Mint

Bendy's picture

Hi,
Here's what I've been working on for the last week, taking a break from Eternal (in the serif crit section).

I started with the intention of creating something very crisp and clean, following the current trend for roundy corners. I wanted the shapes to look slightly experimental, so tell me if they work or don't work yet.

I wanted a large x-height and non-descending caps to work for small sizes and for screen use. It was a struggle to fit the tail of the g in there, and I had to break the rule with Q a little. I've got only autohinting at present, and need to work out how the off-verticals will work on screen (for example M anti-aliases rather badly).

Strangely, it somehow looks like there's a bit of Optima in there, which I've only just noticed. I don't have numerals yet. Hate drawing numerals.

I'll refrain from picking out individual characters for now to see what you guys think first.

AttachmentSize
Mint.pdf433.4 KB
Mint Ultralight and Ultrablack First Draft.pdf445.66 KB
Mint Booklet.pdf506.35 KB
Mint Specimen May 2011.pdf528.1 KB
Bendy's picture

I've created a new pdf to show progress. The regular weight is pretty much done, except for some kerning I think. No more drawing at least!

The other three weights are still only alphabetics, so I'm hoping for some critique before filling out all the punctuation and assorted jumble of other glyphs.

eliason's picture

That mu descender seems very slanted to me (though I don't have a lot of mu experience....)
Are there any standard ligatures in the fonts?

Bendy's picture

Yeah I'm not too familiar with the mu either, I'll need to find out from somewhere what the preference is!

Standard ligs — not connected. I figured they'd be too much in a sans face, so there's a slight shortening of the f's crossbar and the spacing is a little different. Connections are in the dlig feature, along with the really unusual ligs, which I may move into an hlig feature (not sure if this is always supported, so maybe another stylistic set?)

And I haven't forgotten about your observations above, Craig. I'll have a close look at each of them. Thanks.

eliason's picture

Looking at the fat weight, I think there's too much taper in the arms of /E/ and /F/. All those clashing angles look awkward.
I expected the counters in /K/ to be fully round, like in /X/.
What happens with /gj/?

Do your descending alternate /f/s descend too far?

I still don't quite get the historical ligatures (and takeoffs therefrom) in a typeface like this, but I guess they don't do any harm.

Sometimes I think the contrast in the ultralight works and sometimes I think it doesn't.

Bendy's picture

Interesting observations. I'll see what other solutions exist for the fat E and F. Do you think the bold has the same problem? Could it be that those shapes are also too wide?

K: do you think the unexpectedness contributes in a cool way or a buggy way? One of the premises was to sometimes let the black 'win' and sometimes the white.

gj collides in a major way, but I don't personally mind that.

Descending fs: these reach the bottom of the other descenders; I guess that's another feature that's not really necessary?

I really wanted to keep the stress in the ultralight, it's such an important part of the other weights and I think distinguishes it a bit — I can't think of many light stressed sans faces.

Other questions:

Is there any logic to my currency symbols; some have the bars removed across the centre, and I generally prefer that, but not sure if that model would work in all of the other (unfamiliar) ones?

Tilde: too big?

Guillemets: too heavy?

Stacked diacritics (Vietnamese): relative sizes ok?

Ornaments: enough? What others would be nice? (Oh, I said the drawing was done already.)

Kreska: big enough?

eliason's picture

Interesting observations. I'll see what other solutions exist for the fat E and F. Do you think the bold has the same problem? Could it be that those shapes are also too wide?

Well, I'd say it's less bothersome in the bold. The closeness of the differently-angled top and bottom contours of the counters in the fat adds to the clash. It kind of reminds me of pick-up sticks - did you ever play with those? I don't think the width is part of the issue.

On the /K/, I guess every other wedge shaped counter is round-ended (except for here and /R/), so it looks a little like an inconsistency to me.

Gary Lonergan's picture

Do you work full time in type design as this looks very good. Apart from anything the feel it has of being over exposed or photographically enlarged from a printed speciman is really fresh. You will be publishing this I'd say.

Syndicate content Syndicate content