danitello's picture

Hi, this is the first time I've posted on this site. I will admit, I am not very experienced in the area of type. I am currently going to school for Visual Communications in Oregon, and am taking my second course on typography. I am, however, suprised how much more interested I am in type than I thought I would be!

Our first assignment for this course is to design an upper-case alphabet based on the letters "Dakota". This was a logo for a local store that our instructor got permission to use for this assignment.

I decided that all the letters should be based on strict geometric shapes, with no compound shapes. And this is what I came up with.

The top line is what we were given to work with, followed by the alphabet. The bottom two lines are two sample words to see how they start working together.

I guess I am just looking for some feedback, comments or criticism.


dakota_01.jpg147.18 KB
gulliver's picture

Nice work overall. Here are a few thoughts:

I understand you were locked into the "T" from the "DAKOTA" logo, but "T" and "Z" don't follow the rules established by "E" and "F", and instead look shortened since the crossbars are set lower. While you are locked into this with the "T", you might find a different solution with "Z".

"B", I think, needs a vertical bar on the left as in "E", "F", "H", "K", "L", "M", "N" and "W".

I very much like "R", but there's a bit of tension where the circle and the left bar almost touch. More space here (and less space for the triangular tail) could balance it better. This same tension exists in "G", "J", "P", "Q", "U" and "Y".

In the tail of the "Q", the base of the triangle should sit flushly and horizontally on the baseline rather than being tilted.

The "G" reads almost more like a "6". Would a square or triangle be a better solution than the smaller half-circle?

Conversely, would perhaps a quarter- or half-circle make a better tail for the "J"?

David Thometz

danitello's picture

Thank you very much, David, for your insight. You brought up some very observant points, a few of which I had noticed but hadn't come up with solutions for.
It is really good to get some constructive criticism!

Thanks again,
Dani Mouser

Syndicate content Syndicate content