Opinion on this sans serif font (Inovares)

litera's picture

While designing my own logo I designed only the letters I needed. But looking at those I convinced myself to complete the whole lc set.

What do you think?
Does it look too similar to any existing font?
Does it have any future?
Do you think I should finish it?

Inovares Font 2.pdf27.13 KB
Inovares Font 3.pdf17.96 KB
Inovares Font 4.pdf34.99 KB
Inovares Font 5.pdf35.97 KB
Inovares Font 6.pdf35.15 KB
Inovares Font 7.pdf35.54 KB
jmickel's picture

My initial thought was Bayer Universal, but it doesn't really have that much in common. More just the 'feel.'

There are definitely some nice things going on. The 'e' is cursive, which might work better in the italic than a roman.

The second half of your 'm' is too small.

The r, t, f may be too narrow when used in text.

I really like the 'c,' more so than the circular a, b, d, g, p. q. And the o has a little more charm than the circular ones as well.

They seem to be in conflict with the c, but the c works nicely with the h, m, n.

The undulations in the k and x are nice, but might be too subtle. You notice them at this size, but they would disappear at anything smaller.

I have found it interesting that type designs have to be a caricature of themselves. You look at them the size of your screen in order for them to function at 7 pt.

Good start!

hrant's picture

If you keep it "naive" it could indeed be useful.
The most glaring problem is the "w".


TBiddy's picture

I think it looks quite promising. I won't offer any criticism because I think you'll start working some of the kinks out as you complete the rest of the face. Good luck!

litera's picture

Hey guys. I finally got to second version of this sans serif font. Compared to the first one there are many many changes as you can see by yourself. I tried to share the same style to all the letters now.

You can see all the tiny details in the PDF http://typophile.com/files/Inovares%20Font%202.pdf

All opinions about the font are more than welcome. Please tell me if this is an improvement in the right way and what else should I be careful about. I'll start with upper case letters if you think this is ready to go forward.

Five's picture

First off, I like it quite a bit and think the little flexes and the e and c work really well together.

I think it's a step too far from the first version. The undulations that were nice and gentle in the first are overstated in this version (though the v and w are a definite improvement). Some of the characters are looking a bit top-heavy (a g h m n p q), though I think this has to do with changing the design of these characters pretty drastically. I'm not sure which direction I prefer. Can't say the y works for me...

Have you given any thought to ligatures?

litera's picture

You're right. Undulations were too exaggerated. I'm made another revision to balance undulations on "k", "x" and "z" and I've increased character spacing to make it more even and not squashed.

Another thing about the "y". I think the current "y" works best. I tried three additional designs, but to me the original one works best. What would you suggest to base style of the "y" on what letter? I based it on "v" and "g/u".

(updated image)

To my eyes the original right stroke undulated version is the best one. Maybe the right stroke looks a bit heavier but that will be taken care of.

Ligatures would be part of the font as well (fi, fj, fl, ffi, ffj, ffl). Do you think there's a need for any additional ligature? I think the font is quite simple and plain and doesn't need anything beyond normal.

Opinions much appreciated.

hrant's picture

This is looking quite handsome now.

Try lowering the bar of the "f". The bowl of the "g" needs to be slightly smaller. The "k" is a bit wide. The "w" is still a mess. The "x" and "z" are a bit too bouncy.

And I'm actually liking the last "y".


litera's picture

I've updated the "y"s because it was confuzing. The single letters were in different order than the "y"s in the word.


Which "y" were you referring to? You can tell by number now. If it was the one with straight descender (4) I see a problem with small sizes, because it may be (MAY be) confused with "v".

I'll try the lower bar on "f" and check if it works.

Could you be more specific with other? "g" smaller in what way? Narrower/lower?

I used to have a narrower "k" but I optically adjusted it to "h". :(

What do you mean by "w" being a mess? Did you check the PDF (link on top).

And last but probably not least (sorry) "x" and "z" of course? Bouncy as not looking part of the family or what?

Thank you.

hrant's picture

I like "y" #4. Yes, it can be confused with the "v" more than the other ones, but this isn't exactly a text face... Plus you can say it's inspired by the Greek script - people will like that. :-) If you decide not to go with #4, go with #3. If anybody complains that it's too strange, tell them Fleischmann was doing it in the 18th century, and you hope people aren't more closed-minded now. :->

The descender area of the "g" is cramped, and a common trick in fonts with such an issue is to make the head shorter - to lift the bottom of the head above the baseline a bit.

Maybe not a "mess", but the "w" to me is clearly too elaborate. Here's an idea: if you end up using the fourth "y", try making the middle part a vertical line.

The "x" and "z" seem just a bit too curvy compared to the whole.

And something new, which I should have mentioned
first: I think the ascenders should be slightly taller.


litera's picture

Third revision of the font Already exported as OTF. Finally.

1. Ascenders are a bit higher
2. Changed "kvwxz". Undulations are more simmilar to match the style. "w" is completely different.
3. "g" has smaller counter (positioned higher)
4. Some punctuation.
6. Didn't include the "y" because I didn't decide on it yet. Which one to use. I'm still experimenting with original to make it work somehow as good as possible.


cerulean's picture

This is a really fresh look. It's worth all the trouble.

