Sensato 2.0 (Sensato A updated.)

1996type's picture

Hello everybody,

Sensato Serif can be viewed here: http://www.typophile.com/node/78292

This is Sensato. Derived from 'Sensational'. It's purpose is to create a highly legible sans-serif with a diagonal stress and work just as well for display purposes. Although this is not included in the pdf yet, the jpg picture below shows the different grades I designed for optical adaption to different sizes. As soon as the Caps are also done in both grades (the two extremes) the pdf will be updated. All comments are much appreciated.

Cheers,
Jasper de Waard

update 2.0: 4 Different grades. Only lowercase for now.
update Sensato A: Lower contrast, more organic features, better stem treatment, smaller terminals, new sample text.

Enjoy!

AttachmentSize
4 grades.jpg423.45 KB
SensatoA.pdf34.78 KB
Frode Bo Helland's picture

Holy mother of Christ, this is beautiful! Tittles and periods are slightly big.

1996type's picture

Hahaha Thanks a lot Frode! That's agreat compliment =D You're probably right about the tittles and periods. I'll change those. They are still the original size from Garamond, which is what I started with.

Frode Bo Helland's picture

For me, it’s not so much the letters themselves (I can see a number of things I would’ve corrected or adjusted). It’s the rythm and colour of the text looks so amazing.

1996type's picture

Since this is the critique forum, why don't you share what you would have corrected or adjusted? I'm afraid a truly good typeface needs more than just good rythm and colour, so as I said before, ALL feedback is much appreciated.

cerulean's picture

Shrink the tittles, yes, but don't change the period. For practical use a period should be that big.

1996type's picture

Yes. some test prints confirm what you say Kevin. Is there anything else that seems off to your eyes? For example stroke thickness, colour, stress, width, etc.

Frode Bo Helland's picture

For one thing, the lowered apex in your W and w bothers me.

Frode Bo Helland's picture

IMO the rythm and colour is far more important than how attractive individual letters are, at least for text faces.

cerulean's picture

I don't really see anything I'd change. Maybe the eye of g could have slightly more contrast? Slightly.

1996type's picture

Yes, I agree. I'll have a look at it. tomorrow.

Frode Bo Helland's picture

The join iin Q might be a bit heavy? I'd personally love to see a more interesting shape on that letter.

Frode Bo Helland's picture

The slightly slanted version doesn't add that much, IMO.

JoergGustafs's picture

Since I reinforced the rather prominent tittles and period of your font earlier I want to say a thing or two:
I agree the tittles are slightly (!) too prominent in text, but I wouldn’t change them too much.
The periods look fine to me but there’s something that buggers me about your comma –
maybe its curved shape or the optical period-to-comma ratio.

I think the /g/ as a whole could use slightly more contrast, check the word «recognizable» in your sample text.

About the W/w: To me, it’s rather the thickness/flatness of the apex than the fact that it’s lowered that makes it stick out.

Colour and flow are looking great indeed!

cdavidson's picture

I know it's early days yet, but the tail of the 'y' makes it look as though it is about to snap off... perhaps make it a little lighter? Same with the 'J'.

I would love to see a bold/black version of this!

1996type's picture

Thanks guys! Don't be easy on my design, just because it's not so long in development.

@Frode: Yes I have tried a similar tail like the J in the Q, but decided the original Q looked better. It was a bit late when I did so though, so I'll try some other options.
The slightly slanted version doesn't ad that much. True, for the simple reason anybody could slant the font themselves. I'm afraid though, that if I don't do it for them, they'll simply forget about it. If this ever goes to the market, I won't let people pay extra for the slanted version.

@Joerg: Yes, the comma was quite quickly and never revised since. I'll include an improved comma in the next update. Your right about the g. Working on that right now. The W is a tough one, but I'll see what I can do about it.

@Caled: The tail of the y might be a bit thick, but I don't see any problem with the tail in J. I will start working on the black as soon as soon as I'm fully confident with the regular =D

1996type's picture

So I uploaded an update and I believe I fixed most of the issues you guys pointed out to me. I hope the new Q is interesting enough for you Frode? Any critique is still very welcome!

Cheers, Jasper

Bloodtype's picture

Gosh! Lovely

Frode Bo Helland's picture

I like it better, but trust your own eyes! Merry christmas!

Nick Job's picture

Jasper, this has a great deal of potential but then I suppose Garamond is reliably good model.

>>>The slightly slanted version doesn't add that much, IMO.

I am also not sure if the difference between the two fonts Sensa and Senso is different enough to warrant pursuing two fonts in the end, although it may be an interesting exercise in production. I would decide and concentrate on just one version and get it right - others may disagree.

Here's some feedback on the glyphs themselves:

A lot of talk about period and comma. I would construct a colon and a semicolon and stick all four punctuation marks alongside each other. The point on the top of the comma will help you get the right size for the period and more especially the comma. You probably cannot design the comma and period in isolation from the semicolon and colon. I like the size of the tittle on the i and j. I'm not sure if those who say it should be different distance from the top of the stem of i and j aren't a little deluded.

The comma is normally cut at the top from 8 o'clock to 2 o'clock. This reflects the angle of the pen, though you might want to contradict the pen convention, although from the look of the /O/ for example, I would doubt it.

General comment: I think the diagonal arms taper outwards a little too much on /A/, /K/, /R/, /V/, /W/, /X/, /Y/ and this also applies to many of the lower case counterparts.

Upper case:

/A/ looks shorter than the rest, maybe because it's next to /B/ which overshoots too much in my world.
/B/ a bit too bouncy, curved on top and bottom?
/D/ looks taller top and bottom than /C/
/E/, /F/ lovely, though some may want /F/ crossbar even lower still.
/G/ I would be thickening the right hand vertical a little and maybe even a touch taller, could it be misread at speed as a /C/?
/L/ needs to be narrower than bottom of /E/. It may already be narrower but still looks wide. You're trying to avoid a massive white gap in words like 'Liverpool' which kerning will not address.
/M/ is quite wide but you may not have a lot of choice if apex is coming right down to baseline.
/N/ may need a thicker diagonal, especially telling next to /O/.
/Q/ I would make the angle of the angle of cut across the tail more horizontal, certainly the horizontal side of 45 degrees.
/R/ leg looks a little light.
/S/ top looks heavier than bottom.
/T/ and /U/ marginally narrow? /T/ crossbar too heavy (also applies to crossbars of /Z/).
/X/ slightly light.
/Z/ too tall, I realise this applies to /T/ too.

The tops of those caps look a little bit like a roller coaster. Part of achieving more evenness may be to flatten some of the /B/, /D/, /P/ and /R/ tops and bottoms.

Lower case:

/a/ bowl goes down too low compared with the tail.
/d/ looks wide next to /e/.
/g/ tail is pointy on right.
/i/ and /j/ need to share the same x-height?
/p/ would make a nice /d/ if you rotated it. The stem is a little too narrow (applies also to /b/ and /q/).
/s/ looks bottom-heavy (reverse of /S/).
/z/ crossbars too thick.

Hope this helps, the length of feedback is proportional to the promise of the typeface. I would forget about Expletus and throw yourself into this! It's reading very nicely and that is a good starting place, you can keep refining glyph shapes later, it's much harder to get it to read well.

Merry Christmas,
Nick.

1996type's picture

Wow! I don't know if it's just me, but I read your whole comment with the voice of a wiseman in my mind. I believe such a long comment deserves an (almost) equally long answer, so I'll do my best to be as clear as possible. Some of the things you say, I have already noticed. Some of the things I haven't, and some I disagree to.

I must admit that, although slanting it a little still adds a value to the look IMO, there is no need to include this in the typeface. Anybody could do this in most applications themselves after all, without having to use a seperate font. So Senso no longer is. Just Sensa and perhaps, later, Sensa Serif.

The tittles look fine to you, because I have already changed them. What you have been looking at was an update with changed tittles. The fact that it looks right to you probably shows that I scaled them down to the right size. =D At a second look they appear to flat, so I'll make them a little more round.

I have already redesigned the comma and other punctuation which I will include in my next update (perhaps tomorow already). I made the angle on the top of the a a bit more flat than you suggested. Those are some helpful tips you got there!

Uppercase:

The diagonal arms taper out more than is usual, but IMO this is the only way of making them look like they belong with the other strokes in the typeface. I will try to prove myself wrong by changing a few diagonals, but I doubt it.

I can't say anything sensible about your opinion on the individual glyphs, before having tried some changes. Unlike you might think, my minds capability to picture shapes is not so good, but I don't believe this has much influence on my designs.

