Some minor updates:
And adjustments in lc:MarS
The leg of the new "R" leg looks like it's trying to trip the next glyph. ;-)
I think I'd pull it in a bit, but maybe that's just me!
You're right, Nina.
While I was trying to fill the gap at the left side, she was seducing the ampersand by the right :-o
Funny, I think this is rather masculine overall.
That new "R" looks great I think!
Maybe I'm the only one, but I kind of liked that R of the "16.Mar.2009 6.39pm" post. And I'm not sold on the ampersand's pinches. There's also something awkward about the curves at the bottom of the ampersand leading up to the lower intersection, but I can't quite put my finger on it. And middle arm of F looks too short(/light?).
Should the top serif of a have a little more weight?
The alteration to those inside corners of E works well to my eyes, and on other letters too (like F and L) but I'm not as certain about T.
Steve, I'll check out the book recommendation. Thanks :)
The thinner E looks good with the B!
I'd agree with Craig about the E and T. T looks weird like that.
I'd have to say this is a 'he' rather than a 'she'!
Hey Marcelo mate
Ive just astarted skimming this thread and i have to say that all the advice youv've been taking turned a nice start with teh "g" into a total trainwreck. SOrry mate!!! get rid of that stupid open g and put in one of the first ones ya drew.
>>>Ugliness isn’t something to shun, it’s something to assimilate.
for the love of swwet jesus, this is just rubbish! why are you taking advice from people who dont design fonts?!?
oh well, its your font and you can do what you like I spose.
Chopper Reid says "Harden the fuck up".
Um. Does this happen a lot?
Without actually expressing what you don't like and why, it's hard to take this kind of comment seriously.
> why are you taking advice from people who dont design fonts?!?
My clients must be hallucinating.
Well, as long as they keep paying I guess it's OK.
Calling Marcelo's open "g" "stupid" and a "trainwreck" does not really help anything.
"people who dont design fonts"
Hey, I wonder how Patria et al. came about. Must be the type design version of immaculate conception.
Funny, I think this is rather masculine overall.
Sorry, it's a translation mistake; I was talking about the leg, and in Spanish, leg is a feminine noun, beyond the masculine behavior of mine :->
I’m not as certain about T
I noticed it later. I was trying to be consistent along caps, but certainly my original "T" doesn't deserve that alteration.
...get rid of that stupid open g...
Sorry, man. I bought it to myself as is, stupidity included.
BTW, you should quit that clever mustache before speaking: it makes your words sound very entangled to my ears.
Should the top serif of a have a little more weight?
Here there are some tries on the new "a", in search of making it consistent with, say, "c", "d", "e", "n", "u", "z".
I miss the previous slanted serif, but the current straight one seems to work better.MarS
Subtle adjustments to the "BPR" trio.
What's more eye-pleasant for you? The leg of the "R" descending from the left edge of the bowl as before, or displaced a bit as here?
Marcelo, how does it look at text sizes? Of course the smoother "R" from before looks more aesthetically pleasing close up (at least I think so), but I wouldn't be able to tell from looking at this if this little "spur" you've got here might be beneficial, or distracting, in text.
>>>>Without actually expressing what you don’t like and why, it’s hard to take this kind of comment seriously.
it's flaming hard to take all the 'helpful' adive youve all been giving seriously as well!!
>>>>>My clients must be hallucinating.
Are they matee!??
>>>>>>Hey, I wonder how Patria et al. came about. Must be the type design version of immaculate conception.
What the hell is a Patria?? i tired to search for it but zlich about fonts came up?
>>>Sorry, man. I bought it to myself as is, stupidity included.
BTW, you should quit that clever mustache before speaking: it makes your words sound very entangled to my ears.
thats just corker mate! it's not actually me, maybe you think bendy is a green alien squiggle as well??
>>>>>Here there are some tries on the new “a”, in search of making it consistent
why dont you make it 'open' like the g. While you're at it open the e as well, then theyll all match and stand out like a sore thumb in text.
you've relly turned what could have been a nice text face into a group of fussy letters that don't mix well at all. I spose this is ok if you trust the wisdom of 3 different people!!
Good on ya mate.
I needed just a little push to make my decision. Yours was enough :-)
Murray, I'm certainly glad to see you're passionate about letterforms! But just because you disagree with somebody doesn't mean that person is just pretending to have an educated opinion. Patria is a font of mine that I sell on occasion, case by case. It has won a couple of awards (if that matters). However -mostly due to a distrust of the retail market- most of the type design work I do is commissioned (and mostly in the non-Latin field) so you don't see it floating around too much. Anyway, enough about me: exactly what do you think is wrong with an open "g"? Or an open "a"? :-)
Thank you for encouraging me, "muzzer" (or whatever is your name, fake pictured buddy).
I cannot realize Ben is not green... Isn't he???
