New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Digita
Posted by anonymous in
11 Mar 2002 — 5:41pm
11 Mar 2002 — 5:41pm
This is Digita 7.5, my first attempt at a bitmapped font, and Fontographer is obviously NOT the best tool to use for the endeavor, I discovered to my frustration.
In any event, this size is designed at 11 points. It was designed with classical proportions in mind, more or less. The numerical suffix designates 7 pixels above the baseline, and an average width of 5 pixels per character. I'm not entirely sure that this naming system will be as useful as it first seemed, but we'll see.... 
I really hope this displays properly. Your comments are welcome, and very much wanted....
David
User login
Support our Sponsors
12 Mar 2002 — 11:26pm
David, I think I was maybe too harsh.
But: besides problems with specific caps (like the "B" and "W"), overall I think you're applying the oldstyle divergent-width factor too strongly - like the "E" being really narrow - stuff like that.
hhp
13 Mar 2002 — 8:33am
This is nice. Agree with the comments so far, and yes Hrant you were being a bit harsh. ;-) Yes, perhaps the 'E' is too narrow, and while I appreciate the idea behind the 'B' perhaps it as well is a bit tricky. But that 'U' is wonderful. The '0' looks like a football to these old eyes. I *LOVE* the 'g' and the overall flavor. If you are attempting to show rubrication on the '¶', perhaps the thicker vertical stroke should be in the center. The 'fj' ligature is too wide as perhaps is the 'ft' lig. The idea of the ankh is nice too. What if you lowered the cross stroke so you could elongate the opening and make it look less 'martian' like too?
13 Mar 2002 — 8:47am
The "U" - I forgot! David, good for you for doing that.
Tiffany: I think it's not an ankh if the bar doesn't "clasp" the head.
hhp
13 Mar 2002 — 9:12am
Okay newbie *BIGTIME* alert. This is why I like wonderful smell of old warn and loved books over the computer. I know how to turn a page. :-p
Hrant. This is what I meant by 'elongate'. You are right by the way. Maybe my idea of an ankh is incorrect.
13 Mar 2002 — 9:25am
Actually, I just misread you - sorry.
hhp
13 Mar 2002 — 10:00am
no need to apologize.
david, did my suggestion make sense? That is the question verité.
15 Mar 2002 — 2:46pm
The third "W".
But I'm not sure about widening the "E" anymore... :-/ Maybe it's part of the font's character?
hhp
15 Mar 2002 — 10:38pm
the lc w is what's "bothering" me... seems too tight. maybe try a double-v approach?
11 Mar 2002 — 8:56pm
Is that an ankh? I thought it was the dude from
Mar's Attacks.
Very nice flavor, as usual David. It has a woody
feel--like most of your stuff. In context, (in
the sample text you provided) the UC looks fine,
appropriate, etc. But the spacing, when you run
the UC alphabet together, looks like it needs
work.
Finally, perhaps consider a double v for the W...
12 Mar 2002 — 8:42pm
You're both right about the spacing & kerning, of course, especially among the UC glyphs.
I relegate that one to the alternate set). The ankh fits in so well with the dagger and double dagger that I include it in all my fonts as a potentially useful symbol or ornament. I think every font should have one. 
As for the ankh, it's a part of all of my fonts. (When was the last time you actually USED the infinity symbol, after all?
And I love Mars Attacks! (Narf! Narf, narf, Narf!)
Hrant:
What about the UC isn't working? Is it just the spacing, or are there some other design considerations?
As always, thanks for the input.
David
14 Mar 2002 — 9:50pm
Thanks for the suggestions, Hrant, Joe & Tiffany.
Hrant: You're right about the "@" (at), and you and Tiffany are correct on the "0" (zero) as well. (It seemed a good idea on paper.) I'll try an approximation of a super-ellipse.
Wish me luck designing the lower-case figures....
I'll re-examine the widths of the upper case set. I really do want to try to keep the classically narrow glyphs narrow, but one more pica might be in order, especially for UC "E", "F" and maybe "L". I think the UC "B" will work at its current width, but I may have to give up on the smaller upper curve.
Joe: As far as that tricky UC "W" goes, I haven't (yet) been able to make the crossings work properly with the pixels, resulting in some extremely clogged glyphs. The result that you saw posted was the least objectionable of the various options that I tried. I'll give it another look, though -- in fact, I would prefer it if I could get the double-V to work. The true solution is out there, Scully....
...which leads us to the alien ankh.
Tiffany: your suggestion makes perfect sense, and I will incorporate it, posthaste. I also like your idea on the "¶" (pilcrow), and I'll adjust the various ligature widths as I fine-tune the spacing and kerning problems. (lc "s" seems especially troublesome in spacing & kerning....)
I'm especially glad that the lc "g" and UC "Q" and "U" were appreciated. Those glyphs really hold the spirit of the font that I was trying to create.
Thanks again for all of the great suggestions. Any others will be equally appreciated.
David
15 Mar 2002 — 2:22am
The double v. I couldn't help it.
(Your original, and two alternates.)
15 Mar 2002 — 11:00am
Here's what I came up with for a UC "W" using the double-V (my fourth sample below), but I think I like your bottom solution better (shown third on my sample below).
The also shows the UC "E" widened by one pixel.
Opinions?
David
11 Mar 2002 — 5:56pm
You mean 11 PPEM.
I like the lc a lot. But the UC (except for that wonderful "Q") is mostly a mess - sorry.
The overall texture is pleasing, and some of the non-alphabetics are cool (like the Pilcrow), so I'd say you're mostly there! A couple of things: the zero is strange; I'd lower the "at" by a pixel.
If you can afford it, get BitFonter - it rocks.
BTW, what's with the ankh?! Cool.
hhp