no hope of you having a closed bowl on the /g/
To me making the bowl open isn't mainly a stylistic decision - it comes from the belief that the closed bowl is unnatural and can even sometimes cause a hiccup in reading.
@hrant: Regarding the open vs closed /g/. An interesting point. Do you have a primary source or reference for this? There is the potential for a very simple study here.
the belief that the closed bowl is unnatural
The whole damn lowercase g is unnatural, I believe! :-)
Hrant: Every open bowl g I've ever seen has caused a hiccup for me, and I'm talking about text - not display.
> The whole damn lowercase g is unnatural
Or maybe it just needs more complex friends.
In Armenian for example we have half a dozen
characters of that complexity so none of them
feel lonely. :-)
> Every open bowl g I've ever seen has caused a hiccup for me
Maybe because you're too type-aware? We know
that type designers can't really read anymore. ;-)
Anyway I certainly agree that virtually all
open "g"s are poorly designed - because it's
a rare form it's harder to pull it off; the
closed form being established is easier
to get away with making it poorly.
- The hiccup I believe can happen with the
closed form is especially when "g" is doubled:
the peculiar pattern repeated can be jarring.
- Have you read anything set in Patria?
The whole damn lowercase g is unnatural
HF&J's new release Ideal Sans is similar to Satyr in its absence of straight edges (the end result is quite different, of course!)
I think Satyr is on track. Two g's: Definitely! Both "gg" and "gj" are common pairs in Norwegian and often troublesome. Patria: No, not yet. Where can I see it?
Nina has set a few books in it* but I think they're all in German. Do you have #13 of Typo magazine? My article in that issue was set in Patria. There are a few other things (including a previous issue of a provincial newspaper) but nothing highly accessible. Maybe I should send you a PDF? If so please email me (no pressure) at hpapazian at gmail dot com.
* Example: http://www.ninastoessinger.com/?l=e&s=typography
Oh, yes my Patria books (3 so far) are all in German.
Drop me a line if you'd like to have a look, Frode.
Satyr: great name. Earlier on someone was saying the caps were tame in relation to the lowercase. It reminded me that Octavian is a typeface where the caps are wide – being based on inscriptional lettering – and that the narrow lowercase has a different feel.
It's a necessary paradox that the caps are essentially a different alphabet, and there's a severe limit to how much they can match the -more important- lowercase. We have to allow each case to be itself, as awkward as that might feel.
ON THE OTHER HAND... :-) I've always thought there might be a way to makes things really click between the two cases, specifically by leveraging uncial forms... Where's Victor Hammer when you need him!
Differentiating the cases has become a very conscious decision in the making of this design, I've actually exaggerated the differences, the serif treatment are different, the upper case has none of the lower case contrast weirdness.
About my open g: It stays that way. I've come to think that the s and g, the two loners of the lower case, should resemble one another. That solves a lot of problems, and looks pretty. Harder to read? Not if you're used to it, no way. I think reading Fraktur is frustratingly time-consuming (and my mind often refuses to accept that the "k" is not a "t"), but I'm one hundred per cent certain no-one thought so 150 years ago.
I'm working on the spacing now, and will post a new pdf with Latin Extended-A support and small caps in a few days.
s and g, the two loners of the lower case, should resemble one another
Someone in Ireland some time ago should have thought the same ;-)
> the s and g, the two loners of the lower case, should resemble one another.
I have nothing against them resembling one another sure don't they have the same parents.
Do you know the typeface Brighton have a look at the g in that. Now there's a g that resembles the s
Italics. See pdf. Can an italic meant for text sizes have such a deranged 'X'?
After being advised to do so, I have decided to make a new thread for Satyr Italic, the length of this thread makes it too impractical. So please, write any critique here.
I was just wondering if this would see action again!
Love the descenders of /p/q/.
That thickening at the joins works wonderfully at the bottom of /V/W/! /v/ is fantastic.
I wonder if top terminal of /s/ could be a touch less soft (maybe look to /f/ for a model).
I don't like the /h/m/n/.
/K/'s arm seems a little weak - is it stretching too far over, or does it need a little more black?
The /Z/, which seems to switch contrast strategy midgame, is no less daring than the /X/. Give us some words with those glyphs to judge.
Question mark seems too soft. At-sign may be too generic--could some contrast or quirkiness be introduced into its loop?
/A/ crossbar seems too high to me still.
And finally, today Satyr is released on Monokrom Type Foundry, founded by Frode Bo Helland and myself.
Thank you so much for all your help and support!
So satisfying to see this come out.