Primary tabs

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ty Wilkins's picture
Joined: 21 Nov 2003 - 10:16am

I've been working on a continuous line typeface with the geometry of a geometric sans. I like the flow of Morice produced by Letterbox, so I wonder if the glyphs I have constructed so far are too stiff. I'm not sure my characters follow a good standard of proportions. I wonder how difficult lowercase, numerals and special characters will be. I'm having a hard time envisioning how lowercase are going to work at this point (except for maybe a lowercase b and d - they
could be based off of the P). Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Here's a quick overview of my current concerns with each of the glyphs:

A - Is the crossbar too low?
B - Does the lower bowl protrude too little or too much?
C - This is one of the few glyphs without a overlap. Do you think that
breaks the system too much? I know that Cs, Os and other rounded glyphs
extend above the cap height and below the baseline a little, but I'm not
sure how far to extend them.
D - I'm not sure if the curves are constructed ideally.
E - This was the first glyph I constructed on the computer. I'm not sure
if the crossbar extends too far or too little.
F - Same concern with the F as the E. Should the F be based off of the
G - I wonder if the top of the G is too flat. Should the G relate more
to the C? Or should the C relate more to the G?
H - Is the height of the crossbar too centered?
I - Should the I have an overlap?
J - Does the J get too flat and geometric at the bottom?
K - The join around the crossbar seems kind of stiff
L - Should there be more contrast between the vertical and horizontal
M - The M gets kind of messy and challenging. I wonder if a sideways E
would be a good place to start?
N - Should I figure out the N before the M?
O - I wonder if I need some sort of overlap.
P - This is probably my favorite glyph. The P was the initial glyph that
I sketched. I wonder if the transition between the horizontal lines and
the curves are too abrupt.
Q - This character just doesn't quite sit well with me. I would prefer
it be constructed as one continuous line.
R - Not sure I placed the right leg in the right spot.
T - I kind of just guessed on the width of the T.
U - I prefer to have an overlap of some sort. I wonder if the transition
between the vertical lines and the curves are too abrupt.
V - I am kind of bothered by the open bottom portion of the V.
W - Two Vs don't seem to create a very good W. I'm not sure where to
place the intersection.
X - I haven't tried an X yet
Y - The Y isn't a perfect continuous line. I feel the same way about the
Y that I do about the Q. There must be a better solution.
Z - The Z doesn't really fit with the other glyphs. I'd like to explore some more options.

Matt Chisholm's picture
Joined: 22 Feb 2007 - 1:24am

This is great.

A: no.
B: no.
C: I think no overlap is fine on some glyphs. Don't want to be too dogmatic with the gimmick. see Y.
D: they look fine to me.
E, F: crossbar is perfect.
G: the flat top is fine, but don't use one that flat on the C. The C could be a bit more open, though.
H: B, E, F, H, K, P and R should have the same crossbar height. Otherwise strings of text will look weird when those letters are next to each other.
I: a few with no overlap is fine, see C.
J: no, it looks good.
K: no, it looks good.
L: no. Dude, the font looks good. Don't second guess every single letter. :)
M, N: Start from what you did with the V. Do them together... try different things until you find something that looks right.
O, Q: The first thing I noticed was not the lack of overlap in the C and the I but the fact that the O and Q are the only two glyphs with more than one continuous line. I think the O *should* have overlap... maybe at the top, or in the upper left, make the inside and outside strokes switch position. The Q should have a similar switch but incorporated into the crossbar. These are the two most problematic glyphs.
P: it's rad.
R: The diagonal foot should match the K, which it does. Looks good.
S: Do you have something against S? Like the O, I think the S should have an overlap, maybe in the center.
T: Width looks good.
U: I think this one is ok without an overlap too. The bowl should match the bottom half of the O.
V: Don't be bothered. It looks good. Copy it for the M and N.
W: I say copy the V, with more vertical diagonals. Or copy the M when you design it.
X: This one's going to be tough. :)
Y: This looks bad. I think the Y could get away without any overlap, like the way the diagonals of the K come together. Or you could make it more lowercase looking, where the right diagonal descends in a straight line all the way to the bottom of the glyph. Then you could do an overlap like the one in the A.
Z: If you keep the V and make the M, N and W to match then the Z will fit just fine.

The lowercase b, d, p and q definitely should not just match the P. They should be more like a vertical with a lowercase o attached.

If you're stuck on some of the glyphs you might go and design the numbers. Doing a few more glyphs might get you more familiar with the pattern of the face and make the remaining letters more straightforward.

That's my $0.02, take it all with a grain of salt. Post another PDF when you get further, I'd like to see it.


K Cerulean Pease's picture
Joined: 19 Oct 2003 - 5:03pm

Y is a three-way intersection, so it should be able to work just like the better glyphs. I'd say fold the upper right arm from a gap in the lower left. Also, the arms as you've designed it are rather thin.

Z might look better if you keep the top fold but remove the bottom one, squaring that corner.

For my other suggestions, well, forgive me if I just draw them rather than try to put them into words.

Bob Evans's picture
Joined: 18 May 2005 - 7:20am

You are right - the Q needs more work

Ty Wilkins's picture
Joined: 21 Nov 2003 - 10:16am

Thanks Matt, Kevin and Bob for the feedback. I have added a few more characters. I still need to figure out a solution for the N and Q. I decided to round the corners to help facilitate the flow of the continuous line. I wonder if the V and Z are too angular. I think the Y is probably too narrow and maybe a few glyphs are too tall. What do you think of having the M and W as mirror images? I'm looking forward to your feedback. The new PDF is added to the first post. Thanks, TY

Matt Chisholm's picture
Joined: 22 Feb 2007 - 1:24am

I much prefer the right-angled corners of the first version, so I still like the V and Z. The M and W are great, and the X and Y much improved too. I'd like to see them, along with the previous version, with right-angled ends.

I think the C and S should only have one cross-over... keep the cross-over at the tops. And the extra cross at the top of the G is overkill.

I prefer the weird overlap in the J and G of the first version -- the second version's overlaps feel more formulaic and have less personality.

Bob Evans's picture
Joined: 18 May 2005 - 7:20am

Maybe something like: