NOGA

Primary tabs

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Heinrich Lischka's picture
Joined: 17 May 2002 - 1:21pm
NOGA
0

sorry for my bad english :-)

here my new type called NOGA

Heinrich Lischka's picture
Joined: 17 May 2002 - 1:21pm
0

\NOGA.gif

Heinrich Lischka's picture
Joined: 17 May 2002 - 1:21pm
0
Heinrich Lischka's picture
Joined: 17 May 2002 - 1:21pm
0

fu… html :-)

sorry

David Holman's picture
Offline
Joined: 1 Apr 2002 - 11:00am
0

the weight increase, esp in the boldface, appears to be lacking optical adjustments.

John Baichtal's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Mar 2002 - 11:00am
0

What do you mean by “optical adjustments”?

The proportions are very nice, and the small touches, like the @ and the braces, are quite elegant.

Richard Wikstrom's picture
Joined: 8 Mar 2002 - 2:35am
0

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?

Heinrich Lischka's picture
Joined: 17 May 2002 - 1:21pm
0

rear is font, this soon (June) over myfonts.com sold.
thanks for your opinion.

sorry for my english :-)

David Holman's picture
Offline
Joined: 1 Apr 2002 - 11:00am
0

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.

Hernan Ibanez's picture
Offline
Joined: 24 Sep 2002 - 3:33pm
0

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

isaac's picture
Offline
Joined: 21 Oct 2002 - 11:00pm
0

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.

Tiffany Wardle's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Jul 2001 - 11:00am
0

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. ;)