Archive through March 21, 2004

Primary tabs

83 posts / 0 new
Last post
Christian's picture
Offline
Joined: 16 Apr 2005 - 10:57am
0

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.

Christian's picture
Offline
Joined: 16 Apr 2005 - 10:57am
0

It is now 6:01 a.m. and I have stayed up all night correcting the curves in my obliques.


application/pdfCurves
curves.pdf (70.8 k)

Randy Jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 23 Nov 2002 - 11:00am
0

I’m sorry.

Randy Jones's picture
Offline
Joined: 23 Nov 2002 - 11:00am
0

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

Christian's picture
Offline
Joined: 16 Apr 2005 - 10:57am
0

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 : /


application/pdfCondensed
pill-condensed.pdf (138.8 k)

Christian's picture
Offline
Joined: 16 Apr 2005 - 10:57am
0

Don’t look at that last pdf. This one is much cleaner.

Hrant H Papazian's picture
Joined: 3 May 2000 - 11:00am
0

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

Christian's picture
Offline
Joined: 16 Apr 2005 - 10:57am
0

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.

Christian's picture
Offline
Joined: 16 Apr 2005 - 10:57am
0

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?


application/pdfNew S
New_S.pdf (43.3 k)

Grant Hutchinson's picture
Joined: 10 Jun 2002 - 11:00am
0

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.

Hrant H Papazian's picture
Joined: 3 May 2000 - 11:00am
0

I have to say I find the new S/s discordant. I wouldn’t even be sure about including it as an alternate.

hhp

Joe Pemberton's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Apr 2002 - 3:36pm
0

Ok Christian. It’s been 23 months since you originally
posted this beauty. Is this getting close to release?

Joe Pemberton's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Apr 2002 - 3:36pm
0

Finish this thing already before it gets so old it becomes
public domain! =)

Stephen Coles's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 May 2001 - 11:00am
0

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.

Joe Pemberton's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Apr 2002 - 3:36pm
0

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.

Tiffany Wardle's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Jul 2001 - 11:00am
0

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.

Joe Pemberton's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Apr 2002 - 3:36pm
0

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.

Joe Pemberton's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Apr 2002 - 3:36pm
0

Pill Gothic lowercase versus (black)
Deutsch Industrie Norm lowercase (red)

Stephen Coles's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 May 2001 - 11:00am
0

Say, there’s a “stuf” in there! Thanks, pals. Add an umlaut and you’re there.

Tiffany Wardle's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Jul 2001 - 11:00am
0

“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? :^\

Stephen Coles's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 May 2001 - 11:00am
0

Ahem, I was the first to make a DIN reference, and I stand by it.

Joe Pemberton's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Apr 2002 - 3:36pm
0

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. =)

Tiffany Wardle's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Jul 2001 - 11:00am
0

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?

:-)

Tiffany Wardle's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Jul 2001 - 11:00am
0

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.

Joe Pemberton's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Apr 2002 - 3:36pm
0

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.

Stephen Coles's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 May 2001 - 11:00am
0

Full justification isn’t a great spacing test. Go ragged.

Stephen Coles's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 May 2001 - 11:00am
0

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?

Stephen Coles's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 May 2001 - 11:00am
0

A bit of news: Pill Gothic is featured in the SOTA
publication, Interrobang 2 which should appear in
members’ mailboxes very soon.

Joe Pemberton's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Apr 2002 - 3:36pm
0

(Silently chanting to self: Go Christian, Go Christian, Go Christian. It’s your birthday…)

Stephen Coles's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 May 2001 - 11:00am
0

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.

Stephen Coles's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 May 2001 - 11:00am
0

I also like how the straight stroke becomes less obvious and the
’s’ settles right in at text sizes.

Vinod Jain's picture
Offline
Joined: 12 Oct 2001 - 8:48am
0

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

Topic locked