I think an appropriate "y" for this face would be something like the left stroke of 1 with the right stroke of 2.

If all else fails for the "w", you can turn the "m" upside down.

The ink traps in the "z" seem too prominent to me.

hrant's picture

Nice. The eye of the "e" is a bit large. The "c", "e" and "s" are a bit wide. The "back-curl" inside the head of the "f" is a pro touch. I would make the bars of the "f" and "t" extend further left. I would make the right-hand shear of the bar of the "t" the same as that in the "f". The "v" is leaning left. The upper arm of the "k" seems a hair thick. Have you considered giving the "el" a curl at the foot? Your spacing foundation looks good. And you know I like traps. :-)


litera's picture

Believe it or not but this is the first font that I'm making in my life. I've made some custom letters so far (for logos) and I like lots of precision (maybe a bad thing) and I'm IN LOVE with typography.

Stand by for my next revision.

hrant's picture

Your rate of improvement is impressive! :-)


litera's picture

Thanks for all the comments so far. And thanks hrant.

This is the 4th revision of the font.
Link here > Fourth revision

There are quite many detail changes:
- ink traps propagated to main places on letters that may need them
- the terminal on "a" was distracting because it was too subtle and it looked like an error
- small change on "c" balance and width
- reshaped and synchronized "e" and "s". "e" also has smaller eye/counter
- "f" and "t" have a bit wider crossbars extending abit more to the left
- "f", "j" and "t" have back curl that is now at least visible but enough subtle to not distract the eye
- a bit narrower "u"
- changes on "v" and "w" and added "y" (after 6 different styles this is the one I'm most comfort with)
- hyphen a bit narrower
- You can also see accented "c", "s" and "z" (also generated ecaron and rcaron)
- two major CAPITALS: "H" and "O"

No kerning yet.

I'm also thinking to make letterspacing a bit more loose. What do you think? Should I?

Opinions/ideas/critiques/etc. welcome...

hrant's picture

I would make the "t" not reach the full ascender height.
There's still a bit too much movement in the "v" and "w".

Spacing: if you want this to be used for really small text (like 8pt) then yes, loosen it all up; but the overall spacing you have is fine if you're seeing this as a display face - in fact I would tighten it a hair. However, as it stands (and especially if you loosen the spacing) the blank space is too narrow.


litera's picture

Here's the 5th revision. I've changed the complete set of killing me letters: v, w and y.

Otherwise all the letters have more or less been changed. "t" doesn't reach the full ascender height. "e" has been changed to match the "s".

Fifth revision

But I'm having problems with kerning in InDesign. This one goes to a different thread.

litera's picture

I managed to change the font so kerning works. I created a kerned PDF sample.

Sixth revision

hrant's picture

Nice individualistic, but still harmonious, "y".


golfomat's picture

Three ideas:
1. Try the n with a slight inward slant on right leg.
2. Tighten the e. For my taste still a bit wide.
3. I think the a needs the same lower-joint as the g.

Ever considered giving that "a" a tail?

golfomat's picture

Like this?

timd's picture

Looking at your kerned pdf, I think you need a wider fl ligature and that various combinations, for example, na and nb and perhaps best seen in nmnon are too loose.


litera's picture

Yes this "fl" was my first attempt because I needed it urgently for the kerning purposes to have another OT feature in the font. I also noticed it was too narrow so I changed it to a wider one.

Do you think that "e" and "s" still look a bit bolder than other letters? I've tried making weight the same for all...

litera's picture


I was thinking to put a tail on "a" but that would mean it will look more off family, won't it? It would mean I'd have to change other too. I agree to at least adjust the lower join of the bowl of the "a" when it comes to stem... It looks to thin.

What do you think?

litera's picture


Revision seven

I guess this one is pretty much there.

  • "fl" is now wide as it should be
  • corrected shape and width of "e"
  • corrected weight and shape of "s"
  • changed bottom join and a very slight tail on "a"
  • slight width change of some letters
  • more kerning pairs
  • new: Question mark

Any opinions? This "lc" set is now quite ok to my eye. Looks even in contrast. I guess I have to make punctuation and diacritics now...

golfomat's picture

From my point of view the a can have a slight tail. A lot of sans-faces do have one, which on the other hand doesn't say that yours needs one, too. And a signature character might not be too bad either. Consistency is good, but a good variation on a theme is even better (this was sooo subjective). For text-sizes it could be pretty helpful though, since the stem of the a is another vertical force. Try typing words with a lot of m,n,h,a in it and you'll see what I mean.

The slight movement in there now is a good approach.

litera's picture


I don't think I understand what you're trying to tell me about the "a" problem. Do you think it should have more right side bearing? Do you think it's too tight or too loose? At some point I wasn't sure if you're trying to tell me the font is good or bad...

Sorry for obviously misreading between the lines...

golfomat's picture

Nothing between the lines. Always straightforward.

I was just thinking you should set some of the characters with vertical strokes next to each other. Sans-faces tend to be difficult to read for words containing a lot of these ("minimal" would be an example). Especially when set in smaller sizes. Some very subtle movement within characters helps this. You have to decide this, because to some extend this affects the artistic side of your design.

Syndicate content Syndicate content