A new sans serif trying to find its way

haag's picture


I'd like to share with you guys the concept of a new font I'm working on... it's the beginning, but it's right now that most of the decisions should be made.

I expect to design a legible headline font, that could be used also on about 12pts in small passages of text.

It's supposed to have a mechanical, industrial and geometric look...

I specially would like your opinions on two issues:

- the "a" design... there are three (the first one seems the best to me).

- Note that b p d q aren't just mirrored images of one and other. I believe I've got it right, based on the clockwise movement when drawing the letter... even this font concept not having anything to do with calligraphic origins, it looks nice (at least to me).

Let me know what you think...

many regards from sunny Brazil!


IronThree_030607.pdf49.07 KB
speter's picture

Muito bem!

I personally like the first a best, but the second might be useful as well, at least as an option. Given the overall slant of many elements of the face, I wonder if a more Jensonian e with a slant might not look better.

I look forward to seeing more as the face develops.

haag's picture

Thanks for your comments Steve...

Indeed, an "e" with diagonal stroke looks better in this font.


I'm bringing to the table also new versions of "l" and "i": now curvy at the baseline...
At first glance, I think it helps legibility, but they look out of shape when placed beside to the other characters.

It's a hard decision... the more I test and explore, the better...


litera's picture

I like this font very much. What you did with "e" is great.

I like the first "a" but the second one looks more part of the font.

The new "i" and "l" are great but be careful about kerning. "in" combination needs kerning.

I would change letters:

  • g - I'd change the descender because it looks distracting to me
  • c - I would close the aperture a bit because it looks wide open

Otherwise. Great font. Looks like some FF font. Very sleek and modern. I can see it used for various different applications. Make shure you make other weights too.

William Berkson's picture

This has promise. Good luck with it!

One comment: because of the points on the H, it should come up higher to look even with the O--maybe as high as the O or higher. Test it out and you will see what works best, but I bet it will be different than it would be with a flat H. Similarly try out varying the stem of the n, i etc. compared to the arches, the o, etc.

haag's picture

Thank you both!

Here we go:


>I like the first “a” but the second one looks more part of the font.
Yes, but I think that's because it's too similar to forms used in bpdq, and that lowers the legibily of the a as it lowers differentiation.
I guess I'll have both designed, and add the second a in the opentype stylist alternate feature.

>The new “i” and “l” are great but be careful about kerning.
Yes, but I'll worry about kerning only in the last stages of development.

>Make shure you make other weights too.
Sure! This is the light weight. I plan to design Light, Regular, Bold and Black, with italic (problably oblique) forms.


Very well noticed. The higher point of the H (with diagonal cut) should equal the overshoot of the O. I've done this on lowercases, but forgot in the uppercase. Thanks for seeing this now and prevent me to design others with wrong proportions.

>g - I’d change the descender because it looks distracting to me
Yes, I'll try a diagonal descender, maybe it suits best.

>c - I would close the aperture a bit because it looks wide open
I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree on this one. Different from Dax for example, I'd like to make the characters with aprox similar widths. I believe it looks more contemporary (different than classic proportions that has forms like c with almost half of general widths).

Again, I do appreciate your help.

litera's picture

Ok. You are right about the "a" I started to like it anyway. But to my opinion its eye is leaning a bit left.

About the "c" letter. I didn't mean to close it to that extent. What distracted me was that its aperture looks wide not even parallel. It looks wide open because the stroke on top has angled ending.

Just my opinion.

haag's picture

Hi Litera,

Okay, I get it now... but still, I believe it's set correctly.
The upper stroke is a little longer to compensate the angle (diagonal), different form the bottom (square). This difference is almost the same as the overshoot between round and square strokes. Here's a close up with guidelines as reference.

thks again ;)

William Berkson's picture

I think what Litera is talking about is not that the upper stroke is too short (and it may indeed still be a little short visually), but that the arms of the c visually look open beyond the parallel, sort of sprung open. I think that visually to look parallel--and you might want them bent in even more than that--you will have to either bend them in slightly, or flair them slightly, as the flairs on the terminals in Frutiger...

litera's picture

Thank you William. Spot on.

One more thing. When (if) bending them in, you should do that only with the top arm. Bottom one is probably ok because it's very geometric. And with top arm you should probably bend in only the "inner line" of the of it. The one in the aperture.

haag's picture

Oh, I got it now! I apologize for my misunderstanding ;)

I'll work on it this weekend.

Thks again!!

haag's picture

Hi everyone!!

Here's a new PDF with improvements:

There is a "c" and "g" for comparison, plus some new lowercase letters and capital "D".

I decided to remove those "i" and "l" with curvy terminals (last PDF), because they loose the geometrical and industrial feeling.

"see ya" all


caduprimola's picture

Hi Fabio!

At first its a nice geometric sans ideia. I agree with you so the first "a" is the best choice.
I saw the last update and liked the relation between g and q / p and d. Nice!

See ya at NDesign - Floripa! ;)

haag's picture

Hello there!!

Now a new PDF with all lowercase and most uppercase designed.
I specially like the Q - pretty innovative and yet functional in my point of view.

Here it is:

Thks you all

Carlos Eduardo: see you there for sure ;)

speter's picture

This is very good! I think the development is moving in the right direction. I like the Q, but it is a bit too dark where the tail and body join.

Don't forget to add some punctuation :-)

haag's picture

Thanks Steve... yes, it it's dark. I'll try an inktrap to resolve it.

I'll make standard punctuation on next update for better reviewing these proofs.

Thks again ;)

litera's picture

I guess that lower case "w" is also a bit darker than other letters.

haag's picture

Hello type maniacs!!

Long time no "see"... I've made some changes in the design concept of this font after some directions of a typedesigner friend who doesn't post here often. Anyway, it has changed since my last post, and I wanted only to post again when I felt it was on the right track.

So here it is, the Light weight (lowercase, uppercade, basic punctuation and accents): http://www.focodesign.art.br/AdvanceLight_240907.pdf

What do you think? Any suggestions?

Fabio Haag

litera's picture

Hi Fabio.

This is very nice and likeable. I think the stroke join in Q is still a little bit dark. But very little bit.

Carons on c, s and z (čšž) seem to be off centre.

I don't like the negative effect of the crossbar on d, h, l and t.

Syndicate content Syndicate content