This is a continuation of this thread. I chose to post this italic companion in a separate post, because the old one got too long to be practical. All critique as always highly appreciated.
Remember the salt and sugar...
• It looks quite dark, which I love; how does this turn out in text? (And inline with the roman?)
• Funky X: Yes! I love the T too.
• Ball terminal on C could be bigger?
• A looks narrow, or C wide, not sure which. Maybe it's the C, as the D also looks a bit thin next to it.
• Beautiful R.
• V looks a little unresolved.
• What about something more in the middle of the W...a closed loop or crossing arms?
• Y could be a bit wide, perhaps.
• Top of Z could be more wobbled, or have a spur?
• The lc is unfaultable!
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.
Maybe try a J-like tail on the italic pilcrow?
Yeah, I don't understand the italic pilcrow. What's the thinking? :)
Thank you, guys! You're the best.
Heavier 'C' ball, narrower 'C', 'D' very slightly widened, 'A' a little wider and more open, crossbar lowered. 'W' (and 'V') tweaked quite a bit. 'Y' less wide and slanted differently, 'K' arm blacker and a little narrower, 'Z' tweaked (I really want to have a non-curled top on it), 'S' a little tweaked, 's' a little sharper on top.
What's the thinking?
Er ... thinking? No idea. I'll think of something.
I don't like the /h/m/n/
Aw, they're the heart and soul of this font. How would you have preferred them?
But thank you very much for all of your kind words and for taking the time.
Aw, they're [/h/m/n/] the heart and soul of this font. How would you have preferred them?
I know, I'm really sorry that I didn't word this in a more constructive way, but I'm having difficulty pinning down what bothers me about them. I just find them ungainly in a way that doesn't have the same charm as the other quirks of the face. If it were me, I might try considering alternatives to the transitive serif at the end of the letter, just widening the whole thing a bit, or making the angle of the right side more upright to break up that curved parallel on the sides of the counter. Of course if you like it as is don't touch it!
Seeing the /X/ in context... I think it works beautifully! Bravo!
I'm very impressed with how well the typeface works in all-caps.
At the bottom left of /Z/ you might try tapering one or the other of the strokes a bit.
I can see how the top of /g/ posed a challenge: seems like there are three things you might want happening there:
- a notch of white large enough to be read
- a broad strong flat terminal to begin the big swooping stem
- the thickening of the bowl at the join which is a key characteristic of the face
Seems like you chose #1 and #2 at the expense of #3. It may well be that having all three is impossible, but I wonder...
Z vs. z have different weights in the diagonal. Any reasoning behind this?
Because it's cool. And perhaps because the lower case is based on an older model than the upper case. Or something.
And also because I couldn't make the upper case reversed 'Z' work. Do you think I should try again?
Awesome job! The only thing (apart from everything above :-) I notice is that the angle in the lc looks uneven. By giving the glyphs with descenders and ascenders a slightly more vertical angle (more towards the angle of f), it will probably look more even. It's done in many old italics.
@ looks out of place
It would be more historically correct to base the ß on a long s and z, instead of s. However, z is replaced so often by s in the ß that it can't really be seen as incorrect. I guess the choice is up to you.
Diagonal in Z looks too dark.
Already looking forward to the release!
Thank you, Jasper and Craig.
I'm still not sure if I understand your 'nmh' critique, Craig, but I've looked long and hard at them, and modified them somewhat. I am very satisfied with their overall shapes (and how they carry on the cusp from the Roman), but they were perhaps a little overdone. I've also taken into account Jasper's critique of the lower case being slightly wobbly (I have thought that myself. Some angular ambiguity is intentional, though), and adjusted that subtly. Now everything should be a little smoother. The SE terminals of adklmn etc. are now less curved and points more in the slant direction. 'e' and 'c' opened a little too. And '@' is thoroughly funkified.
And yes, Craig, I must ask to you explain your 'g' thoughts again. I just didn't get it. When in designer mode, my language perception isn't much to write home about, obviously.
Yes, that's better :-) @ looks awesome!
Very nice indeed!
The X looks distracting to me. As well as the Y, perhaps.
Thinking of ball terminals at E, F, L, … ?
Great great job on the at sign. If you wanted you could drop it down--I've become a fan of at-signs aligned so that the "a" inside centers on the x-height. I love the contrast though.
Did you widen /h/m/n/? I think they look better.
Long story short on the /g/: top of the bowl coming down into the stem looks thin.
I like the addition of the contrast in the @ sign. Should the contrast be shifted a few degrees CCW? —as the shoulders of m. n, etc.