Why do we talk all that puta mierda instead of type design?
Ain't it a Critique/Serif forum?
Fortunately, fuzziness (oh, and humility) is what makes us capable of being designers.
In my modest language, opinion and disdain use not to be the same thing.
At the risk of being an absolute idiot ("you may say I'm a dreamer"), I tend to trust a polite well founded critic instead of a gut guided prophet (did you try Zoloft?).
Design can be good or bad, precise or vague, efficient or not, but "stupid" seems not to be a disciplinar category.
I won't go further on that matter.
Just hope garbage don't tarnish that nice space where one can learn a lot if is humble enough and prone to (BTW, I came here for that).
Probably a good sample –and not the only one, for sure– of helpful critic behavior is the first comment on that thread (Steve, 18.Feb.2009 7.01am): clear, fair and concise, though not condescending.
Halt. I'm tired. Time is gold. Don't wanna apologize for anything, please.
Like or dislike, that's what I think.
I'm still going to argue for the "16.Mar.2009 6.39pm" form of the R. There the "spur" piece complements nicely the foot serif, so the leg in its massing almost looks like a smooth, tilde-like s-curve, but in actuality retains the hardness that is characteristic of this font.
'Muzzer', this is a place where people can listen and learn from each other, and give their suggestions in a constructive way. I'm not sure what you're doing here.
I'm agreeing with Craig on the R. The longer spur. Sorry :>
(And I don't pretend to be wise, just observing what I like.)
Hey, I like the "R" with the little "spur" too. My point was, do we have a PDF showing the two "R" options at text sizes?
I'm not trying to be obnoxious (or wise). I've just found that comparing detail variants in actual text settings at least for me tends to yield slightly different results from what I'd think would look good when examining the glyphs up close. YMMV though, of course, and all that.
Muzzer, why don't you join the discussion in a constructive way? I'd be curious why you're so upset about that "g". And if you don't like the feed-back we've been giving to Marcelo, the best way to help him would be to try and do better. :-)
Craig, Ben, Nina:
BRB with my feedback to your comments.
I'll upload a PDF on that variant:
Here is a sample PDF for better judgement of last changes.
Gonna sleep, now. ;-)
While muzzer's critique is a bit harsh, I'm afraid I have to agree with him on the g. The open shape is an interesting experiment, but personally I don't think it works very well. Especially if you compare it to the g's in your opening post...
>>>>>>However -mostly due to a distrust of the retail market- most of the type design work I do is commissioned (and mostly in the non-Latin field) so you don’t see it floating around too much.
Whats not to trust mate?? are you afraid or the Pirates! what does Patria look like?
>>>>>>>Anyway, enough about me: exactly what do you think is wrong with an open “g”? Or an open “a”? :-)
nothing is wrong with an open 'g'---meta and Baskerville are flaming hot ones! Its this one here is just so bloody wrong for the rest of the face!!
>>>>>>>>’Muzzer’, this is a place where people can listen and learn from each other, and give their suggestions in a constructive way. I’m not sure what you’re doing here.
I am giving my suggesrtions in a constructive way! What dont you understand about that?? The g was great to start with then it got worse and now it looks stupid. not sure what you don't undestand about that mate!!
>>>>>And if you don’t like the feed-back we’ve been giving to Marcelo, the best way to help him would be to try and do better. :-)
Righto then, i'll bugger off and leave you all to it!
>>>>>>>>>>At the risk of being an absolute idiot (“you may say I’m a dreamer”), I tend to trust a polite well founded critic instead of a gut guided prophet (did you try Zoloft?).
well mate if you want to end up with a commitee camel rather than a horse then take all these opinions and go on forever without trusting your own eyeballs.
>>>>>>>Like or dislike, that’s what I think.
I dislike it thats what I think but it could be better!!
>>>>>>>While muzzer’s critique is a bit harsh, I’m afraid I have to agree with him on the g.
thanks mate you know what your on about
bfore I bugger off there is this that I found by Hrant somewhere else:
>>>>>>Typophile: the sacred cow abattoir.
I agree but it seems like everyone wants to slaughtr everyone elses cattle but their own is to precious to take the knife to!!! have fun being veggos!!
There are a lot of different styles of communication on typophile. It's better to accept that variety & look at the content of what it said about the letters and completely forget about any consideration of how somebody is feeling about you or your design. Some of the best crits I have had or read here & elsewhere were given in a harsh manner.
>>>>>>Muzzer, why don’t you join the discussion in a constructive way?
Constructive on Typophile mean don't hurt anyones feelings and tell them what they want to hear. Sigh.
That 'g'... yeah, hmmmmm.
So after this long process in this long "g"-titled thread, what's up with people only stepping up now that Muzzer has ripped the new "g" apart to say that actually, they agree?
