Nice "G", Maybe you can add this "open" feeling to other characters. I am thinking about open that "Q", the idea is to make a rithm with this straight breaking angle.
Santiago - i'd politely disagree with Jim. Keep the G (you could always find an open slot for a regular G). The G is actually a selling point if you decide to sell the font. Find some alternatives to some of the other vanilla glyphs and maybe you'll have a nice alternative to Trade Gothic or Alternate Gothic.
To be rude, what is the objective of this new font? Seems so boring and close to existing fonts.
G feature is the only originality, but as described by John, not really suitable for such typeface. The question you need to ask yourself: How to implement funny things as this G, in a way it give more interest to this typeface, whithout destructing the legibility?
2 Apr 2003 — 12:13am
Hi Santiago,
Nice "G", Maybe you can add this "open" feeling to other characters. I am thinking about open that "Q", the idea is to make a rithm with this straight breaking angle.
MH
18 Apr 2003 — 2:27pm
A new sample.
2 Jun 2003 — 3:31pm
Hi
I'd reconsider the G, it looks great in a type sample, but it would make the font a lot less usable.
Jim
====================
http://www.unionfonts.com
9 Jun 2003 — 11:00pm
Santiago - i'd politely disagree with Jim.
Keep the G (you could always find
an open slot for a regular G). The G is actually a selling
point if you decide to sell the font. Find some alternatives
to some of the other vanilla glyphs and maybe you'll have
a nice alternative to Trade Gothic or Alternate
Gothic.
bj
10 Jun 2003 — 2:56am
The G is terrible. I'd go further: the G is not a G. It is not, as drawn, a letter of the Latin script.
The revised Q, on the other hand, looks very good.
10 Jun 2003 — 4:41am
Santiago: Sorry pero no me gusta la "G"...
(BTW... A ver si nos tomamos unas birras antes de que me vaya). Abrazo.
10 Jun 2003 — 6:56am
To be rude, what is the objective of this new font? Seems so boring and close to existing fonts.
G feature is the only originality, but as described by John, not really suitable for such typeface. The question you need to ask yourself: How to implement funny things as this G, in a way it give more interest to this typeface, whithout destructing the legibility?
If its just an exercice, its ok.
10 Jun 2003 — 7:56am
So JF, what do you think of Keith's "Arrival"?
hhp
10 Jun 2003 — 8:37am
Hrant, what's the point of your question?
10 Jun 2003 — 8:57am
Eduardo: thanks to ask! :-)
10 Jun 2003 — 9:02am
I'm wondering if I'm failing to see a certain originality in Arrival that spares it from being called "boring".
(I'm not talking about techinical issues - where Arrival seems superior to Grillo - although to be fair the latter is still in development.)
> thanks to ask!
I answered my question - now it's your turn! :-)
--
BTW, Santiago, your lc spacing is too tight.
hhp
10 Jun 2003 — 9:14am
Thanks for the feedback all of you. Development of this typeface is now truncated for a good while because I
10 Jun 2003 — 10:28am
>> The G is terrible. I'd go further:
the G is not a G. It is not, as drawn,
a letter of the Latin script.
Point taken. I guess I have a soft spot for underdogs
and black sheep.
Any reasonable third person would read the glyph as a G...
I'm not saying set continuous text using the G, but for
display, have some fun. Variety is the spice of type
for some of us.
bravo! to Santiago for his "terrible" G.
bj