New Dutch Sans

Jean Paul Beumer's picture

This is a follow-up from about a year ago when I was working on this font.

Please comment!

(Text was set in AI, so no kerning! Also some glyphs are still to be designed, i.e. Black caps.)

GERARD 3.2 testsheet 1.pdf433.92 KB
Frode Bo Helland's picture

Try comparing Z and Y in “LAZY”. The strokes are at the same angle: although I guess the Z diagonal is supposed to be a downstroke, they are too unsimilar. That said you really have something nice going on here. I love the italic!

Igor Freiberger's picture

Jean Paul,

I think this design is very good, with a nice feel, readability and personality. Italic is also very proportional and well done. But I guess the bold is somewhat excessive – it's almost a black style. The /e/ and /a/ storeys became very closed.

It would interesting to have a medium height to expand the family.

You may improve some little points:

1. in /j/ the vertical nodes are misaligned;
2. in /k/ the bottom leg is very heavy;
3. in /T/ inclination of the right cut is out of font's general style;
4. in /s/ and /S/ there are small vector problems (bumps, misalignments) in curves;
5. difference in strokes of /A/ and /K/ are higher than one finds in other letters (N, W, Y).

Good job! Soon I also would like to hear your critique for the serif I'm developing.

Jean Paul Beumer's picture

Igor, many thanks for your comments! It's made my day.

The bold style is indeed actually a black style. Later on I'll interpolate the bold.
I've opened up the a and e in the black styles a bit, much better readability indeed.
I've also redrawn k, s and S, als much better. I'm still working on the diagonal strokes in A, K, N, W, Y and Z, I always seem to have some difficulties with them. Is there any "easy" way to do them?
The right (and left) cut on the T is actually something that is repeated in E and F.

One question: what do you mean by point 1 (about j)? I don't see it...

I'm an amateur type designer myself, so I don't know if I'll be of any use as a criticaster, nevertheless I'ld really like to see your design for the serif!

I'll post another PDF when I've adjusted the diagonals in the capitals.

Igor Freiberger's picture

Sorry, I didn't notice the right cut at /T/ was also used in /F/ and /E/. Anyway, as this is very typical of /T/ in serifed, old style fonts, I think it becomes a bit strange to a contemporary, squarish sans. But this is subjective.

I don't know an easy way to treat these diagonals – I also have dificulties to even the colour of /v/w/x/k/ strokes myself. My method is to analise how they do in other good fonts and test test test test... Hope Typophile fellows could help on this.

The /j/ is a minor issue:

Probably you did work with two pieces and the nodes of one aren't aligned to grid. Illustrator sometimes does not align a node properly. This is usual after pathfinder and reflect operations, even if the original pieces have nodes aligned to grid. It seems to be a problem with the roundness of internal measures.

Jean Paul Beumer's picture

I've updated /j/ (you were absolutely right, some points weren't aligned).
Also I have redrawn all caps with diagonals. I think they're better now, though /M/ and /W/ may still be a bit too heavy to my liking. /T/, /E/ and /F/ I have adjusted (no more skewered finials).

Please check out the second PDF above.

What do you think?

eliason's picture

I might reduce the squareness of the smaller bowls in the caps (BPR) a bit. They seem exaggeratedly square compared to the larger curves like O, D, C, U, etc.

Bendy's picture

I think what you have here is a regular and an extrabold. I'd see if you can push it further to make a black weight.
This is all looking quite neat and tidy.
I think B is a bit wide compared to the other letters.
The italics need a bit of correction. Slanting alone has left the A and N particularly a bit unbalanced in weight and contrast.
Cap Y looks unbalanced somehow.

Hopefully I'll have time to look at this in more depth later this week.

David Waschbüsch's picture

Thats a really nice design. I like especially the thin connections of curves and verticals.

Some things that come to my mind:

- You show a lot of contrast in your diagonals for example in V, W, k, x but no (or very low) contrast in diagonals of v.
- Holes in R and P are okay (even if I personally dont like it) but R and P draw a lot of attention because they are the only 2 characters with those holes. I suggest to either drop those holes at all or put even more in other characters.
- S is to heavy compared with other capitals.

Great work with the italic and bold. How do you do them? Do you have a Multiple Master of your design?

Jean Paul Beumer's picture

Thanks David,
I'm still working on all diagonals (draw, redraw, redraw again and then redraw again). I'm also working on the squarish bowls of /B/, /P/ and /R/.