>Constructive on Typophile mean don’t hurt anyones feelings and tell them what they want to hear. Sigh.
I don't agree. It's possible to disagree with a design choice and give advice without hurting someone's feelings.
It could be that they follow Muzzer's comments. I often read a thread only after somebody I am following comments on it. Also that's the nature of dialog isn't it?
>>I don’t agree. It’s possible to disagree with a design choice and give advice without hurting someone’s feelings.
Well of course it is.
Just when its done here people have a sad. Makes for Love fest' critiques. It gets interesting when someone cuts through the wall of cuddles and hits the mark.
Fair enough. I wouldn't want a 'wall of cuddles' (like it!)about my work either, that's not helpful either. But equally calling a piece of work a 'train wreck' doesn't quite hit the mark for me.
...and completely forget about any consideration of how somebody is feeling about you or your design. Some of the best crits I have had or read here & elsewhere were given in a harsh manner.
Wow! After all, we are talking about communication, ain't it? How, matters. Manners, matter.
I won't be hurted but that kind of loud-voiced apes, nevermind. I think all those who made comments in this thread disagree with me and my designs in several ways. BTW, nobody agreed my very first work, and most of my tries were objected. I accepted critique in order to improve.
It's only that overacting, overexclaiming, overarguing, bothers me, annoys me, makes me feel sick. When the sole argument, the only word you have to criticize is "stupid", God, it's you who's in trouble.
Sorry, I don't wanna lose more time struggling against arrogant people. May be that's the Australian way (I mean, "some" Australian, it's not the first time I hear them). Go on. Shout and cry. But, please, not in my ear.
Sorry, Marcelo. Back to the letters!
I think I'd prefer B and R to have larger bowls on the top. K looks dark. I'm also wondering if the inflection in the top of BDP and R means there needs to be a little more overshoot as they look a bit short?
> what does Patria look like?
Check out the "g" you non-believer you!
> what’s up with people only stepping up now that Muzzer has
> ripped the new “g” apart to say that actually, they agree?
Now THAT is a good question.
> Makes for Love fest’ critiques.
Wow, you make this place sound like Flickr - but it isn't, is it? I hope not. And actually, I for one am not known for being nice (at least not online). But I do try to back up my criticism with more than just raw emotion.
"Love fest critiques"? On Typophile? I dunno.
FWIW, I value the critique boards because discussion tends to be about type.
Not about making people feel all warm and fuzzy inside; but also, not about
> So after this long process in this long “g”-titled thread, what’s up with people only stepping up now that Muzzer has ripped the new “g” apart to say that actually, they agree?
I think I was the only one that agreed till now, so you can just say so. ;)
As to why, I have not followed this thread that intensively. I already had my doubts about the open g, but had not posted it. When everybody pretty much burned Muzzer at the stake, like so often happens on Typophile if someone is even slightly harsh in their language (even if the critique isn't directed at them), I decided to post my opinion about the g too. I think the g doesn't look right.
And Nina, using strong language isn't attacking somebody, eventhough strong critique might feel like it. Muzzer was slightly harsh in his wording, but I do not think it was an attack.
> When everybody pretty much burned Muzzer at the stake, like so often
> happens on Typophile if someone is even slightly harsh in their language
Maybe things have been softer lately, but I've been a member since the beginning and I can assure you that is not accurate in toto. I happen to know not least because I've done a very big chunk of the attacking myself. I've even attacked entire design schools, accusing them of superficiality. In fact I did so once pretty recently. But I don't expect others to behave like me.
I must say however that people's familiarity with much of my stance in type design (thanks to mondo keystrokes on my part) allows me to conduct fewer repetitive attacks these days. For example I'm not really a big fan of this font of Marcelo's (it's too chirographic) but I think that other people will like it a lot, and I just want to help him arrive at a good terminus. There is no perfect font anyway - if I can help him make the "g" better for example, I feel good. And I think that is one reflection of Design versus Art. Here's another example of what I mean: http://typophile.com/node/54841 Note Ben's reaction to my first post.
> I do not think it was an attack.
I don't know about anybody else, but saying that I don't make fonts was (and was in no way constructive - it was just defamation). However you will note that I did not strike back, I only defended myself. Not because I don't believe in fights, but because I need a much better reason to muster that energy. Sorry Muzz.
I'm curious, are there other creative fora where people are regularly harsh, while still providing useful feedback (as opposed to simply venting)?
"I think I was the only one that agreed till now, so you can just say so. ;)"
I was wondering about the overall effect, more so than wanting to criticize you in particular. When I posted the above comment, disliking the "g" seemed like a growing sentiment, with Höfe kind of chiming in too. I think the pattern, while human, isn't helping.
I'd still not agree Typophile is too cuddly but I guess we want different degrees, or definitions, of cuddliness.
In my eyes, when somebody comes barging in, ripping the previous process to shreds, calling the people he doesn't agree with "people who don't design fonts" (when with a minimal knowledge of Typophile, it's pretty clear that Hrant does design fonts) and at the same time, not trying to be clear and helpful to Marcelo's design process (which I think this thread should be about), then call me too cuddly if you will (and maybe I'm being a girl), but I think that is unfair.
[I hope this wasn't too garbled, I'm on my first early morning coffee over here. :-)]
It could be that they follow Muzzer’s comments. I often read a thread only after somebody I am following comments on it. Also that’s the nature of dialog isn’t it?
Curious definition of the nature of dialog, I think. But, perhaps it's me and my Japanese mind mapped concept. I'll re read Plato.
...turned a nice start with teh “g” into a total trainwreck. SOrry mate!!! get rid of that stupid open g...
...While you’re at it open the e as well, then theyll all match and stand out like a sore thumb in text...
you’ve relly turned what could have been a nice text face into a group of fussy letters that don’t mix well at all...
... nothing is wrong with an open ’g’—-meta and Baskerville are flaming hot ones! Its this one here is just so bloody wrong for the rest of the face!!
...The g was great to start with then it got worse and now it looks stupid.
Well. I just consider it all a clumsy digression, "mate!!!".
Now, I hopelessly wait for your arguments.
Out of thread: I personally get upset a lot when, in written language –regard of the words– people tends to overmark (say, by unnecessarily uppercasing, repeating signs, quoting each single term, and so on). Eloquence –and character too– does not rely on how loud your voice is, or how emotionally populated your text is, but on the clean, economical, precise and moderate use of words.
After considering your comment, I guess "BDPRK" look more balanced in height, weight and overshooting, the same as "D".
Notice: I have now three different overshoot zones in uppercases, that is: one for the "OQU" trio, another for the "CGS", and a third for "BDPR".
About the "a", perhaps it's getting a better equilibrium, thouhg I still haven't found the shape I'm looking for.
Oh, the "g". With my "s" in mind, I'd add more weight to the serif in the tail of the loop. Do I do? ;-)
Just in case, Murray, what kinda "g" are you? There's always time for an agreement, I guess.
God belong to religions.
Idols belong to tribes.
Doubt belong to the rest of us.
Here I go with the new "a", and updates to the "d" and "u".
Oops! And a new open ampersand, too.
The original "&" and the alternate:
The right one.
The left structure is an unintelligent anachronism,
quite like the closed binocular "g" (sorry Muzz :-).
> Maybe things have been softer lately, but I’ve been a member since the beginning and I can assure you that is not accurate in toto.
Well, I mean discussions like the one we're having now happen quite often (with the same subject), hijacking threads. Also I wasn't particularly aiming my comments at you. :)
> I don’t know about anybody else, but saying that I don’t make fonts was
Yeah, but that was just ignorance on his side. Not worth it to react to, because everybody knows it was a false statement.
> disliking the “g” seemed like a growing sentiment, with Höfe kind of chiming in too. I think the pattern, while human, isn’t helping.
I think it is helping. What isn't helpful is when everybody agrees how nice something is (Flickr-style).
> I’d still not agree Typophile is too cuddly but I guess we want different degrees, or definitions, of cuddliness.
Typophile isn't cuddly, and I don't think it should be. Whenever someone uses harsh language or 'attacks' you, you should just ignore it or just 'distill' the message and discart the language.
Sorry for my poor English, I'm kinda tired. :)
"The left structure is an unintelligent anachronism"
Hrant, would you mind expanding on this?
(Or pointing me someplace where you did?)
Jelmar, just to clarify: I didn't mean that disagreeing, per se, isn't helping; of course it is (or can be). I would've just thought it'd be nicer if people who disagree don't only step up in the shadow of somebody big and loud shouting out that it's crap.
But I'm tired too. :-)
Most people follow established forms without reconsidering them. The closed binocular "g" for example is clearly flawed in my mind (see earlier in this thread) but most people just think that their pappy did it so it must be OK.
"Eat moose. 50,000 wolves can't be wrong!"
> it’d be nicer if people who disagree don’t only step up in the
> shadow of somebody big and loud shouting out that it’s crap.
In the same way, many people contribute something worthwhile to a discussion only if they're publicly challenged.
That's why I've been known to state:
Public speculation is a very efficient tool in data mining. :-)
"Most people follow established forms without reconsidering them"
That's clear. So's the case of the closed "g" (I was arguing this point myself earlier today). But I'd be curious about why you say the classical closed-top form is "unintelligent"? I'm sure you'd have a reason to change it besides the old form, well, being old, and established.
Nina, please let me know if my first post in this thread
needs clarification - I do have some further elaboration
in my head (but I've spewed that stuff out at least twice
on Typophile previously).