Average | Text Font

fontime's picture

Average | Type for Books

This font it's the result of deep study of anatomy and spaces of types for text.
Not kerning pairs today.

09 january 2006 The first letters for bold version and complete book for comparison.

Thanks for your comments.
Eduardo Tunni

AttachmentSize
Average_Bold_090106.pdf61.24 KB
Martin LAllier's picture

Attachment isn't available for download

Miss Tiffany's picture

It is .. now. I've noticed with attachments it is important to wait a few minutes ... for some reason.

grod's picture

I'm getting page not found. ?

Miss Tiffany's picture

When you click on the link? I have no problem downloading the PDF. Bizarre!

Ale Paul's picture

Eduardo, page not found para mi :(

www.sudtipos.com

grod's picture

nope :-(

TBiddy's picture

I can see the jpg. That being said...

I'm a type designer in diapers, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt. Overall I think your face has a nice feel. My only question is, from a quick glance, I wonder if your squared curves are sacrificing legibility of your typeface. Or, is function or style your highest priority?

paul d hunt's picture

very nice!!!
i think it's pretty solid, all the way around. i even like the squarish h,n,m,u. i don't think that it would be that bothersome in text. i think the color is abolutely gorgeous. i tend to make my faces too light. i envy your eye for color.

hrant's picture

Eduardo, solid mainstream text face - and nicely darkish.

Just the "K" is a bit too happy for its room-mates.

hhp

fontime's picture

Hi all:

Adjustments and new signs. See pdf file.

Thanks.

hrant's picture

Wow, that's a mighty fine "g"; just maybe thicken the top stroke of the bottom bowl. The "c" needs more stroke contrast. The "r" is too... Stone Serif; give its terminal more of a point. The "t" I'd give a taller head.

That "B" is stellar. Maybe more rigidity in the "J" - maybe. The "Q" could have more oomph in the tail - try adding a serif at the tip. Beautiful "R". The "V" and "W" seem dark.

You sure you want the hyphen different than the en/em-dashes?

The blank space could be slightly less.

hhp

jfp's picture

you asked for comments via the typophile chat... no enough time to go deeply, so random ones:

top ear of a is to big,
c is too large.
try to make the ear of c, f, r, j more related on the angle, style, etc.
counter of e doesn't fit the c, d, etc.
h, m, n horizontal connection is bit exagerate to work well with round forms like b, d
start again the g, and look to good ones such minion, garamond adobe, palatino, sabon next, etc. the g horizontal is particularly wrong.
tilde is too smooth for the style of the font, look at granjon tidles, or simply to a good version of galliard.
start again the guillemets!
S and s don't fit enough the squarish style of the typeface.
revise the ear of the y.
why the C and G have a different top serif than S?

its a good start, and continue, you have a good potential text font here!

seml's picture

Hi.

The mating between Dolly and Swift? Ambitious, but looks good. Take a look at the rendering, because the pdf shows errors.
overall, nive post-modern text face ;)

Are the corner cuts really needed? It looks more like a signature then shape relevant. Anyhow, doesn´t harm.

Good work ;)

seml's picture

one more thing: what about text figures? Lowercase seems to be needed...

jafo's picture

Solid yet speedy, wiht a good dash of style. I like how you've added just enough bulk to the curves of h/m/n to clarify their stem joinings. The e seems just a bit too heavy and monoline to fit in, however.

fontime's picture

Hi all:
News in last pdf archive.

Thanks,
et

hrant's picture

The new lc "g", although well-made, is a bit boring. Ask yourself frankly what was wrong with the original one. The fact that it's anti-chirographic or not how some established designers always make their "g"s is really entirely moot - readers don't react to that stuff, at least not in a text face. And I realize now that the lc "k" needs more character as well.

Boring might seem "safe", but in this overcrowded scene it more often translates to reduced salability. Unless you have a stellar pre-existing reputation, the font includes thousands of glyphs, or something else that makes it stand out. Slimbach can get away with being boring, in fact he's probably come to depend on it, but you and I Eduardo cannot.

