some feedback on this face?

Primary tabs

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
gerald's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Apr 2006 - 12:55pm
some feedback on this face?
0

hey all. i've been working on this for awhile, would love to get some of your feedback on what i have so far. i still have to do lowercase, but the main idea of the uppercase is done. see any problems? this is my first typeface, so any help is greatly appreciated. i am currently working on tweaking each form.

thanks!

Jason Pagura's picture
Offline
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 - 6:19pm
0

The tail on the Q is quite stubby. I want to put a little notch above it to make it read better. Some little bulb shaped ink traps in the tight angles might help too.

A nice tall gothic overall. the little blobs on the stroke corners almost make this a serif font. It could easily be one if they were exaggerated a touch more.

Craig Eliason's picture
Offline
Joined: 19 Mar 2004 - 1:44pm
0

I like the concept.

O, Q, and D look too similar. N looks dark (maybe widen it?) W looks bottom-heavy. Top counter of A is probably too slight.

Straight-left-side counters in P, R, B aren't consistent with E, F.

darrel's picture
Offline
Joined: 4 Feb 2003 - 6:03pm
0

Given that it feels to be a very strong display face, a lowercase may not be all that important.

It definitely has a nice personality.

The only nitpik that I have is that there is some inconsistency with how the edges of the counters are treated. Some are rigid and straight, some are bowed in, and some (like on the B) are a mix. I'm not saying that's good or bad...just that it's something that seems to stick out.

I agree with cuttlefish and eliason's comments as well. Do more with the Q and maybe vary a few of the others. The C might not need such large stems on the open side.

gerald's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Apr 2006 - 12:55pm
0

thanks everyone!

that's exactly what i was looking for.

here are a few tweaks, taking in some of your suggestions. i have tried adding some small ink traps inthe tight angles (N, M, K) but i just haven't come up with anything that seems to work.

i also haven't really been able to come up with any ideas on how to make the O, D, and Q vary more. any thoughts there?

thanks again

victor ivanov's picture
Offline
Joined: 30 Jun 2006 - 7:26am
0

have you tried setting some words/sentences with it?

Jelmar Geertsma's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 - 9:53am
0

I think it looks pretty good. Personally I don't think that the D, Q and O look too much alike, but I would probably have to see them in a sentence/word.

Maybe a PDF file with the next update?

gerald's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Apr 2006 - 12:55pm
0

hey all. here's some text set int it. see anything that jumps out at you?

Kevin Pease's picture
Offline
Joined: 19 Oct 2003 - 5:03pm
0

What jumps out at me is that you've got "round overshoot" in a face where the effect doesn't really apply. The tops and bottoms of the letters are flat and would probably look better lined up.

gerald's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Apr 2006 - 12:55pm
0

hmm. i've tried lining them up like that before, and you can definitely notice that the 'O', 'C', etc look a lot shorter in comparison

Kevin Pease's picture
Offline
Joined: 19 Oct 2003 - 5:03pm
0

Maybe just pull it back by half, then, so it's not quite so noticeable.

Craig Eliason's picture
Offline
Joined: 19 Mar 2004 - 1:44pm
0

Did you consider making an A with vertical sides?

gerald's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Apr 2006 - 12:55pm
0

yeah an A with vertical sides looks really strange.

here is an update with much smaller overshoots. improvement? i feel like they looked better before

gerald's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Apr 2006 - 12:55pm
0

this one is slightly bigger than that, but smaller than the original:

André Simard's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Nov 2004 - 12:11pm
0

I think the Q has a problem with the tail. Should probably be longer or under the baseline.

Craig Eliason's picture
Offline
Joined: 19 Mar 2004 - 1:44pm
0

I think the "smallest overshoots" version is best (2.46pm).

I would look at the letter that have diagonals coming into those seriffy nubs - I think you should reduce the size or otherwise knock back the obviousness of those nubs (I'm looking at the top of A and bottom of W). The greater change of direction resulting from the diagonal makes them too prominent compared to the ones on the vertical strokes.

gerald's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Apr 2006 - 12:55pm
0

hey all,

i added a bit to the tail of the Q, played around a diagonal 4, adjusted the top of the R, and made some minor refinements to the A, V, W and a few others.

any feedback is appreciated!

