which of these designs is more "correct"?
Here's the deal. I'm pretty happy with A. I'm trying to design a weight lighter and I'd like some guidance on which approach works better. The main difference between B and C is that C's counterspaces are wider. Proportionally, which one of these is better? Right now, these heavy designs are for display, but I might progress to designing lighter weights with a more text-friendly approach. Backward huh?
Also, comments on specific glyphs would be greatly appreciated.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| badhesionslaught.gif | 42.69 KB |
4.Dec.2009 1.56am
I think A is the best. The overlap of the letters creates a more striking visual effect than the other two.
4.Dec.2009 6.15am
Sorry, I could've been clearer. I meant to ask which is better between B and C. In the font family, A is the extra black, and either B or C will be the black.
4.Dec.2009 9.51am
B.
The counters of C are too big.
7.Dec.2009 3.38pm
That's what I'm thinking, but looking at the negative space in "ION" of B and C, it seems C has a better, balanced pattern. Is that important in a display face such as this?
10.Dec.2009 1.26am
If it were a logo, I would say "absolutely". Being a typeface, you should consider the whole of the alphabet and its combinations.
10.Dec.2009 6.48am
Frankly they all seem like legitimate separate members of a family. Could you just call C "extended" and move along from there?
Another thought is to mix the one-story letters of C (o,b,d,D,O) with the two-story letters of B (a,e,s,E,S). Horizontal counters in the two-story letters are the main flaw of C to my eyes.
You could also probably find a good compromise by interpolating them.