The top of the caps from Myriad Pro (In my opinion the best designed/best balanced typeface I know of) also look a bit like a roller coaster (I wouldn't call it that way, but I get the idea) and it doesn't bother me, Nor does it bother me in Sensa. However, I will try to see if it looks better with more flat tops and bottoms.

Lowercase:

Same thing as with the caps. I can't say anything sensible about most of the things you say. Just some remarks: the d is a turned around p (the reverse actually), so it probably shouldn't be. i and j share the same x height (optical illusion perhaps. I'm unable to see it though.)

At display size, many stems look to thin indeed, but (perhaps it's technical problem) at text size they appear fine. They used to appear too thick at text size (also on high quality prints) so I changed them. Do they appear to thin also at text size to any of you guys? If not I have already failed one of my goals, which was to create a typeface equally useful for text and display use. I might have to make different optical weights now, which improves excellence, but is not so practical. Any opinions?

Thanks for a long, helpful and positive comment! This is of great help. Expletus will soon be released and I still have to do the Italics, so I can't intirely forget about it, but I won't make a pro version like I intended to do earlier.

One thing I don't understand. "you can keep refining glyph shapes later, it's much harder to get it to read well." Shouldn't I refine glyphs in order to make it read better?

A very happy Christmas to everyone and thanks again,

Jasper

Nick Job's picture

Jasper, I love the fact that you are prepared to stand by your guns on some of this stuff; good for you! Your gut instincts may serve you well.

However I would consider that some of the curviness of Myriad (top and bottom of some caps) was merely to move it away from Frutiger and serves no useful purpose except to give it a softer appearance.

I had a look at Nota and think you've got your work cut out. That is fine work indeed fine work as you commented in your previous thread 'Garamond Sans'.

I think that some of the tricks that typographers use to give optical correction are massively overplayed (e.g. amount of overshoot on curved forms, the flaring of slanted arms, the tipping forward of the top of a /t/ etc.) But the point is that you shouldn't be noticing these effects, they are there to make stuff look right, otherwise the effect has failed. If you can pull off an optical correction without it being noticed, that is success.

Now, I'm looking again at the /i/ and /j/ and the x-height is markedly different on the pdf. What's going on with that? Brilliant on the rotated /p/ and /d/! :) However the /p/ and the /d/ are definitely not the same on the pdf that I'm looking at. I would love to be able to do a capture of what I'm seeing but I'm not on my normal machine.

>>>One thing I don't understand. "you can keep refining glyph shapes later, it's much harder to get it to read well." Shouldn't I refine glyphs in order to make it read better?

Yes and no. Now you've got it to read so well, it doesn't need major work, merely cosmetic refinements to make the individual glyphs look nicer...however, there is no use in getting beautiful individual glyphs which just don't work together or are poorly spaced but you're a million miles from that here and that is very commendable.

I wouldn't busy yourself with optical weights yet, it will make your head hurt and you should be enjoying life, not living with a headache. Not unless you think this is the font which you're going to be remembered for. Think about a pro font having 1,000+ glyphs and how much work that is already going to involve.

Wonder what Mr Shinn makes of your new name Sensa/Senso in view of his recent releases :)?

Nick Job's picture

Meant to say, not sure if Senso was the right one to ditch, although Sensa keeps you away from Nota. Get away from Nota where you can (as well as all those fonts Stephen Coles mentioned in your first thread.

Nice one.

1996type's picture

Nick, While working on your comments I noticed that some of the things you noticed are simply the result of bad rendering. If you print the pdf, some of the problems you stated will probably disappear. Z and T also looked to high on my screen at 135%, but when I made it 100% they aligned nicely, just like in the printed version. This doesn't mean everything you stated is useless. In fact I have already made quite a lot welcome changes, but it explains some weird things you noticed. Maybe when you print it you will also notice that the p really is a turned around d ;-d
I'll get back to typophile today with a new update including all the changes I made after reading your comments.

Cheers, Jasper

1996type's picture

Sensa was the right one to ditch because it makes more sense to slant a straight font in an application (e.g. inDesign) than to straighten a slanted font. The name Sensa comes from 'sensational' and has nothing to do with Sense and Sensibility if that's what you meant. Your probably right about the optical weights, so I'll just have to find some sort of compromise between display and text, I guess. I'll start a new topic on this in the 'Design' section. See if anybody else experienced the same problem.

Nick Job's picture

Jasper, Sorry but I wonder now if I preferred the slightly curved /B/,/D/, etc. I just think it was too curved in the earlier versions.

