Cool. Reminds me of Eurostile, but less cold.

Have you considered making the stems of the M perfectly vertical?

Also, I think the lower bowl of the B, as well as the bowls of the P and R, could stand to be a bit bigger.

I should try the vertical stems on the M.

Though I really like the proportions of the R, I guess having a bigger lower bowl (B, P,and R) would help some spacing issues especially when P is next to A.

I was also thinking of an alternate version that would have more personality, which is something I wanted to avoid at the very beginning. Here’s A,K, and Q, alternate version. I guess the angular aspect of the A, and Q should be in V, X and Y too.

Thanks

This is really nice. I think the straights on the ’W’ really help that usually troubled monospaced character.

Something was bugging me in the S, here’s the improved version.

Have you considered making the stems of the M perfectly vertical?

I thought of it but I won’t do it. Since it’s a monospace and that M is already wider than H the angle makes the spacing a lot better.

Much more even, good call.

Your new S has a stronger and longer diagonal than the original S. Why is this better? Does it match the other letters in a better way? Not that I disagree, but I want to better understand what makes a good S. I find it a very difficult letter to design.

I think the rest of the letters look quite nice.

I like it. It feels like text from a tray on a boeing 727. Here are some ideas. What about dropping the cross bar of the A just slightly lower? What you have done to the S give it more charisma than the other glyphs have. Particularly the M & W. I am not sure how but perhaps you can spead some of that goodness around. I like the Alt Glyphs too.

Dear sgh

I’m not able to explain it in a rational way. To me type design has something really intuitive. I think that I tried to make the curves of the first S almost the same, probably thinking the result would be more coherent to all the other characters. What happened is that the first S was too rigid. In the new S, curve 1 is related to curve 4, while curve 2 is related to curve 3: the result is more fluent.

I don’t have the recipe of what makes a good S. Usually, my first sketches are always rolling forward or backward. But, what’s important is: trust your eyes. If you’re lost because your working at it for too long, put it aside and come back later or ask someone.

I hope this comment helped.

Thanks Eben

You were wright! I just dropped the cross bar of the A, makes it more open which is better, it will also help at smaller size. But I’m a little embarassed with your comment about the S. Though it’s flattering, I wonder how this could spread to the M and the W. I’ll keep it in mind.

BTW, really appreciate your analogy to the tray on a boeing 727.

Nice diagram!

The dropped bar is more typical of those boeing letters - or at least as I recall them.

What you did with the S in part was to add tension I think. It could be that by adding a subtle curve to the M & W’s straight lines you could add some tension there too. Did you adjust the B & C too in the example above? They look less heavy slightly & seem to have more tension. Or am I seeing things just because of the dropped bar?

I don’t know if anything I have done in the monospace I am aming can be of help or not. It’s here:

http://typophile.com/node/29761

And actually; I would love to have a critique from you as well.

Did you adjust the B & C too in the example above?

Only the cross bar has been dropped.

Cool. That shows me how every detail in a type design effect every other one. Probably the slight difference in the rendering crispness confused me too.