Bendy,

answering your question about tilde (as it's also very common in Portuguese, in /ã/ and /õ/): large terminals are possible, although very unusual. If it works in conjunction with general design style, there is no problem.

I like Mixteca design very much. But I think the terminals in 2, 3 and 5 closes very much the counterspace. Oldstyle 5, for example, reads better (to me) because it has an open curve.

I love that /f/, but the /y/ terminal seems strange. Sure, it is part of Mixteca personality, but it could be interesting to include an alternate /y/.

Hmm, that's very minute contrast with the roman. Mixed text settings would help judge, but I fear it's too minute. Maybe your fear of "softness" has dominated too much?

High-contrast italics is so 20th Century.

hhp

Been working on the thin and bold weights. The bold might need to be a bit bolder to contrast properly with the Medium, but there will probably be a regular too, which would fit with this bold. Sorry, no pdf as this is quite preliminary for now...

Thanks for spotting that error on the i! The bottom serifs should of course be the same as on the n. I'm not yet sure what's going to happen about the top of the i. The extra overshoot for the bold made that corner rather too high, same with the b. Something to resolve at a later stage I think.

It hadn't struck me to do anything with the thin r and f terminals. I might have a play with those, thanks.

Thanks Andrew/AJ, that's very encouraging. Here's a new pic, and I think I've retitled this 'Feldspar'.

The sturdiness of this typeface seemed to require a nice crusty title, and Feldspar has a nice word-image.

The regular is feeling much more finished now. Spacing I think is looking good, though I may need one more iteration on the cap spacing. Kerning still requires some work, then I'll have a proper look at all the accented and non-alphabetic characters. Funnily enough, the word space seems a tad wide.

Following Nina's suggestion, I condensed the italic some more, to give a tiny bit more contrast with the upright. The curves on the italic D are proving rather complicated!

Bold — curves need quite some tidying up, especially the uppercase, which also need to be condensed just a few units.

Thin — the toughest to draw. I'm happy with the overall design but the curves are still quite bumpy and inconsistent (the e is troublesome). This will take some work.

I think both the thin and bold need wider sidebearings than the roman, the spacing here looks quite tight.

Thanks Craig,

Yes, I think the italic does look lighter, which is funny because the stems are the same weight as the regular. Italics are usually a bit lighter, aren't they? Do you think it needs to be heavier? No, I haven't yet set any text with roman and italic together; I havent' finished drawing the italic caps yet...soon!

Re the r, I suppose you want more weight on the beak? Once I've got some text samples printed it'll be easier to judge I think.

>If you want to soften the italic a bit
Ha, hmm...

And the thin has been drawn as outlines, though I can see the logic of doing it as strokes too. I'll give it a go with the remaining glyphs and see what transpires. Good suggestion.

Bendy, it's going really well. Feldspar has a lovely feeling. Do you plan to have just the regular italic?

Stems in diagonal appear to be lighter than those in 0/90º. A simple test could be done with plus and multiply signs. This explains the effect Eliason saw in your italic. But you're right about the serifs, they also influence this.

(Side note: I updated the alternate /g/ of palimpsest, please take a look).

And what about Melia? Any new development? I'd love to see it released.

Yes, I think, because of the angle it comes out of the stem, the r feels like it doesn't quite match the arched letters.

Aside from that, maybe the eye of the e is slightly large. It might be just me. Though it feels just a tad lighter than other letters.

I would call it “subtle”.

This is looking really nice. You've done a great job of translating the character and keeping things consistent through the weights. Just a few quick thoughts (feel free to ignore):

The jump from Regular to Thin seems a bit too much, but I'm guessing you're going to add a few more weights in between?

The bottom of the Thin 'p' in the right column seems a little too thin. It looks like you've fixed it on the left column though.

The italic doesn't seem to contrast enough when set with the upright. Perhaps it could be slanted a tiny bit more.

I like the rigidity of the italic, but maybe that is also adding to the lack of contrast.

Just curious why you went for the single story 'a', but kept the double story 'g' in the italic?

nothing to add but its looking very good so far bendy. nice work

Cool to see this again!! I love this face.
Some comments, please by all means add salt:

In the Italic, I'm not sure you had to go this far with the narrowing? It's *definitely* distinct enough now – I would actually try pulling the narrowing back a little. Squinting at it, it also looks visibly darker than the Roman to me now… but maybe that's my printer.

Some other stuff (in the Italic):
– To my eye the "n" looks potentially a hint too wide compared to the bowl-and-stick letters. And the "u" seems quite visibly narrower than the "n" too.
– Out of curiosity: Have you tried a different bottom to the "t" in the Italic – maybe something that «snaps back up» more? Not at all sure that'd work though. Generally, I would want to make the crossbar more prominent than the foot (which is darker now), but I must say I don't really understand what matters in a "t".
– Your Italic "e" still feels potentially too soft and narrow and «open» (but maybe that's really just me).
– Those serifs on the "v", "w", "y" look quite cool I think, but they might be giving you spacing problems? Like in "they" for example… You might also consider making the left-hand \ stroke of these letters steeper maybe (and/or making them narrower).

BTW: Looking at p. 1 and 2 of the newest PDF, all this really looks to me like it would be happier set a point or two smaller… but then it might have to be looser.

I've had another go at the /e/, left is original, right is 'improved', as it were: