Looking for critiques

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for some critiques for this project I'm working on at the moment. This is my first type design project so far.

"Interborough is inspired from the signage system of IRT, (Interborough Rapid Transit, hence the name) New York subway system in the 1900s – 1940s. Interborough collects the inconsistent characteristics of thosesigns and combines with a personal touch to create a new, unique design itself. The sans-serif typeface explores the American compact modular style and try to balance the solid, geometric form with the subtle curviness in its minor eccentric details. Interborough employs a condent and optimistic look that is found in visual designs of early 20th century. In short, Interborough is unique but familiar, structured but versatile, nostalgic but up-to-date."

I want this typeface to not only function well for signage, display purposes (I will have Display variations with king caps) but also usable as a text typeface (for relatively short body of text).

I have attached in this the PDF file with glyph table, waterfall and sample body text. At the moment I've just pretty much design the glyphs, so I know the kerning at the moment is quite terrible, sorry.

Hope you can take a look and give me some feedbacks!



interborough-preview.pdf322.02 KB
LexLuengas's picture

- I'm not sure if that /R/ works.
- /w/ and /m/ have different width, and therefore also different color.
- Why that colliding /%/?
- /k/ is malformed and too wide.
- /r/ is also too wide.
- The turn of the stem of /a/ at the lower right looks cut.
- I'd make /c/ and /s/ align with their terminals when written together (/cs/).

Remember to be sceptic about my comments :-) Good work so far. I think you can start with the kerning.

giangnguyen1111's picture

Thank you Lex, good points there :)

benblack88's picture

-I agree with the comment above about the R, perhaps use the alternate at the bottom of the page.

- The lowercase double bowled "g" is nice, however I do not think that it is cohesive with the rest of the typeface. Again use the alternate in the mix to see how it works the second time around.
-if you really want to use the double-bowl, I would suggest that you make the negative spaces a little larger
so that you can maintain the same look throughout the typeface, which has turned out really nicely.

-It seems that a few letters are "cut-off" as LexLuengas has pointed out. Perhaps just make these sections a little longer so that it seems like they are finished.

I appreciate the use of hipster lorem. Definite +1. Kerning would be a great next step. I know this process isn't easy, and the typeface looks great!

kontur's picture

While I like the twist to the |Q|, I believe it will look like a fault to the readers eye; the alternative is nice, but looses some of the originality, something inbetween maybe?

LexLuengas already mentioned the distrubing look of the touching |%|, I totally second that.

The very curvy shoulders on |n|m|h| make them look extra squeezed next to, say, the |g| or |e| - |b|d|q|p| have less parallel strokes in them, so with those I think it looks good, even though the connection to the stem seems very sharp to me (the |d| and |q| more so than the |b| and |p|). I think this also makes those letters' shoulders visually jump out above the x height in the text samples.

Just my novice comments, really like the feel of the font :)

Ryan Maelhorn's picture

Don't you dare change the Q or the R. They're the best part of the font!

Chris Dean's picture

You’ll find you get more and better feedback if you use the “Insert image” link located below the bottom left corner of the Comment field.

Syndicate content Syndicate content