Sans Type Feedback

Primary tabs

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lecter Johnson's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 Jun 2006 - 12:32pm
Sans Type Feedback
0

Hello everybody,
I’m designing a sans-serif and wonder if I might get any input from the pro’s.
It’s got more or less two weights right now, and you can test it in this typetester here:

http://www.doubletwo.net/MiloTest/Index.html

I would be very pleased if you got some feedback for me.

lec

And please ignore the name "Milo", I know there is a typeface out there with that name. This was the first came into my mind so it’s a kind of workingtitle.

Kevin Pease's picture
Offline
Joined: 19 Oct 2003 - 5:03pm
0

It's good. The Black b,d,p,q seem condensed and would be more in character if you let the bowl out some.

Robert K.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 30 May 2007 - 5:52pm
0

It feels a bit wide to me because it seems as if it was stretched horizontally. But otherwise looks very nice.

Lecter Johnson's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 Jun 2006 - 12:32pm
0

Yes right, the Black b,d,p,q can take a little, did not see that. It is a very rough first cut, I just followed what came up... I'm trying to fix this.

And yes litera, you are right, it seems a little too wide. Maybe I try to narrow some characters to get closer to the b,d,p,q. Or does the Thin seem wide to you too?

I am planning some condensed and maybe ultra-condensed weights too. I want to try out the whole range of multiple master functionality.

And i am not sure with the dot above the i and j and rounded punctuation. Maybe squarish would be better for that?

Johan Palme's picture
Offline
Joined: 23 Jan 2011 - 6:07am
0

Good-looking stuff generally. I would definitely have a look again at the /g/ in the black version - considering your carefully-crafted colour correction (maybe on the verge of being too thinned) on the /N/, that ear is way too heavy, and the link feels a bit weak.

I'd also have another look at the various white sections, again problematic in /g/ but also feeling a bit weird in many other bowled letters in the black. In the /e/, for instance, it looks optically futher left than the tail. In the /b/ and /d/ it feels diagonally leaned.

One thing you seriously need to go through, in both weights, is the baseline appearance - some letters (notably thin /t/) have too much overhang, while others, like thin /O/, have too little.

Lecter Johnson's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 Jun 2006 - 12:32pm
0

Thanks, all good points.
Yes, i corrected the /N/ because it was way too heavy, maybe little too strong. :)
And you are right with the bowls... i'll check that.

In deed I did not looked closer at the baseline, very good tip.

Robert K.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 30 May 2007 - 5:52pm
0

Yes both weights. /o/ in either weight seems to have perfect width. Most of the others are just too wide.

Andrew's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Jan 2007 - 10:28am
0

lecter what is the technology behind the site, if you don't mind me asking?
And are you making changes to the active/linked font file?

I've not seen anyone put their fonts up for critique in this way :-)

My modest input: The counters in the black version seem very small. Letters such as the /c/ are quite different between weights, the light is much rounder. Some characters are necessarily different (/f/) but I think the /c/ could share some more DNA with it's light counterpart. Feel free to disagree.

Robert K.'s picture
Offline
Joined: 30 May 2007 - 5:52pm
0

@1985: Wow stupid of me! I didn't know the page was interactive! I though it's just an image of few letters. :)

@lecter: Very nice app. I'm interested in knowing as well.

BTW: Black seems a bit like a faux black with invalid shape contrast. I don't like it too much.

Lecter Johnson's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 Jun 2006 - 12:32pm
0

oh, i thought the layout would explain the functionality for itself.
i'm a little into flash-actionscripting, so i thought it would be cool to create a simple display tool for showing my fonts. it would be cooler if i only had to put the fonts into a seperate folder or somthing but i have to embed them. but then its really nice i think. but there is a little bug its kind of limited to a maximum fontsize. i dont know what that comes from. gotta check that. (maybe ;))

btw: i have uploaded a newer version, have a look at that maybe its a bit better.
-> http://www.doubletwo.net/MiloTest2/Index.html

Matthew Butterick's picture
Joined: 28 Jul 2009 - 3:14pm
0

And please ignore the name "Milo", I know there is a typeface out there with that name. This was the first came into my mind so it’s a kind of workingtitle.

If you want to name a font Milo in the privacy of your home, go nuts. But you shouldn't be putting a font out in public with the same name as a published font. Even if it's just a working title. Even if your font is still in development. Leaving aside the legal & trademark issues — this is basic good sportsmanship.

Lecter Johnson's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 Jun 2006 - 12:32pm
0

Oh yeah, you are so damn right. Now, that i have googled it, i found one from FontFont and i see the sans is really close to mine... `:-/ i am very sorry for that! that wasnt my intent. i should have looked closer.

the only thing i found on my (maybe too quick) research was this here and i thought its forms were so far to mine that i will be ok.

http://www.urbanfonts.com/fonts/Milo.htm

arrg! can i change the threattitle somewhere?

Gary Lonergan's picture
Offline
Joined: 2 Jan 2007 - 3:04pm
0

It's a nice looking font I'm very impressed with the type tester
Cap X in the bold looks clumsy compared with the nicely worked inktraps in W and V
and the black does look to have counters that will close up in small sizes.
Maybe interpolate and make it a bit lighter.