New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Here's the main weight of Patria, my first "serious" Latin text face. It's part of a larger system which contains "counter-balanced" Armenian fonts (it's a long story - as you might suspect).
You'll need to do a fair amount of zooming, and please pardon the occasional outline infidelity that Flash introduces (like in the inner part of the lc "j"'s tail, the top-right of the numeral "2", et alia).
I'm daring to cast Patria as a next-generation newspaper face (or at least a face fit for magazines). Its x-height is somewhat small for this purpose, because I place more value on boumas (word shapes) than most designers. Also, it actually sets narrower than it looks, maybe because the open, generous forms increase its apparent size/width.
I've tried to give Patria a full-bodied rigidity (read: masculinity) that seems to me to be lacking in the field of text face design. The Carolingian structures are generally very fluid/feminine, which is nice, except I feel there's too much of it now. Blackletter is very masculine, but it's not really usable any more (or at least not right now). The post-modern boys use a lot of rigidity, but they tend to apply it too literally to allow for immersive reading - I've tried to be more subtle. On the other hand, in certain places I've consciously sacrificed readability in order to reinforce the design's character (like in making the lc "s" somewhat wide).
I hadn't looked at Patria for over two months, but now that I'm re-evaluating it, I can see a few things I'd like to change, pending feedback from you guys:
1. I want to make the beaks that come off of horizontal bars (like in the UC "F") much larger.
2. I'm going to rethink the numerals. I'm considering making them Carter-style ("hybrid") numerals, but the all-horizontal stress I really cherish. Any ideas?
3. I'm also unhappy with a number of the non-alphabetic glyphs, but I'll wait for you to tell me which ones *you* don't like! And I guess that applies to the *alphabetic* glyphs too...
4. I personally prefer the alternate UC "U", but hesitate to place it as the primary form.
5. Are the accents too small?
6. In the Italics: even though I want it to be rigid like the Roman (in fact, I like it to be as close to the Roman as aesthetically and functionally possible), I think I'm going to make the beaks/terminals (like in the lc "s") softer in contour.
7. The spacing was a rush job - it needs to be redone. Also, I'm starting to think that it's too loose overall, unless I should account for severe ink bleed - in case my original target medium (newspapers) is reasonable. Lastly, I've yet to add any UC-UC kerning (there are just some manual tweaks right now). For this, I'm considering giving all UC pairs wide spacing, since it helps all-caps setting. Crazy?
8. I'm considering making midcaps (like in Fenway). If I do, then I might implement that overall loose UC spacing I just mentioned for the midcaps, but not the regular "full" caps.
9. I will eventually put trapping in the font - the degree of trapping depends very much on the best usage medium for this face.
I have a lot of trouble evaluating my own work (especially something outside Armenian, my specialty), and have to constantly fight myself to find the right compromises, so any insight would be greatly appreciated.