However, still looking good in text even having made changes.

I definitely preferred the flatter periods. The heavier you get the flatter they will need to be. I also much prefer the new comma. Questionmark /?/ looks a little Hebraic and doesn't fit with rest of typeface to my mind.

/f/ and /t/ verticals look thin.

/t/ angle at the top troubles me. I probably want it to be horizontal but I can't say why.

/C/ and /c/ may need more advance width on right (set 'chin/chick' next to 'thin/thick') (/B/ may need less advance width.)

/W/ looks a little thick at central apex, the two middle strokes may need to be a little less tapered.
/Y/ Vertical stem lookslight compared with left arm. It's a vertical so shouldn't it logically be optically as thick as /T/ stem.
/Z/I find it interesting that you have given /Z/ and ink-trap but have not given /W/ when the angle in the /W/ is even tighter. Same applies to /M/ vs /N/ (if /N/ ink-trapped, why not /M/?)
(I like the shape of the ink-trap though and I am definitely not saying don't have ink-traps.)

If you're saying /T/ and /Z/ have same height as /U/ then this is rendering appallingly which makes feedback on shapes potentially pointless. Are you applying any hinting? Might be worth switching off before providing a new pdf...

Lastly, if you're going to genuinely test readability, you're going to need to set some words in a language that some people actually still speak ;)

I would also be inclined to leave old versions up there for comparison.

1996type's picture

Wow Nick. You reall keep going on this one :-)

On the B, D tec it's probably gonna be the golden midway. Same for the tittles (I guess you meant tittles when you said periods? the period remains unchanged.)
Many changes are made to give it a more even colour in text, so in fact it should look better in text. The question mark is not usual no, but like it's shape. It's comparable to Calluna's question mark. I think the Haebraic thing will get less if I make the top a little thinner.

f and t verticals are thin, bit yet again, they look fine to me. What I really need is a good laser printer. To judge a typeface at text size, inkjet just won't work. I have already asked a printer whom I have good relationship with if he has a not-too-expensive solution.

Your definitely right about the top of t, I'll change that.

With 'advance width' I assume you mean spacing. All the spacing so far is inDesign's optical function. Works quite well doesn't it?

Yes. I had the same thought about W, but somehow didn't get to it yet. Your right on spot with Y too.

The lack of inktraps on some spots is just sloppyness. I'll include inktraps everywhere they're needed in next update.

I'm not applying any hinting. I'll apply autohinting in next update. That might solve the problem. But the thing is: a screen is made out of pixels.

I remove old versions becasue I have seen people commenting regarding old pdf files in other topics in the critique section. Furthermore: When I've made a change and it looks right to me, I might choose something between the original and new version in the end, but I don't want to get stuck in older versions. If something looks 'wrong', I should be able to see this without knowing hwo it used to look.

Thanks again for some great feedback!

Cheers, Jasper

1996type's picture

sorry for my sloppy typing, it's getting late.

Nick Job's picture

>>>I'm not applying any hinting. I'll apply autohinting in next update. That might solve the problem. But the thing is: a screen is made out of pixels.

Pixels or not, I cannot understand why, if the points at the top of the T and Z are at the same height as U, V, H etc, they are rendering so far north of where they should be, at all viewing sizes. I'll post something in the next couple of days.

On /t/ and /f/ stems are noticeably thinner than the others to me. Again, I would say if the adjustment is obvious/apparent, you've probably overcooked it.

Look forward to next posting. Keep going.

1996type's picture

I'll visit some copy shops tomorrow, hoping they'll have a true postscript printer with at least 2400 dpi. After that I should be able to see what the stemthickness should be. Looking forward to it! My next update will probably be in one or two days. I hope hinting will solve your problem.

1996type's picture

This update includes PS hinting Nick. If your working on OSX the alignment and thickness problems should be solved. I checked it on my Mac and everything aligns nicely now. That is, on my screen. It's still best to print it, but I understand this might get a bit expensive. t and f are still mathematically thinner than the rest, but perhaps they used to look thinner than they are on your screen and will look fine now due to the hinting.

I made some testprints from a copyshop today. The quality still wasn't what I'm really looking for, but better than my inkjet. These prints showed that the f and t looked thicker than the rest so I made them a tad thinner (1 unit) compared to last time. I've found a copyshop with a printer that's probaly good enough for my needs, but they haven't responded to my email yet. I think I'll start working on the numerals and leave the stems for what they are untill I have some real quality testprints.

