An idea for you to rip apart

gmeade's picture

Here is a font I completed. You can rip into the criticism straight away, but the font wont change.

ebensorkin's picture

So the point of posting it here is what?

neuroman's picture

Because he is Graham Meade...tha's enough :-)

gmeade's picture

No, because suggestions and points can help me improve myself on later work. I am sorry but just noticed how arrogant the first post seems, it was not meant to.

This font wont be changed because it is finished, and I do not like or desire going back to a font I have completed (in my eyes). I take any advice about a completed font and use this to improve future ones.

fonthausen's picture

Being the devil's advocate: Why did you then post your typeface, if you wont want to change it?


gmeade's picture

Because the explanation was in my earlier post. To learn from you lot on what areas I need to improve in future. You obviously are more interested in why I am not going to change it rather than picking the faults with it.

synch's picture

Very nice! Check out the similarities to the font I'm working on at the moment:

aquatoad's picture

"This is supposed to be a happy occasion. So lets not bicker and argue about who killed who."

hrant's picture

I think it's certainly worthwhile critiquing a font that won't change. I even see value in critiquing fonts by dead people.

That said, if there's enough wrong with this font, Graham should consider releasing a replacement later on.


ebensorkin's picture

I like the font actually, but what Randy Jones said about contructed fonts is probably right.

With some extra work a new level of elegance & life could be coaxed into this font. The feisar font linked to above has some of that - but I would like a more humanist application for this font.

(Jonathan - I think this about your font too.)

Actually, with the spacing Graham has it feels alittle bit Gil Sans-ish to me.

gmeade's picture

This is the type of corrections you wanted, arn't they ?

hrant's picture

No, that's stickshitboring.


gmeade's picture

I agree. It was just an illustration to a point about corrections. I knocked it up in illustrator from some old work laying about. I am not doing a font like this, nor changing it to resemble it either.

dart's picture

Graham, your "This is the type of corrections you wanted, aren't they?" post came off, at least to me, as a pre-emptive attack. It sounds more like you don't really want to hear what we might have to say.

There may be a value in critiquing a dead designer's work, but the designer himself gains no insight by it.

I don't believe Mr. Meade will learn anything here.

gmeade's picture

Excuse me, Mr. Rigby, but I feel that remark is totally uncalled for. I posted the second image as it had some of the types of corrections, such as spine of S, length of decenders, The 5 and 6 sizes, etc. It was an enquiry to see if this the style of the corrections, as well as the proportions that Randy Jones was suggesting and not some form of attack.

With the 'helpful assistance' you are imparting, it is obvious I will not learn anything. Would you prefer it if I didn't post stuff here, or ask questions ? Would you like me to carry on muddling along, teaching myself ?

hrant's picture

Take it easy, boys.
I think Graham's tone could be seen as offensive, but note that he did start off with "You can rip into the criticism straight away", so I don't think his point was "please admire my perfect baby". I think he does want to hear what we think of the font. On the other hand, again: I hope Graham is open to making a fixed one if he comes to feel that there's enough wrong with it as it stands - otherwise it's just Art. But font development/release is a matter of thresholds, not absolutes: there is always a point beyond which it's really not worth fixing a font.


gmeade's picture

Hrant, there is a heap wrong with it, and further reflections with the suggestions have lead me to believe I should implement these changes. It will still only end up my interpretation of the font, and still carrying errors, but it will end up the best I could do at this time.

I am not the best speaker/writer, so any assumptions I may be insulting, or rude, will be incorrect. Mr Rigby, While you probably felt what you said was right, I feel the remark about living designers and critique to be wrong. We do gain insight, well I do. I also believe others posting their work here also gain insight from remarks made about the work. Otherwise why bother posting ?

gmeade's picture

I have changed the characters in regard to the critique given by Randy. The K bottom has been slightly more rounded to try to enhance the shape a bit more. There are still a few lines that need cleaning up. The change to the S seems to give it a slight odd shape.

Should I lower the Middle bar in the G a bit ? It seems a bit high. Or should I shave a bit off the end curve on the top of it to open up the gap instead.

meir's picture

What an impressive typeface (Puckey's work too)!
I would be interested to see how it looks bolder, because the strokes are simply too fine for my personal taste... :>
Also I would very much like alternates for the "Q", there could be some very cool options for it, since this font is so keen on this "top-rightwardness"!

Syndicate content Syndicate content