Non Latin Design approch to latin type face

Aleme's picture

Hello Everyone,
I am working on a Latin type face design to be used in Non Latin text to write a word ,Paragraph and Phrases , In writing systems such as Hebrew, Armenian, Ethiopic and Farsi etc… .
I am trying to make the X height as big as possible and open the bowls as much as I can . (It will be used on low resolution devices).
I also want one Glyph to invite the reader to the next Glyph by Imaginary line (Please see 2nd Image)for faster and pleasant reading. (Hard to do but will try my best).
Most of all I am trying to find the beauty, Proportion and balance of each individual Glyph ignoring the overall style where is needed.
My question is : 1.Is it acceptable to have different forms with one individual Latin font style ?
For example on the second Image P and b has different tips .
2. I know the form of a,e,g are deciding factors on the rest form of Latin characters. What do you think about my a,e,g ?
I am particularly interested to hear about my g (Which I like most among Latin characters).
All suggestions are very much appreciated.
Thanks ,
Aleme

oldnick's picture

The Latin/non-Latin chasm isn’t really all that large: these whimsical little numbers are based on a Cyrillic design…

http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/nicksfonts/beagle-boyz-nf/
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/nicksfonts/rimshot-nf/

If you can nail the original designer’s groove, you can develop a workmanlike font. Your /g/ is appealing in its quirkiness, but not nearly as much fun as the one in Beagle Boyz NF—IMHO/

ahyangyi's picture

Your first question: the stem endings of /p/ and /b/ almost always differ in a serif font. I don't see it as a problem in a sans-serif font either.

cerulean's picture

1. Variation like this is considered mild and often preferred for distinguishing glyphs that would otherwise be turned/flipped copies of each other. These letters have different histories manifesting in different expectations (for instance, the descender of |p| is more consistently expected to be straight) and it can be good to highlight these differences.

2. |a| is excellent.
|g| is nicely original but may appear to have an excess of loose ends; I suggest making the third from the top into a curve or corner.
The sharp beak of |e| is awkward, but might be saved with more adjustments of weight and proportion. Unfortunately a wavy crossbar such as this is seldom successful. The anthropomorphized smile of an |e| can contribute a lot to a typeface's "voice" and this shape creates a sort of sneer.

hrant's picture

This is very interesting. I'll try to spend some time thinking about it before I reply in full.

BTW you might like to look at this recent -and very promising- work:
http://ohbendy.tumblr.com/post/33228601263/between-black-and-white

hhp

Karl Stange's picture

Applying other forms familiar to non-Latin type may help to inform this as well, for example, working with a vertical grid and thinking about type mirrored or from the perspective of right-to-left text, as you would when constructing Arabic or Hebrew letterforms.

Ryan Maelhorn's picture

These glyphs need a lot of work. The crossbar of the e looks childish to me. Interestingly your sketches look better than your vectors, it doesn't seem like you copied them that closely. For example, the top left corner of your g in your sketches seems to go almost as far to the left as the line that connects the bowls, and has a decent look to it, whereas in your vector, the line connecting the bowls seems to go way out in the middle of nowhere. Also, your sketched a has a nice sense of proportion between the bowl and the rest of the letter, but your vector a's bowl is much too big. I would try to get close to your original sketches, try to introduce just a little more thick/thin contrast, and round off the corners just a bit.

Not trying to be mean, just telling you how I see it.

Aleme's picture

Thank you so much it is really eye opening suggestions.
@cerulean , I see exactly the excess of loose ends of g will work on it .
@Harnt, Very interesting link . Nice discussion too. Just below GARDEN IMAGE it says making the letters stand alone, referring only to themselves. Mine is the opposite please see the Image below .
In my design I want to make the letters confident and yet selfless .Have you seen a bull fighter movement how the fighter bows and move his hand smoothly and doge the bull . I want to create same feel in each letter.
I am not exactly trying to apply non_Latin forms in Latin type face. I am experimenting to see when non Latin type face design/method and thinking applies to Latin letters . BTW this is my first Latin type face I always design Ethiopian type face . Thanks again

Ryan Maelhorn's picture

Why not just actually draw those lines, and have them connecting the way a script font does?

hrant's picture

Because that would be as boring as it would be ugly?

hhp

Aleme's picture

Thanks Ryan, I like your critique. It helps me to see things which I have not seen .You are not mean at all .
It might be an option to connect them . But for this project (Since it will be used with many non Latin writing systems . I think the imaginary line(not connecting ) works better

Bendy's picture

In case it's not clear, the full quote is 'the countershapes in Helvetica are directed inwards (or at nothing), making the letters stand alone, referring only to themselves'. My aim was to draw shapes together, in contrast to Helvetica.

Aleme's picture

Hi! Bendy , Sorry not being clear I was using your reference to Helvetica. In fact what you have done :creating activity between letters is What I haven't seen before. I Think it will work well with non roman Writings .
Thanks

Syndicate content Syndicate content