Cheers

Nick Job's picture

Hi Jasper, this version is looking very nice indeed. I'm still on Windows XP but looks fine.

I'd prefer the tittles to be rounder, I guess what you're going for should be a smaller version of the period for consistency? As far as the positioning of the tittles over the /i/ and /j/ is concerned, won't your Dutch /ij/ look weird if the tittles are at noticeably different heights? I've had a look at a whole lot of sans serifs (e.g. Gill, Stone) to see what they do and they all seem to put the tittle at exactly the same heights for both /i/ and /j/. I wonder if the change of height thing in Garamond is to do with counterbalancing serifs?

After everything else I said, I wonder if the /B/, /D/, /P/ and /R/ could withstand a touch more curvature top AND bottom. I think the angle at the bottom of inner stroke on bowls of /B/ and /D/ either needs softening or you curve them in as per original. I'm sorry, I feel like I sent you on a wild goose chase with the flat stroke approach.

/C/ looks like it is tipping backwards, less so on /c/ but still a bit notceable to me in text. Same could be said for /G/, although that's a fine letter you've drawn.

/E/ angle of terminal on middle bar looks different from top and bottom to me, same with /F/?

/K/ angle too far away from stem. Since width of the whole character looks good, maybe make the arms less inclined so apex is nearer the stem? Apex could also go down a bit so the optical centre is closer to crossbar of /H/, same for /k/ but you may disagree.

/L/ you may even get away with a touch more off the foot.

/M/ is very nice indeed, you're looking for similar central strokes in /W/ (i.e. less tapered still). /M/ could maybe go a fraction narrower, as could /W/ maybe?

/R/ still light on leg/foot and at the junction. Look at same stroke in /X/ - much thicker.

/T/ optical thing - does the whole crossbar need to move slightly to the right? (BTW, /T/ and /Z/ horizontals looking much better and correct height too!

/quotesingle/ and /quotedbl/ really like the angel you have cut those off at, can it be the same for /comma/ and all quotes?

/t/ could withstand slight leaning to right at top. You could also extend the arm out a little further. Or else, for consistency, you could make it more like the /f/ and cut it at an angle higher up as shown below:

/y/ I preferred a gentler curve on the tail as per earlier versions? Looks like it's got a kink in it to me.

/b/, /d/, /p/ and /q/ There is still some inconsistency with the widths of these. In previous posts you've said the /p/ and /d/ are the same glyph but rotated. I assume you would do the same thing with /b/ and /q/. Have a look at the capture below:

My feeling is that the /d/ and /q/ are a good deal wider than they need to be (even if you are following the Garamond model). Those red rectangles are all identical. To my mind, the /b/ and /p/ are the right width but the /d/ and /q/ are just too wide. Remember, I'm sure you do, the white counters play just as imporant a role as the black strokes. You don't want big white holes which I think you are getting a little with /d/ in text.

Well done on the ink-traps!

Keep going.

1996type's picture

Thanks Nick. The tittles look quite round to me and the tittle on i and j really are on the same height, I'm afraid. Seems like hinting doesn't fix everything. Although I want to avoid getting into the technical things to early, It's good to know how much Windows xp influences the way the type looks. Could you show me some more screenshots of what it looks like on your pc, also on smaller sizes? That would be really helpful.

Some other weird things you noticed must be the effect of the poor rendering on Windows xp. The b and d are actually the same width, so it seems like the poor rendering still occurs at larger sizes (Are you working with Adobe Reader? If not, maybe you should try it). If your working on xp, you actually need Truetype hinted fonts, which I won't make during the design process. The t does lean to the right a little on the top, which is visible on my screen, but I think Windows Xp sticks to the hinting, which makes it appear straight. I like the t as it is, so I'll stick to it.

Your definitely right about the C c G E F W R T y and the quotes.

The q is different from the b for a reason. The same thing can be seen in Nick Shinn's 'Sense'. The q has to be flatter at the top because otherwise the u will look as if it's too high in words like quality. The q is very often followed by a u so that's quite an important pair. If you look at Plantin for example, you'll see they added a small piece to the q to make it work when followed by u. In some typefaces they use the q (with a 'flat' top) to make the b. I've tried this with Sensa, but it just doesn't look right that way.

Although your comments are still very welcome and useful I don't see why you don't make a print of the pdf. I understand it would be a waste of paper and ink to do this with every new update, but it should help you see how your screen influences what you see. I have just finished a version with slightly thicker stems, so if you plan on making a print perhaps you should wait for the next update.

