Too bad we can't have MM Leporello ;-)

Overall, I like it, especially the lc g.

The entry stroke on lc b and lc thorn isn't working for me, although I like it on the lc i. Perhaps it's because I then expect it elsewhere, like on lc h, l, k, etc. Also, the counter in uc Thorn looks a bit small to me, especially next to the lc version.

I like the uppercase a lot, but I find the lowercase too flowery in places (entry strokes etc.). That's a taste thing though. I'm not qualified to offer any professional opinions ...

R

You have taken on an interesting challenge of having a greater variety of treatments of individual letters, and still have the whole harmonize and balance. I think a PDF with text would help to see how well it harmonizes or fails to and contradicts itself. The few words you posted promise a nice harmony and balance. If it does harmonize it would be valuable, as you would have achieved a greater differentiation of letters, and possibily easier readability, than is usual in a sans.

I get an error message when I try to start up your PDF. 'Acrobat cannot decript this document'. Can you check it?

The more I look the more intriguing this is. Overall, I think the 'inconsistencies' work harmoniously together-though I want to see that PDF!

I wonder whether the h or k or both need the b treatment for the sake of the harmony of the font. Even though they don't have a 'reflection' they could, and it might look more harmonious. The ldq would still have a visual 'reason' not to have the bend.

The only character I don't think works is the g, because unlike the rest it looks odd to me and the oddness doesn't go away. A single story g might still keep to your design rules for this font and work better.

> It's not a font, of course - just structures, and
> explaining everything is a pretty long story -
> like the fact that they represent an "ideal"** and
> a given actual font can "tame" the structures as
> needed - perhaps arriving at somewhere close to
> Leporello.

I understand that polishing those structures and making it a real font would require it to be 'less ideal', but on the other hand, how can you measure, how can you tell if it 'works' or not if it's not a typeface, just an 'idea' of typeface? I mean, how do you know that it needs re-tweaking? I only ask because I really want to know.


> You could read my essay in this book if you're
> interested in learning more: [...]

I've read it. I like your ideas about reform, but the article seems 'dated' now (well, probably because I read Typophile every day).

> how can you tell

You can never know, but you can always "tell", so to speak. Fear of being wrong is something you have overome to create progress, otherwise you're just rehashing established practice. So don't really want to know, really want to invent, I guess.

Yes, the article is dated. But it still ruins lives. ;->

hhp

>You could read my essay in this book if you're interested in learning more:

Hmmm. The text in the PDF for me doesn't solve the harmony problem well enough. It may be the width of the letters is the problem rather than the forms, though. I suspect that you need to narrow the stemless letters - doesn't Dax do this? And also the a seems too wide to me. The flag at the top of the b sticks out too much; its seems visually higher than the straight ascenders - would shortening it make it more harmonious?

You have quite a challenge getting even rhythm into your unconventional forms, but if you succeed you will have something unique. I don't think it's there yet.

Robert,
Thank you very much for the links, I will study them and then make improvements. The scholarly "Problems of Diacritic Design

I am attaching another PDF witth the changes I have made so far. This time I have only included a limited character set.
I have slightly condensed the font and made numerous tinkerings.
There is also a couple of words in other weights. I actually started the face as a medium weight. Even though medium is the least usefull weight, it gives me clues about all other weights. I then did a bold and a black before starting the regular. I did not show the bolder weights before because they would not work well as a text face. I still have much work to do on them all but would like your collective feedback on what I have so far.

Thanks,

Chris

Leporello6.19.04 Lep-secondpdf.pdf (56.0 k)

I think the narrower letters and the change in the serif on the b are both good improvements.

Now I see your idea of great variation in the letters in your 'cloaked' version. It think it is too much.

There is a balance between repetition and variation in any pattern to make it work aesthetically. I have heard, I forget where, that in music it is about 50-50. If the melody doesn't have some kind of repetition it doesn't come together as a melody, but just is a series of notes. Thus you have the typical establishment of the theme in four bars, the next four bars with variation of the theme, the third four a different variation, and return to the theme.

In other words with too much variation a melody just doesn't come together as a 'gestalt' that the mind can wrap itself around. On the other hand, if there is too much repetition it becomes boring and annoying, like the infernal 'Doublemint' jingle.

I think that this kind of patterning principle also holds for readability. And I think you have gone too far in the variety direction. But if you figure a way to pull back - there are a lot of ways to do it because you have so much variation - you could end up with something that is balanced and innovative.

By the way, the narrowed top of the g works now for me, where it didn't before. But I think the connecting loop to the bottom is off somehow now.

Here is yet another tinkering. Besides many small adjustments throughout, I have mostly abandoned the 2-version concept since the difference between Plain and Cloaked was so small it made no sense to keep both. I went back to just "Regular" and made the entry strokes more normal and predictable at least for now.
I also added, just for fun, a few dingbats that were in keeping with the libretto of the opera. I added a mask, swords (pointing left and right and dueling) and even a "Leporello folder"
I also changed the Pilcrow to resemble a sword broken in two (even though Hrant liked the earlier one.
I still have no kerning but am working on the diacritics now and flirting with an italic.
Hrant-I never liked the stepped "k", it always lookedlike a broken chair to me. I tried the ear on the "g" and the "a" but it looked silly and out of place with the rest.
Please have a look at the PDF and let me know what you all think.