Ben Mitchell's picture
Offline
Joined: 12 Aug 2007 - 4:05pm
0

This is coming along nicely :) I like the V and W
I think the E could be a bit narrower (compare with the H) and the hood of the G could be longer (more down). Can the top of the A be opened wider so the sides are not vertical but less white space around them? I think I'd move the knee of the R down a bit and bring the top of the leg out away from the stem slightly.
hope that's helpful ;)

Jelmar Geertsma's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 - 9:53am
0

So... where's the PDF? :)

gerald's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Apr 2006 - 12:55pm
0

hey all, here's an update on where i am at with this.

the @ symbol is proving to be a nightmare. any suggestions or ideas there? also not sure how great i feel about the % and & symbols. let me know if you have any ideas or solutions.

here you go (and i also attached a .pdf yay!!) ;)

[[http://morelikedie.com/etc/heuemond.pdf|heuemond pdf]]

Kevin Pease's picture
Offline
Joined: 19 Oct 2003 - 5:03pm
0

@ looks quite serviceable, actually.

% might be a little light.
Slashes are heavy.
Asterisk looks heavy or perhaps just big.

Definitely explore other ampersands. Something with an open top and closed bottom, maybe with a diagonal element. Or something like the dollar sign with a shortened backwards 3 in the middle.

gerald's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Apr 2006 - 12:55pm
0

getting closer!

i changed the @, made a new &, fixed all the slashes (which i just realized you can't see in this gif, and made the asterisk a bit smaller (still might be a bit big?)

also, still not sure if i'm completely satisfied with the @.

overall i'm really liking it at this point though. notice anything else that bothers you ?

thanks so much !

Craig Eliason's picture
Offline
Joined: 19 Mar 2004 - 1:44pm
0

The ampersand still needs work - the long horizontal in the middle isn't serving you well.

I think I preferred the previous @. Yes, I think * could still be reduced.

The bottom two strokes of the 2 look heavy to me.
Is the middle of 2 and S truly horizontal? I suspect it is, but it appears "overtorqued" as an optical illusion from the treatment of the corners, etc. I'd be curious to see what those glyphs would look like if you rotated the center to get an optical horizontal.

Another thing you could consider would be redrawing the 2 with a diagonal (so the bottom is more like Z).

gerald's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Apr 2006 - 12:55pm
0

hey eliason!

The ampersand still needs work - the long horizontal in the middle isn’t serving you well.

that is exactly what is bothering me as well, but i haven't come up with any solution yet. i will play around some more tonight.

I think I preferred the previous @.

i don't really like either of them right now. this one is driving me crazy!

The bottom two strokes of the 2 look heavy to me.
Is the middle of 2 and S truly horizontal? I suspect it is, but it appears “overtorqued” as an optical illusion from the treatment of the corners, etc. I’d be curious to see what those glyphs would look like if you rotated the center to get an optical horizontal.

Another thing you could consider would be redrawing the 2 with a diagonal (so the bottom is more like Z).

VERY interesting point on the "overtorqued" middle. i actually had not noticed that at all, but now that you've pointed it out it's obvious. i'm gonna try tweaking that.

i originally did draw a diagonal 2, but i just didn't like how it looked. i might give it another go, though.

thanks for the help, again!

gerald's picture
Offline
Joined: 7 Apr 2006 - 12:55pm
0

here's a few updates, new ampersand, slight @ changes, and a diagonal 2.

whatdya think?

Ben Mitchell's picture
Offline
Joined: 12 Aug 2007 - 4:05pm
0

What about pulling the G crossbar to the same (or similar?) height as the E crossbar? The gap between the top and bottom still looks a little wide to me. I think the top crossbar of the E could be slightly less wide than the bottom crossbar. I'd make base of L narrower too, to reduce the white space around it.
I preferred the previous &, sorry ;)

Jacques Le Bailly's picture
Joined: 21 Dec 2001 - 2:09pm
0

Spacing looks a bit wobbly.