Randy, your illustrations are legendary—always helpful. I had seen the explanations on Briem’s website (one of the most helpful sites I’ve ever seen). For these obliques, I didn’t do any curve correction; the angle seemed slight enought to not make a huge diﬀerence. The squarish forms of the letters help also. I did thicken the vertical strokes, however. As for the fractions, I haven’t done a diﬀerent set for the OS numerals. Should there be a diﬀerence? I agree that the 4 1/2 combo looks a little odd.
It is now 6:01 a.m. and I have stayed up all night correcting the curves in my obliques.
I should have added to the last post, your obliques have the special duck sauce now! (a compliment) Well done. And the number one way to tell you’re addicted to type: (Silently chanting to self: Go Christian, Go Christian, Go Christian. It’s your birthday…) Joe, enroll in a 12 step program immediately :-) BTW, the number two way to tell you’re addicted to type: Describing oblique curves as *special duck sauce* R
Here is a rough condensed version. I still need to clean up some weight issues (The N, for example), and a few unruly beziers (always the s). I have added some special duck sauce to the curves in the oblique, though. I haven’t corrected the distorted weights on the diagonal stems, however (see the K). The bold is clunky as yet; I need to cut the connectors sharper. I apologize for the large PDF. It’s only one page, but, even subset, 10 ttfs can be heavy : /
Don’t look at that last pdf. This one is much cleaner.
The letterspacing here is looking increasingly too tight with increase in weight. If you have a weight axis going with the stems just getting fatter equally in both [horizontal] directions, and no increase in character width, that explains it. I’m a big fan of uniwidth fonts, but beyond a certain weight the forms will start looking uncharacteristically too narrow (or too wide on the light end) when you try to maintain set-widths. (Was that too terse?) hhp
The characters on the top are justiﬁed (in other words, it’s not a uniwidth font). However, the spacing is slightly tighter (2-3%) for the bold.
A new ‘s’ shape occurred to me today. I’m trying to decide if I should include it as an alternate, or make it the default. It is more extreme, so in some ways makes the font less versitile. On the other hand, it makes the font more interesting, and, I think, justiﬁes the ‘a’ and the ‘g’. Of course, the old S’s would be included in the “Stylistic Alternates” OpenType feature. What do you all think? Does it make the font less useful; does it make it more interesting, or both?
It’s an odd balance to maintain — unique personality vs mainstream usability. Personally, I think the new S adds a bit too much unneeded quirkiness to the face. Maybe this is due in part to the fact I’ve just become used to the more traditional S in previous versions of the fonts. For some reason I don’t ﬁnd the existing ‘a’, ‘e’ and ‘g’ characters to be as radical a departure from the rest of the character set. I certainly wouldn’t abandon the character, as it deserves to be an alternate.
I have to say I ﬁnd the new S/s discordant. I wouldn’t even be sure about including it as an alternate. hhp
Ok Christian. It’s been 23 months since you originally posted this beauty. Is this getting close to release?
Finish this thing already before it gets so old it becomes public domain! =)
Pill Gothic is coming together very well. I see it as a nice alternative to DIN and a good pick if someone likes Conduit but want’s something gentler. And Christian, the fact that you have Grant beating down your door is a very good sign. They only sell good stuﬀ.
Yeah, the caps are very DIN-ﬂavored. Perhaps there are some things you could do diﬀerently (drop the M to the baseline for example). I was originally drawn to that quirky k, a, and that g. The top of the f and r seem to droop a bit. Perhaps they’re too long / exaggerated.
Whatever you do, Christian, don’t ﬁnish this. Please, for the love of health and sanity! And whatever you do, don’t add bolder and lighter weights. And esecially, don’t ﬁne tune the punctuation or ﬁx the small caps. ;^) Seriously. I’m not a Din fan, but I’d be tempted to ﬁnd a reason to use this. If you build it, they will come.
Pill Gothic caps versus (black) Deutsch Industrie Norm caps (red) I don’t want to saddle this too heavily with the DIN comparison, which is why I had to check it and post this GIF. If this is like DIN, it’s a healthy step removed from it, and I still think the lower case is very fresh.
Pill Gothic lowercase versus (black) Deutsch Industrie Norm lowercase (red)
Say, there’s a “stuf” in there! Thanks, pals. Add an umlaut and you’re there.
“Seriously. I’m not a Din fan, but I’d be tempted to ﬁnd a reason to use this.” Hmm, yep, I said this. Pill Gothic has more uniqueness which will set it apart from Din. I certainly wasn’t trying to insult the design with that comparison. I was, however, stating a fact that Pill Gothic will add new ﬂavor to this genre of type. You can’t deny that it is in the same vein. Can you? :^\
Ahem, I was the ﬁrst to make a DIN reference, and I stand by it.
Well, there’s no mistaking the overall impression of DIN, especially apparent in the caps PDF Christian provided. That’s why I had to investigate further. But that said, there’s no reason anybody should be alarmed or put oﬀ by any visual relation to it. It’s like comparing Franklin Gothic to Akzidenz Grotesk, both are similar from a distance, but both work very diﬀerently when you start pushing them around and working with them. Whether or not a relation to DIN is a negative thing is a matter of tastes. I happen to love DIN and I’ll stand by that. =)
Tricky Feathers?? Hehe! The angled ‘e’. What if you split the diﬀerence? The ‘g’. I prefer the closed version. Can this at least be an alternate? The bold ‘M’ — seems a bit heavy at the middle convergence point. I think the bold ‘4’ has a nice solution for this problem. The ‘&”, both weights — That point needs to be exaggerated or done away with. What if you ﬂattened it all the way up? Love the subtlety in the ‘ﬂ’ lig. nice! The non-curvy ‘y’ should be an alternate. The curvy ‘y’ is much more interesting. Will your italic be only an oblique, or will you do something more “tricky” like triplex?
OOOOooooh… Christian, if you are going to be soft with the ‘y’, why not be soft with other characters? And the angled ‘e’ seems more appropriate here, so maybe you stick with a straight ‘e’ for the roman?? That cap ‘W’ is too wide.
Nice developments. I agree with Hrant about the small cap M being better than the cap M… now I feel sheepish for suggesting you drop it to the baseline. Also, I agree with Hrant and Tiﬀ about the open g — I prefer the closed one. I’m not sure about the cross bar of the e, but I could be convinced. The italics are a very nice touch. Maybe an oblique set is an alternate, if you want to get soft with the italics? Just a thought.
Full justiﬁcation isn’t a great spacing test. Go ragged.
Thanks Hrant, but two disagreements: - I don’t see how the ‘r’ has too much right space. If it was any tighter it would hit the ‘f’ in an ‘rf’ combo. - The ﬁgures are just ﬁne. Make a quarter-height or “hybrid” if you want to, but these ﬂow with mixed case well. What Bold Smallcap ‘A’ are you looking at?
A bit of news: Pill Gothic is featured in the SOTA publication, Interrobang 2 which should appear in members’ mailboxes very soon.
(Silently chanting to self: Go Christian, Go Christian, Go Christian. It’s your birthday…)
I disagree with Grant. I think that ‘S’ will make Pill sell. It doesn’t have to change the way the font is marketed (as a full- family text-capable sans), but with this ‘S’ it becomes more original and will catch the eye of the all too common impulse buyer.
I also like how the straight stroke becomes less obvious and the ’s’ settles right in at text sizes.
I really like this font (too..) … somehow reminds me of the Font used in www.lancome.com… does anybody know what Font has been used in Lancome website?? Vinod Jain