Like Erik S points out, the funky "g" in Meta
has been an asset more than a drawback.

hhp

piccic's picture

I think Hrant is quite right: try a lc g which is midway between the old and the new one.

Randy's picture

Hi Eduardo,

Two comments after a brief look:
1. The lowercase looks much better than the uppercase. The main problem with the uppercase is inconsistent weighting of the thin strokes. Compare the middle crossbar of the E with the top. Yes it should be thinner, but only slightly so. And the serif is too lightly bracketed. Compare the top of the E with the thin part of the O, of the U, of the G, of the Q etc. Those are too heavy in my opinion. They match the M and N thin strokes which are also too heavy I think. The caps need consistent modulation. I think matching all the thins to the top of the E will give a good feel. Also, I think the uppercase is slightly too dark compared to the lowercase. For languages with frequent caps (like german) this is a distraction. One other thing: The points on the W and V are not very pointy! They seem too chunky and out of place.

2. The lowercase j
The terminal is too weak. It should be as strong as the f. Also, the j needs more support at the baseline. The problem is accentuated by the tapering stem. It almost shrivels away to nothing. Perhaps less taper and start the curve a little higher (closer to the baseline)?

JFP: What makes a good guillemot? How should his be revised? More point? More stroke modulation? Slightly higher so they work with caps too?

Randy

Randy's picture

See also the lowercase w and v. I think the bottom points should be more like the top (middle) point of the w.

R

fontime's picture

Thanks for yours comments colleagues.
et

Nick Shinn's picture

I like the way the curved strokes are so much wider than the vertical strokes in the lower case.
I like the flat top of the h. m, n, and the way it's different from the magnificent curves of p, d, b, q.
I agree with Hrant, don't smooth out the quirks.
In fact, why not go in the other direction?

I don't have much experience of looking at faces on the critique forum, but it seems that designers just say, here it is, what do you think? and the critics say, "correct this detail, correct that detail", and the poor thing gets normalized into oblivion.

Why not show the rough and the smooth and ask, which do you prefer?

Perhaps you could try this face with much longer serifs throughout, as demonstrative as the "ball" of the a.

hrant's picture

> the poor thing gets normalized into oblivion.

Actually, I make it a point to cry "too normal!" when faced
with a YAHS* or something too close to Adobe Serif**... But
there's a difference between interesting structure and just
bad finish, or a mismatch between a font's color, vertical
proportions and letterspacing (wrt its intended-use size).

* Yet Another Humanist Sans.

** http://typophile.com/node/14737

hhp

Nick Shinn's picture

>there’s a difference between interesting structure and just bad finish,

Interesting structure can easily look like bad finish, because it stands out and creates unevenness. So it's easy to notice and say, 'clean that up'.
So if you have a few examples of weirdness, they are excised, and the thing gets an even finish, but ends up bland.

The other route to go is to multiply the weirdness so that it takes over the font, but in an even, well-finished-weird kind of way.

Weirdness, pardon me, I mean personality, can also camouflage bad finish, by rendering "good" finish an unecessary fussyness.

hrant's picture

> creates unevenness

It depends how you look at it. If somebody considers a certain conventional mean as being some sort of formal requirement then I guess any divergence from that could be called "uneven". But since I don't believe such a mean exists (at least not at the formal visual level) I prefer to see "uneven" as: something confined to overly distracting color; and something that can actually be useful - with there being such a thing as too much evenness.

In this design for example the original "g" -which JF complained about- I would never consider "uneven", even though I can't really be sure it's structurally ideal (although I suspect it's fine, and I like to give the benefit of the doubt to divergence/innovation - as long as it's well-motivated).

hhp

fontime's picture

News and changes.

Thanks, I'm learning every day with your comments.

et

Miss Tiffany's picture

Lovely. Can't wait to see how you solve the italic. My critique is fiddly and specific. You can ignore all of it if you think I'm too late or if I'm speaking non-sense.