I've had a look at your website and although I'm not so much of a logo expert at least the typography in all of them looks really nice. Especially Matterhorn Capital, which looks like a custom job, right. You obviously have an eye for typedesign but I can't find any fonts of you on the internet. Why not?

A cheeky question, just out of curiousity. Do you think Sensa has the potential of being accepted by one of the better foundries? (e.g. FontFont, Font Bureau, Monotype, etc.)

Thanks again for some great feedback Nick!

Nick Job's picture

Hey, wait a minute. I've saved it and opened it in Acrobat and it's looking a lot better...I really hope I haven't wasted too much of your time! I'm guessing Chrome has its own pdf viewer built in because it now looks a lot better (imagine, I thought it looked great anyway, now it looks even better!) BTW Will someone please explain that whole Google Chrome pdf thing to me!?

>>>...I can't find any fonts of you on the internet. Why not?

Because type design appears to take a lot longer than I thought it would. Not long now though, I hope.

>>>A cheeky question, just out of curiousity. Do you think Sensa has the potential of being accepted by one of the better foundries? (e.g. FontFont, Font Bureau, Monotype, etc.)

Viability depends on a range of weights, plus italics. When you've got the regular sorted out, it'll be time to start on the bold. When you've got the bold sorted out, it'll be time to make a multiple master and extrapolate to light and heavy. Once you've engineered the light and heavy, you'll need to make another multiple master to revisit the regular and bold, to make sure you're still happy. (So the regular you are currently slaving over is unlikely to be the one you end up going with in the end! Frustrating, huh?) When you have got a multiple master with a weight axis that you're happy with, that's probably the time to start thinking about different optical sizes, if that's still on your radar. (I haven't even mentioned the italics yet!)

Now some designers use more than one multiple master to establish all their weights, since at the heavy end, you may have to make serious adjustments for it still to work, depending on the design itself.

I guess, above all, what a foundry is looking for more than anything is a robust concept because they want great-looking typefaces that are going to make some cash. So if you're asking whether a foundry would be interested, keep going!!

1996type's picture

"I really hope I haven't wasted too much of your time!" You wasted my time?! I'm very grateful for your comments Nick.

Extrapolating doesn't always work the way it should, so I think I'll make a black and light and interpolate to make the other weights. If done properly, there shouldn't be a need for editing the generated weights by hand this way. This is a different topic though. I first want to make sure I got all the uc and lc in the regular right, before I start thinking about other weights.

Nick Job's picture

>>>Extrapolating doesn't always work the way it should

You're absolutely right, it doesn't, but if you start with your regular and bold (the most used weights, I'm guessing), you'll have to extrapolate to get a rough light and heavy.

Assuming you're making 5 weights, you are currently working on Wt2 (regular), and soon to be working on Wt4 (bold). You're going to have to extrapolate to get at least basis for Wt1 (light) and Wt5 (Heavy). I'm not pretending Wt1 and Wt5 are going to look right from extrapolating but how else are you going to establish Wt1 and Wt5? Once you have got Wt1 and Wt5 looking right, then you need to work out if your Wt2 and Wt4 (and of course Wt3 (medium, if you're having medium, that is) also look right (and are faithful to the original concept).

I'm now working on my second viable font and this time I haven't started with a regular but a hairline and an extrablack. Some may call me naive but I quite like the way it's going.

1996type's picture

"I'm now working on my second viable font and this time I haven't started with a regular but a hairline and an extrablack. Some may call me naive but I quite like the way it's going." That's exactly what I plan to do, only I also make the regular in between to get a better idea of what it's supposed to look like. Hairline and extrablack is much harder to balance out IMO than a regular, so if I started out with only hairline and extrablack, the regular probably wouldn't turn out the way I want it to. Your simply a more advanced typedesignerthan , so for you only Hairline and ExtraBlack seems like a logical solution. Why don't you post your work on typophile?

Nick Job's picture

>>>Why don't you post your work on typophile?

What, and bare my soul to the entire world? I think you're very brave!

I did once post something, Energy back in the day. That's the face I've gone back to now, albeit it look a whole lot different now (seven weights versus original eight) plus it has morphed through several changes. I didn't get much feedback so didn't want to flog a dead horse, even though it's looking a whole lot nicer these days. I might post something soon, who knows...

