I started development of a new serif. It is supposed to be a modern text face. Besides the whole upper case, I still have to do the g, o and w, but could use some input at this stage.

Please let me know what you think!

Tosca v1.pdf10.29 KB
Tosca v2.pdf10.37 KB
jason's picture

This is just a very quick response but from the graphic sample my eye immediately got stuck on the bottom half of the "e"; it feels, forgive me, "lumpy." And the terminal on the "f" seems a bit harsh. Dots over "i" and "j" look dark. And the arm/leg of the "k" are out of whack (the leg looks stunted). Also, the second section of "m" looks noticably narrower than the first section; that is, it looks like an "n" with a narrower "n" tacked on, rather than one unified and balanced glyph.

On another note, and this isn't necessarily a negative, I get the strangest sensation that the feet of "h", "m", etc., are actually moving. I know, this is crazy, but I swear I can see them stepping to the right. It's only those with multiple serifed feet, but they're moving, I swear...

mondoB's picture

Overall, quite worthwhile...keep going...refinements needed, as cited above by the x, love the diamond-ish dots over letters, love the open kiss between k components, q excellent. Love the way the a inside loop is sculpted. Lower case f is top-heavy, but the idea is good, just needs to be judged more carefully, reined in.

Keep on truckin'...and come back with a full beta version...and don't even *think* about releasing without three or more weights and italics for each we who help you get a free copy later??

Pixion's picture


I see your points. The e is definetly too bottom heavy, I think I overlooked that one before posting... Note that the sections of the m are of even width, if you look at the pdf. Its the hinting (or absence of) that make the preview look unbalanced.

I will go back and make some changes. Hey, with the remark on moving feet, are you 'under the influence' or so?


Thanks for the encouragements. I think both of you think the f is top-heavy. I will shave it down a bit and see how that comes out. I will keep truckin' and back soon with an update. Sure, you can have a copy later!

Thanks for both of your input!

jason's picture

I'm still seeing an imbalance in the "m" in the PDF; I believe you that the two sections are the same width, and that's the problem: they're metrically balanced, but not optically. The top serif on the left leg gives that side of the glyph more weight, thus it appears more substantial, therefore the right side appears less substantial. To compensate the right leg needs to be moved slighly further right. This will create a metric imbalance, but the glyph will look optically "correct."

As for that "f", you're right, it's not just the hard stroke of the terminal, but the arm itself is hanging out too far. I'm not sure if this will help, but I like the strength of the tail on the "j"; can you lend the "f" some of the control found in the "j"?

Part of the reason the "e" feels chunky at the bottom is that the crossbar might be a tiny bit too light. Maybe try adding a tiny bit of weight to that bar.

The bottom of the "c" is suffering from the same chunkiness that the "e" has.

Good, strong commas. I like that.

Like mondo I love the "x", but I'm tripping up on it in the PDF. It's a bit of an attention hog.

Perhaps the "t" could be slightly taller?

I'm assuming you haven't kerned the font yet, but in case you have here's a quick gathering of pairs that look awkward:

an at ay
me mu my
nt nu
pi pt

"fi" & "ff" ligs?

Overall I like the face a lot. I use Fedra a fair bit, and you have a nice blending of that and Dolly with maybe some Warnock thrown in. There's still work to be done, but you're building something quite nice.

Pixion's picture


Thanks for those pointers! I attached an updated PDF at the top.

m: I think it should be better balanced now.

c, e: made them less bottom heavy and increased weight of crossbar.

f: Reduced top weight. I tried using the j as f by rotating it, but it doesn't feel 'indulgent' enough.

t: Made it a bit higher.

x: Reduced weight of cross.

k: Tweaked arm/leg a bit to make it less

I added the kening pairs you indicated, but I generated the new v2 pdf in Word for now, so I am not sure if they will com through..

Ligs: They are next!

jason's picture

Just running out the door, but will have a close look later. Glad my notes were useful.

jason's picture

Pixion, how goes the font development? I obviously got side-tracked and haven't had a chance to respond more than what I have above, but I'm curious to see how things are coming along...

degregorio's picture

Me gusta mucho. Felicitaciones, está buenísima.

Tiene un peso, que a mi parecer es el ideal.
Tal vez me gustaría ver un poco más de sensibilización a la hora de sistematizar los trazos.
Hablo por el de la "a", "u", y "d" que necesitan una pasadita de estándares.

Muy bonita fuente.

Juan Pablo De Gregorio

Pixion's picture


Sorry for not getting back, I was on vacation and without internet for the last ten days!

Following your feedback, I made quite some changes before I left. Please check the v2 PDF, all the way at the top. For the lc, I still have to come up with the g, but have some ideas to go from.

The uc will most probably be worked on during the upcoming weekend.

Tell me what you think of the Tosca v2 PDF!


Pixion's picture


Thanks for the comments! Via Babelfish I was able to got it translated, at least a bit. I am not sure what you meant with the "a", "u" and the "d". Something about 'sensitivation'?

degregorio's picture

You have 2 ways of end your stroke...
I don`t know...

Pixion's picture

One is like the j, f, hook of r, x etc. But what do you consider the second end? The end on the c, t and e?

hrant's picture

Why would there be a numerical limit on the number of types of terminals?
There are accomplished fonts out there with 4.


Pixion's picture


Any feedback on this design?

Quincunx's picture

Nice work. I especially like your 's' and 'a'. I think the 'f' is much better in the latest version.
Word does not use any kerning-data at all unless you tell it to, however your interpunction needs to be kerned as well, like the 'y' followed by a comma.
It looks to me that the 'e' is a bit thin on the top, but I'm not experienced enough to tell if that is really a problem. And it looks like the spaces are somewhat large? Especially noticable after a comma.

Maybe you can use something like InDesign to make a specimen the next time, so it is kerned?

Keep it up.

Syndicate content Syndicate content