ChrisL

Leporello7-6-04 Leporello7-6-04.pdf (56.7 k)

I'm just working on my first typeface, so be forewarned you are not getting the voice of experience here.

The thing I like most about this now are your serifs at the top of the ascenders.

My suspicion is that if the n, h, and o were slightly narrower it would make for a better rhythm in the text.

I wonder whether it would be better with the l with the serif on the ascender. The bl combination is a little jarring in the text. Having the d with no serif is more 'natural' looking as the serif on the d in a serif face is sometimes different than all the other ascenders.

The bottom serif on the l - should the terminal be more similar to the ascender serifs?

The i serif. I think this needs to relate more to the ascender serif also - maybe just being shorter would work. Now, with the serif bending down, it think it should overshoot like the o; it looks short now. Also you could consider putting a stem on the r. As the Underware fellows explain here the r usually has more of a notch than the m,n. And that helps keep the rn from looking like an m. If you are going to have as serif on the i you might consider doing something on the j and r also.

I don't know what can work here, but I do think that the serifs on the ascenders are a success, and working the face to make it harmonize and work best with these is the way to go.

I am posting a final broadside speciman of Leporello regular. Thank you to those who have commented.

ChrisL

Leporello Poster Leporello Broadside.pdf (547.3 k)

Chris, you're not speaking to yourself - on my end I was saving the best for last.

Few people can appreciate what you're doing - it's way out there - it requires a dedication to the dark depths of reading - something very rarely promoted.

Know that most type designers who see this will think it's garbage (and most of them won't have the balls to tell you). Some people will think it's "cute". My advice is this: filter feedback based on context: learn to ignore certain specific kinds of advice from people who might be great conventional font designers but have no real idea of the dark currents sweeping to and fro in the recesses of the human brain. Or: Don't ask a poodle trainer to handle an anaconda.

--

It's a good time to back up.

What I think you should go for (and you might already be doing this) is a font that creates a texture (at reading point sizes) the layman won't reject, but diverge the forms as much as possible nonetheless. I think you're actually being slightly conservative! But it will make for a great test case. You will have to publish a booklet (not related to typography) that uses it, and ask laymen (NOT other designers) what they think - and ask them in the most indirect -even devious- ways - to see what's really going on.

Some specifics:
-Why are the caps and numerals so conventional?
-I'd make the eye of the "e" smaller.
-I'd make the "s" narrower and the "y" wider.
-I think your accents are generally smallish.
-Try making the blank space a hair bigger.

--

> There is a balance between repetition and
> variation in any pattern to make it work
> aesthetically.

But there's a critical difference here between display and text, between deliberative and immersive reading. The threshold of harmony/discord depends on how deep into the subconscious you're aiming.

What is seen as discord by our finicky -and subjective- conscious aesthetic appreciation is used by the subconscious to read more efficiently.

> the infernal 'Doublemint' jingle.

Tellingly in fact, a study has shown the more obnoxious a jingle the more memorable it is! What we think we like isn't necessarily what we really like.

> I never liked the stepped "k"

But it's less of an "x".

hhp

Chris,

Yes I'm a neighbor not so far away. I do think your narrowing the o helped a lot. I don't quite know how to react to the typeface as it stands. It has polish, and a much more lively texture than most san serifs, which is all to the good. But to me it also looks excentric to a point that is a bit distracting.

It may be that Hrants view is right that the way to go is just all the way with the concept, and just make it as good looking as possible with its varied shape, or maybe even more varied shapes.

Emigre has done a lot of to me excentric stuff that has found a place in the type world, so maybe that is a model.

I have made numerous adjustmentsto the Regular and have since drawn an Italic version as well. Here is a GIF to see as well as a 3-page PDF which shows alphabets and some large text in Regular, Italic, and mixed together.

ChrisL

Leporello 10-2-04 test Leporeloe & Ital.pdf (37.3 k)

Hi Steve. Thanks for your comments. One question regarding the dots on the i and j italics--they are the same, just a copy and paste. Did I perhaps misunderstand you?
BTW, the "K" bothered me too but I think the solution is in thinning the right half. I will give it a shot both ways.

ChrisL

they are the same, just a copy and paste

I think the dots must have been on my eyes! I swear they looked different the first time I checked out the PDF, but now that I go back, they do indeed look the same. Hmmm.

Here is a corrected version of the italic. I fixed the K and p, smoothed the flatness on the bottom of the s, worked on the punctuation to make it more italic like, fixed the tail of the option-R, and included some 10 pt text at the bottom.

ChrisL

italic only Leporel Ital.pdf (34.0 k)

>So, I'm not crazy (or at least this isn't confirmation).<

But Steve, we had confirmation years ago :-)

BTW, I am toying with the idea of diamond dots for the italic instead of round, Would that be too calligraphic?

ChrisL

I tried the diamonds but they are not forever--perhaps it was the setting. I went back to round dots.

ChrisL

>Have you had a chance to look at the slant issue I brought up earlier?<
Maybe it is me but I don't feel the backslant you mentioned. I showed it to a few friends and none of them saw it either. Were you on your iBook again?

ChrisL

By the way, some of the discussion over in the serif forum is I think relevant, even if serifs aren't the cause of what I see here.

http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/29/50587.html?1097103444

I like it!

I think the slant gives it vibrancy and removes the feeling I had before that it was tipping backwards.