New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
NOGA
Posted by typografski in
17 May 2002 — 11:21am
17 May 2002 — 11:21am
sorry for my bad english :-)
here my new type called NOGA
User login
Support our Sponsors
17 May 2002 — 11:26am
\NOGA.gif
17 May 2002 — 11:31am
http://www.typophile.com/cgibin/board-profile.pl?action=display_picture&picture=typografski-public&timenow=1021660010
17 May 2002 — 11:37am
fu... html :-)
sorry
20 May 2002 — 2:39pm
the weight increase, esp in the boldface, appears to be lacking optical adjustments.
21 May 2002 — 4:11am
What do you mean by "optical adjustments"?
The proportions are very nice, and the small touches, like the @ and the braces, are quite elegant.
21 May 2002 — 8:15am
Yeah. I like it too and I agree with John about the small touches, the @ was especially nice.
The uppercase Q could need some minor optical adjustments in the bolder version though. Other than that, it's solid. Have you begun with the letterspacing and kerning? Is it done soon?
I'm looking for a good condensed replacement for trade gothic... this looks promising. Will it be sold?
21 May 2002 — 8:26am
rear is font, this soon (June) over myfonts.com sold.
thanks for your opinion.
sorry for my english :-)
21 May 2002 — 9:51am
sorry, I should have been more specific. I did not intend to say that I did not like the font. I still feel, however, that the bold weight has some small (but important) issues to confront. specifically, I noticed the negative area at the base of the lc a, b, and d where the bowl encounters the stroke and the space around the bar on the uc Q. the adjustments I am referring to may be entirely void in reality because of the corrupting effects of screen resolution -- just offering my observations. it really is a nice piece of work overall.
27 Sep 2002 — 7:44am
the glyphs: { } [ ] are aligned centered and not at the baseline, i really like that!!, pretty cool.
anyway there are some glyphs (LC e, and LC f) that looks just a little extrange,
i do not know if you need a diagonal there.
great stuff!.
PS: sorry by my english
2 Dec 2002 — 8:35pm
i'm not crazy about the way lc t terminates in the boldest version. it could use a little tapering of the stroke as it gets to the end, or maybe shorten the actual stroke. i dig the lc e. the diagonal crossbar is nice.
3 Dec 2002 — 9:07am
Nice sans. I agree with Isaac on the 't' and would go a step further to say all weights of the 't' seem to flare too much, it doesn't seem appropriate in this instance. As for optics. The fig '4' seems to suffer quite a bit from the weight interpolation, as does the 'M' and 'N'. Your notches in the characters 'd', 'b', 'g', 'p', 'q' and 'r' ('Q') all but disappear. It might be nice to exaggerate a bit, maybe? The 'j' and 'f' characters seem to flare also. I really like the severity of it though. Nothing like bowing to the master and sticking to the grid. ;)