Well, here's standard fl and fi ligs in the Roman. I prefer the alternate f look here but I think I'll include both options (liga and calt) in both Roman and Italic, so I've got all bases covered.
Cap sharp S. I think this pointy style is the best fit for this typeface.
A little bit too much separation between the two halves - try to make them flow together into one thing somehow.
Maybe a little boring.
Or there's this one still with the sticky out bit but with it more like a wedge serif than a stick:
And here with the serif jutting out bit more in keeping size-wise with the other serifs:
I think the spur is nice and maybe even needed, and I think converting it from a full "stroke" to a serif seems like a good solution. BTW you might want to remove the inside serif on the left stem - or at least do with it something like what you've done on the inside of the leg of the "R".
The "fi" and "fl" are too dense in the roman.
Good idea. Here it is with a similar bottom to the right stem of |n|, and the more spacious f-ligs.
Now for the italic cap eszett... a descender is a stupid idea, right?
a descender is a stupid idea, right?
For a capital, yes.
In my book, even for an lc (although "stupid" might be too strong).
You won't like this then ;)
Small caps are in progress - for the italic, they are mainly a slanted Roman (Q is like the italic) but I'm wondering how to deal with the more lowercase-like UC glyphs (A, K, R, U and X). I think the kick at the bottom which works well with lowercase doesn't work so well in all caps (or small caps if I changed them too) settings. I was thinking of reintroducing the more standard slanted roman forms of these uppercase letters, but I'm undecided about where to put them. Standard as default and lc-like as salt or stylistic set, or the other way round, or with standard forms in CASE function (and probably in smcp too).
These are the two possible cap styles in different settings:
1. lc style with small caps
2. standard with small caps
3. lc style all caps
4. standard all caps
5. lc style with lc
6. standard with lc
I'm leaning towards having the standard as default and the lc style as stylistic set, but I fear that alternates just end up unused.
PS. please ignore spacing issues for now!
No, it's nice. Just non-ideal. :-)
I've got a new pdf to upload, but I can't seem to edit my first posts at the moment. I tried starting another thread for it but it seems to have been lost in some moderator limbo. Does anyone know of a website I can upload pdfs to to link to?
Might be worth messaging an admin. Will be interested to see what the latest version is looking like, and will get to some critique next week hopefully.
Thanks, Ben. I've messaged them. Didn't know if it was only me having that problem or not.
The pdf is basically a showing of the proposed weights. Here's a smaller jpg version
I think the middle three weights could do with being slightly bolder than they are now - the difference between light and regular is barely noticeable and between bold and black too much.
I think the middle three weights could do with being slightly bolder than they are now
Remember, weights like to work in pairs. For each weight, is there another that plays with it well? Equally-spaced weights are not necessarily functional.
Yeah, the pdf showed light with medium, regular with bold and medium with black, which is what persuaded me the middle weights need shifting. Regular with bold - good. Light with medium - not quite enough difference. Medium with black - too much difference.
Does anyone know of a website I can upload pdfs to to link to?
If you are OK with French: http://www.fichier-pdf.fr/
PDF is available for download here http://ge.tt/6nVt5PO/v/0?c
This is coming along well.
A few suggestions to take or leave:
- roman /f/ appears to lean rightward, moreso in the lighter weights. Extending the bottom right serif might help. (I don't know that the lean in itself is a problem, but extending that serif will help with spacing at any rate.)
- roman /g/ I think that corner at the northeast of the bottom bowl is yet too angular for my eyes, but maybe you have it where you want it. Could the ear take a tiny bit more weight?
- is roman /c/ a little light?
- small caps could be a touch darker in every weight. I like the stemmed /U/!
- /m/ is too wide I think, certainly in italic at least.
- the (illusory) upslant of the italic /f/ and /t/ crossbars may be too strong.
- in the lighter weights, italic /g/'s counters look out of balance, with the lower one looking pinched. Keep the structure for sure -- it's great -- but consider tweaking the proportions.
- loop of italic /k/ looks pinched, too.
I've extended /f/ serif slightly on light master. Tried a more curved corner to the bottom bowl of /g/. I think I like it. Put a touch more weight on the ear but I don't think any more is necessary.
The roman /c/ was light (in black weight anyway). I'd already thickened the bottom (and bottom of /e/ too) a bit but I agree with you that it still looked light. Hopefully this one's better.
I disagree on small caps. I do think they look light in darker weights but this is a spacing issue; I just need to track them a bit tighter.
I like the /m/as it is, and the /f/ and /t/ crossbars I quite like as they are.
I agree with you on italic /g/ and I've balanced it a bit better in the light weight. I think I was too caught up on keeping the top counter in line with the /a/, but I think it's much better now.
Tweaked /k/ slightly.
The texture is great. But: charset, dude!
I'm just finalising diacritic positions in italic then I'll put up what I've got.
I really do think that italic /m/ is too wide. Maybe cleaning up the spacing (which still looks quite rough) will help judge.
Ok mind the salt ;)
Arched letters too wide in the italics? /u/ and /a/ and /h/ look wide to me. /k/ also.
Interesting italics, I like the choppiness, but proportions may need slight tweaking; overall a bit wide.
Open up the spacing on the light.
Comma's head is too roundy. Look at something like Dolly?
Bold lining 5 may be too wide. In fact, all the 5s are slightly wide I think, may be worth checking.
/P/ and /R/ look a bit high-waisted, is that intentional?
Cap /J/ is interesting, I'd have to see it in a word to tell if it works. The tail is very clipped. That could be quite cool.
Sterling, why is the crossbar not passing through to the left side?
Cap /M/ in all weights perhaps too wide?
/v/ and /w/ in the bold seem to align at different x-heights. (But rasterising differently when I zoom in, sometimes the v is taller, sometimes shorter)
Italic /Q/, yes!
4 looks narrow, are these tabular figs?
Overall, caps feel less relaxed, especially /BCD/ and /G/, I'd pull them wider.
Hope to return soon ;)
Hi, thanks for the critique and sorry for my lack of response. I've been busy moving house and soon to be moving country. Once settled, I'll get back to this!
It's been difficult to get a decent enough internet connection here in Thailand to keep this going in critique, but I have now *finished* the typeface. Watch this space...
Released now over at MyFonts. Thanks for the help everyone!http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/schizotype/range-serif/
Congrats! I'm glad I helped bring it out of hibernation. :-)http://typophile.com/node/94168#comment-513724
I'm glad too! Cheers.
"Currently #32 in Hot New Fonts"
Way to go! :-)