- lowercase s -- appears to be leaning backwards, just a bit, and the diagonal seems a bit heavy.
- cap W -- fills in at the apex. too heavy. i am very sensitive to cap W and it seems to need a little more tlc and character.
- What if the bar on the cap Q had a little more flair?
- cap C -- a little too big? or just drops down too far? In the french version, it catches my eye.
- cap E and F -- the middle crossbars seem too safe and even.
- lc c --
- Can you add a touch, just a hair, more flair to the accents?
- lc p -- bowl seems a hair to wide.
- lc u -- does it hang too low?

- favorite characters -- y, r, a

Nick Shinn's picture

>I prefer to see “uneven” as: something confined to overly distracting color;

That's my sense of its meaning also.

hrant's picture

OK, I guess you've settled on that "g" structure... What I would do though is make the top-right corner of the bottom bowl thicker, towards the outside. The "j" needs slightly more stroke contrast in the tail I think; and I would make its head serif longer.

UC: Isn't the "C" too wide, and its bottom curve too flat at the end? The "G" I would make a hair narrower too.

The bar in the ordinals seems too close - in small sizes it will clot. I like your "ch" ligature - very nice. The other two though are a bit unhappy at the head of the "t" though. The bottom-left of the eth seems unhappy. And I would make the bar of the Eth go in less deep.

Spacing: unless it's for smaller sizes (in which case the color is a bit light, and the vertical proportions a bit too deep*) the spacing is a bit loose - although at "boundary conditions" (like in the "ki") it's fine.

* http://typophile.com/node/15367 :-)

Looking good.

hhp

Randy's picture

Eduardo: This latest round of revisions was great!

I agree with Tiffany on the crossbar of the E, F and H being too even.
Notice you your vertical stems have a waist and flair into the serif. Try this here too. Gradually get thicker until the serif (more bracketing too), or in the case of the H maybe a little thinner in the middle and thicker as the crossbar approaches the stems.

Nick: I don’t have much experience of looking at faces on the critique forum, but it seems that designers just say, here it is, what do you think? and the critics say, “correct this detail, correct that detail”, and the poor thing gets normalized into oblivion.

I have to disagree. I have looked at a lot of faces in this critique forum. What I see are the same novice mistakes in the vast majority of cases (eduardo's effort here excepted). Sometimes they have naive charms yes. I don't feel like I'm doing anyone a diservice by pointing them out. As Ed Benguiat says in his classes: "That letter is wrong. But if you want it wrong, do it." He's being totally sincere, and points to Barry Deck as a person who's wrong is right to many many people.

Great to see you in the critique forums.

Randy

fontime's picture

Hi all:

"C": I mean, that the new counter its better for text.
"EFH": changes in crossbar.
"W": adjust in color.
I lowered the points of the i, j, dieresis and tilde
"s" balanced
"t", vertical it's higher

If I continue learning, I continue growing.

Thanks,
et

hrant's picture

E: crossbar serifs a bit too big.
J: leaning clockwise.
M: needs color relief in the armpits.

f, g, r: I'm thinking that the teardrops need a small
shear at the end, to match the sharpness of the rest.

3: slightly too light in color.
7: bar slightly too heavy.

hhp

Randy's picture

Nice. Italics? Bold?

R

fontime's picture

The following step is bold or black. Be patient.

Thanks for their aid, are invaluable.
ET

fontime's picture

The new pdf it's the first aproach to bold version in comparison with book weight.

Thanks in advance.
Et

hrant's picture

I think considering the depth*, and hence the size
range that it would work best at, the weight might
be slightly dark. On the other hand, you do need
decent repro for a gentler Roman-Bold difference
to be risk-free.

* http://typophile.com/node/15367

Some micro stuff:
"g": too pudgy - give it more contrast (probably just in the joins).
"k": unhappy.
"t": too busy in the top-left; maybe make the bar go left more.
"@": bottom-left gap is too tight.
"B", "M": too dark.
"O": right side of counter is malformed.
"Y": a bit narrow.

The spacing is off (as I suspect you already know).
Also, considering again the depth, and the weight,
I'd make it tighter overall.

Keep it up!

hhp

Syndicate content Syndicate content