1996type's picture

I'm not brave. I'm simply realistic enough to see that I don't have a choice. You didn't get much feedback because there wasn't much say, apart from the fact that it might needed some more uniqueness. The amount of feedback is not a representative of the quality of the design. To me it comes closest to Myriad Pro, which is on of my favs. If you post it at a stage when it's alomst finished you should be safe from piracy. I would love to see it some time!

Nick Job's picture

You're on fire with those numerals!

/k/, /v/, /y/ and /w/ maybe slightly wide, /k/ especially. Looks proportionally a lot wider than the /K/.

Sensato...now sounds Italian. Why not give it a more Dutch name, like Centrumraad? :)

Anyway, would love to see some bold!

Nice going, long way to go, here's to a very productive 2011. Happy New Year, Jasper!

1996type's picture

It's italian because the typeface feels Italian to me. I'm proud of being Dutch though ;-D Happy new year Nick! Cheers!

1996type's picture

"Anyway, would love to see some bold!"

How 'bout this?

Curioustype's picture

It never ceases to amaze me how many times I've looked through the critique section and stumbled across something that looks very much like something I'm right in the middle of doing, which invariably has me saying "@$@%^ it!" to myself. While my current project differs slightly in a handful of ways from this work (i.e., the slightly curved lines to the immediate left of the shoulders in the m, n, r and p; also above the crossbar of the lowercase 't'), it's still way too close for me to feel enough difference. It's definitely a beautiful typeface, though, and one of which you should be proud.

Just one question, though, keeping in mind I haven't read all the entries on the above thread: If you are not going to enclose what I guess would be called the "bowls" in the P, 6, and 9, is there something preventing you from adopting the same concept to the R and the B? Obviously you could turn them both upside-down and make them sing "Unforgettable" if you wanted to; I'm simply wondering what the philosophy there was, if any at all.

Nicely done.

1996type's picture

"it's still way too close for me to feel enough difference." Does that mean you will stop working on it? Could send me a pict of your typeface?

I won't enclose the bowls in P 6 and 9 because it looks right. No more philosophy needed. If you look at other typefaces you'll see it's not my invention.

Nick Job's picture

Bold looks like a good starting place. Wonder of it's a bit too heavy but the acid test is putting some bold in amongst some regular in a block of copy and see if it's black enough.

By my reckoning, sans bolds generally tend to be between 1.4 and 1.8 times thicker and I would guess that your stem widths are down the 1.8 end. I would also suggest that Myriad's Bold is very dark (maybe too dark) but then Myriad Regular is by no means slim!

This thread may give you some food for thought. Eben gives a whole bunch of other links too within his post on that thread. I love maths but I'm sure some people were thinking I was uncouth for trying to look for mathematical help rather than just trusting my eye.

Nice one.

1996type's picture

It's intended as a heavy rather than bold. I'll create the bold, semi-bold and black through interpolation. I Although I'm not a big fan of extrapolation I made a quick test and t worked for creating the black. The full weight range will be something like: thin, light, regular, medium, semi-bold, bold, heavy, black. I might not make italics for some of the extreme weights, but I haven't decided on that yet.

Igor Freiberger's picture

Very good work, Jasper. Congrats. BTW, in Portuguese and Spanish, sensato is the person who act with good sense (also: concious, sensible, reasonable, judicious).

1996type's picture

Thanks! that's good to know. I liked the name Sensa which came from Sensational, but is a little too close to Nick Shinn's Sense so the obvious thing would be 'Sensatio' (sensational) but it sounds too long, so I took away the i.

riccard0's picture

Sensato... now sounds Italian.

in Portuguese and Spanish, sensato is the person who act with good sense (also: concious, sensible, reasonable, judicious).

In Italian, “sensato” has the same meaning as in Portuguese and Spanish. It’s an adjective which could be applied either to people or to ideas or actions.

1996type's picture

I tried the spanish translator a few times when I was looking for a name. Funny to find that I've come up with a word that translates very well to a bunch of languages, without using the translator. Sensible or reasonable is not a bad name for typeface is it?

JoergGustafs's picture

Your typeface has a lot of «Dutchness» in it – why not a Dutch name?
To me type design (as well as graphic design btw) could use some more «pride of origin» nowadays. After all, that’s a great USP for your typeface.
And I think there are far too few typefaces with Dutch names out there, measured against the vast amount of talented Dutch type designers!

Syndicate content Syndicate content