I've drawn these characters in Illustrator (I haven't yet bought FontLab, it's on my wish list), so no Multiple Master tools used here. I've skewed the roman to make the italic, but that not really the way to do them, although it does seem to work. The bold style I've drawn from scratch, with the regular style as a template.

I hope to post the updated PDF this weekend.

Jean Paul Beumer's picture

Frode, Igor, Craig, Ben and David*,
Please check out test sheet 4 (see first post).

1. I've reduced squareness in the bowls of /B/, /P/ and /R/.
2. I've made /S/ leaner.
3. I've narrowed /B/.
4. I've redrawn all characters with diagonals.
5. I've added some extra glyphs.

* is type design a typical men's hobby...?

Bendy's picture

Yeah, I was also wondering if type design is somehow more appealing to males!

Let me come back to this in a day or two. I think you're definitely on a good path, but will need to examine the forms more closely to give useful advice.

The proportions are getting much more harmonious. However, a quick glance tells me you still need to resolve the contrast. A and x have quite noticeable contrast whilst other glyphs are a bit less pronounced. (Compare x with e for example.)

Did I say anything about the quotes/comma already? Forgive me, I'm quite picky about commas for some reason, and I think yours need to be like curved rectangles instead of tadpoles to fit nicely in this design.

Your descenders look different lengths.

I'll be back in a day or two... ;)

Jean Paul Beumer's picture

You all said that there is something amiss with the relationship with contrast in upright and diagonals. I think you were absolutely right! So, for the uhpm-th time I've redrawn all characters with diagonal strokes. I personally think they look a lot better now, more balanced with other characters. What's your opinion? Please check out the updated PDF above.

Furthermore, I've updated /S/ (thinner) and /R/ (rounder) again. So far I've only redrawn the regular style and updated the italic, the bold style is yet to be done...

Igor Freiberger's picture

Jean Paul,

good job, a constant improvement! I see there is a very small misalignment inside the /k/ (both regular and bold). The cedilla seems a bit dislocated to left. And I guess the dot on /i/ bold is very much heavier if compared to the regular weight.

Well, it seems type design is mostly a male universe. This may explain why there are so many fonts with female names (Anna, Celeste, Victoria, Christiana, Ashley, Caecilia, Carolina, Emma, Isabela, Isadora, Joanna, Korinna, Shelley, Tiffany and so on...)

Jean Paul Beumer's picture

It took me some time, but I've updated the PDF.

Biggest change: considerable shortening of capitals, descenders and ascenders and in doing so visually enlarging x-height. I also feel that with these new caps the relationship in stroke thickness between lc and caps is much better and gives it a much more modern feel.
Contrast in /w/ black is still off...

Your thoughts please!

Jean Paul Beumer's picture

Taking a break from Aubaine...

1996type's picture

Looking good! I would make the strokes in glyphs like v, w, x and y the same size (optically) on the left and right. This is the way it is in most sans-serifs and I think that's because it looks better in context. I don't really like the fact that your dots on the i and j are higher than your ascender in the heavy weight. Maybe vertically compres them a bit? Aubaine is also looking great. It seems you really understand type. Could you have a look at my expletus?:

thanks in advance

brianskywalker's picture

No numerals, eh? "twothousandandten"

Looks great. The diagonal letters may need a bit of work though. While the /v/ is good, the /w/ looks like it's slanting backwards. The lower left leg of the x should move more to the left imo.

Black /a/ reminds me a bit of Unit - very nice.

Jean Paul Beumer's picture

:-) no numerals indeed (yet)!

I still need to (re)determine all diagonal stroke thicknesses, I find that very hard to do. And there's something wrong with the black a, I thinks it's too wide.

Bendy's picture

Hi Jean Paul, this is looking great.

-Double quotes don't match single quotes.
-Traps on A, Y etc could be deeper; I haven't printed this but it looks like the traps wouldn't do much.
-Knee of Kk looks dark.
-Xx could do with more stroke offset on the thins. Italic k needs more compensation.
-Comparing the bowl of a with the spine of s, it seems a is much squarer. Could they be harmonised more?

-q and b of the black weight look a bit too square in comparison to the regular.
-Wordspace might be too narrow (or letterspace too loose)?
-With w, try moving the two upper counters left a couple of notches.
-v might be too wide/dark.
-I wonder if e is a bit wide.

Curioustype's picture

Very nice - in my eyes it has a very Argo/Vesta/Modena look to it, which I like very much. You're definitely on to something here.

Syndicate content Syndicate content