Donegal

Gary Lonergan's picture

Dear Typophiles
My second typeface is now live on Google fonts http://www.google.com/webfonts/specimen/Donegal+One
Please comment and critique because as with my previous type Headland I intend to develop a print version and all comments will be gratefully received.

A big thank you again to Eben Sorkin without whom it would not have happened.
Thanks

hrant's picture

I like the forms, but the spacing needs work (which is typical of Google fonts).

BTW, Donegal and Headland are clearly siblings, but I'm not sure why their descriptions are so similar (and quite generic). Their main difference being the vertical proportions, it would be good to help people choose the right one depending on the intended setting.

hhp

charles ellertson's picture

OK, here's what I see. Doesn't make me right, and I'm much more comfortable when I can play with a font, but...

Spacing may be off as hrant says, but I'd have to get it up in a metrics window, then print out a page of text I set, to comment. Just how my mind works.

On to the lower case. These are things I'd try before doing any work on spacing:

I really like the g. A hard character to do, your balance here is quite nice.

The rest of the letters with descenders: the p and q are OK, deep enough to hold their own with that g. But something's amiss with the y, the descender just doesn't support the rest of the letterform. You could make both the v and y slightly narrower -- not more than 5/1000, but I'm not sure that would help, or even be the right approach. You could make the descender a little longer & see how things look. You could raise slightly -- 2 to 5 1000 -- the junction of the y's arms, which perforce strengthens the descender, at the expense of the v-shape.

I'd probably take 2 to 3 1000 out of the width of the n, h, and u. I *think* you've got the balance with the 3 about right, they're just a tiny bit wide.

Caps -- I'm not so good with caps, but yours look fine to me, except... somehow, when the accents get added, they go wrong. I'm not sure why. Again, the first thing I'd try -- for print, anyhow -- is to make the acute/grave a little longer, and probably change the angle. I'd be tempted to just try the lc accents on the caps, at least for print. Nobody sets solid anymore, or even uses just 2 points of leading. I'd risk some tightness in the leading with accented caps if it made the glyphs look better.

It may be optical, but the macron looks thinner on the caps than the lc. That's not right. Same with the spacing of the dieresis dots, cap versus lc.

As I'm sure you know, for print, you need os figs & small caps. And of course, an italic...

This is a nice font. Personally, I'd be willing to put in the 3-4-5 days work on it I usually spend on any font, libre or no, in the hope of something rather special. Uh, if the italic's as good...

Edit: And I'd try an r with a bit shorter arm. You may have it right, but I'd like to see it a few units shorter to be convinced.

1996type's picture

K is too narrow, and that U is a shame. Besides that, it's a really handsome typeface! I'd love to see some additional styles for this.

sim's picture

I agree that the K is too narrow, I will try to extend the bottom oblique. Regarding the U, I wonder why to use the lower case style.

ebensorkin's picture

RE: the U it is clearly an Eric Gil style U. These are not very common in the US or Europe but they are fairly common in the UK.

piccic's picture

The [U]: “why use the lower case style?"
This is not a "style": That form is also common in inscriptions (not the ancient ones, since there was no [U].

ebensorkin's picture

When you say "common in inscriptions" I wonder, when do you think the earliest examples begin to show up?

Gary Lonergan's picture

Thank you for all the very helpful comments Especially Charles. The "U" may not be to everybody's taste but it is an established form. Perpetua, Trajanus, and Weiss are among some of the typefaces using it.

hrant's picture

In fact, I've long thought that if the Romans had that letter they would have made it with a full right stem - not the spineless "bowl" form we almost always have to suffer.

hhp

piccic's picture

@Eben: Don’t know about the earliest examples dates in inscriptions, but [V] and [U] were obviously related, as in the beginning there was just [V]. In manuscripts the form is already in use for v in rustica, and then in most uncial forms following that, so I think Hrant is pretty right.
I see an eloquent example of the rustic calligraphy model here: http://www.edicionesemilianenses.com/rusticen.htm

ebensorkin's picture

I am fond of that kind of U too. Maybe we will release more than one version. The courageous one and the cautious one. :-P

Syndicate content Syndicate content