Here goes. I’ll just give a running commentary as I scroll down the PDF.

-The ’S’ and ’s’ bug me. The contrast is really wonky.
-Why are some serifs flat, and others curved?
-’&’ looks like an ’8’
-I dig the ball terminal on the ’4’ and some other letters. I wonder if this could be incorporated into other characters.
-I think ’C’ needs a spur.
-’G’ doesn’t really fit. The bottom is too thin, and it could use a spur also.
-’T’ is off-putting. Maybe the curves on top should go the other way to better match the other characters.
-’k’ looks very poorly constructed.
-The bottom of the ’t’ is cut off abruptly - it works though. Maybe introduce this into other letters as well.

Overall, it’s got a nice feel, but it’s a little inconsistent. With some refinement and redrawing, this could be a very nice display face.

- Lex

Thank you much, Lex. I’ll try using my more usual ways to display sam[les next time, and get right to work on your suggestions.
That ’k’ is quite wonky, I agree.

How do you envision these “spurs” on the ’C’ and ’G’?

Obsoive:

- Lex

I’ve addressed pretty much all the concerns you pointed out, and some others as well. The lc “s” still needs work, and I’m increasingly unhappy with the “e”.

Lots of stuff left to do, but my progress is shown on the new PDF up top.

Some observations:

AX has wrong weight distribution (it’s mirrored to usual ones).
B too big upper part.
CGOD bowls slightly to light compared to other stroke weight
J strange
K upper arm too thick
S needs serifs
U not round enough

e maybe 45° is too much for the bar
hmn uppermost parts of the bows are too much to the left. more tension!
r too wide, needs a foot serif
s too wide, needs serifs
x wrong weight distribution

4 bar too high
69 no weight in the bowls?

Have a look at other typefaces, don’t copy them, but see why they work, how the weight is distributed, how the proportions are, etc.
And there’s an error I tend to do as well: I do way too much special characters before the basic ones are settled. It multiplies the time needed for corrections...

Sebastian

Wow, this posting sounds arrogant, I’m sorry for that... It’s late and I have to go to bed, but I thought feedback in a few words is better than none.

Thanks, Sebastian. I’ll get on to those fixes you suggest.
6 and 9 always give me trouble.

Though sometimes I sketch out few letters, I tend to design my fonts in Fontographer from the beginning, usually starting with “h”, “V’ and “O” then hashing out the basic forms by collaging components from them to the rest of the characters before fine tuning the shapes. This leads to all the mistakes you noted, but they’ll eventually get worked out. It also makes it relatively easy to rapidly construct the special characters that, I agree, really would be better left for later.

What do you think of my other projects here: Palormak and Cartmeign in this subforum, and Triangulor in the experimental section?

I’ve made some more changes. There is still a lot of work to do, and a lot of little details even I notice are wrong. Still, this shows significant progress. New PDF up top and this here:

I don’t think this face will ever be useful for setting text but as a display face it could be quite nice. I would encourage you to reconsider each character & see how you could make them differfently. I get the feeling that some of them were made based on others to a too great a degree. I think your 4 works well desite it’s oddity. Your 5 and 2 as well. The two is a little unballanced. The 3 is struggling. Perhaps one arc should be bigger than the other or a historical form with an arbitary straight line should be used. The 8 too. It needs direction. Keep at it.

The general feel I get from the caps reminds me of precast letters I used to use in customizing leather belts, actually — the serifs have a real “western” zeitgeist to them, particularly the “L”.

I agree with Eben that it would make an interesting display face.

Linda

Damn, I just had a big long reply and I accidentally hit a bookmark and my browser ate it.

I’ll be back once I recover from the shock.

Good.

OK, it’s been a while, but here I am with another go at it (again with a PDF #6 for closer inspection).

There are a lot of changes here, some obvious, some subtle. Try and find them all!

Maybe I’ll change the name of the font to “Corinthian Leather” unless Chrysler still holds that trademark.

It looks like it’s gelling up better. Still here is what I am thinking:

- The Cap X looks like it needs to pee.
- I think that if you look at some wood type you would find a model for putting the detail & charcater you have across without compromising the face quite so much. In particular, I am thinking that the serif wiggle you have in some glyphs like cap E seem just right whereas the lc m seems like a victim of imposed rules. I would start making some exceptions & let the m off. Some of the Serifs seem to be hiding out. They make their glyph look like a wall flower. wheras the 2 seems at ease with itself and the 5 is qite outgoing. The 4 is not keeping up. It’s just too many excentric details in one glyph - 4 of them! Help that 9! Above all I would ask myself - what gets better with the wiggle? What gets worse?

I hope you keep going! I still like the excentricity overall and I think it could become surprisingly readable. I really like the ’e’. Make the others play nice with it.

The 9 does look like it belongs in another font entirely, doesn’t it? I was experimenting with things and it just seemed to work for me like this. How would you suggest I change it? I don’t want it to end up merely as a rotated 6 (I’m still not happy with the 6).

I am working on something new for the 4. I’ve eliminated the curve on the diagonal and flattened the horizontal crossbar a bit. That will be up with the next installment

About the wiggles, I find a certain amount of this enhances readability. I’m not sure it’s having that effect here, but in my earlier font Gohan, the vertical wiggle almost makes it suitable as a microfont, in spite of its heavy weight and rounded shapes. Of course there are some details on that which need further refinement too. That font has a pretty odd 4 too.

Definitely take my suggestion with a grain of salt ( or more ) my assumptions about what you want the font to do may not be correct. What if the overall shape of the 6 was more like the 9 ( digonal-ish) but it was tapered or had a small teardop.

Not quite like this but

http://www.dwr.com/images/thumbnails/tn_9774.gif

Actually. I am noticing now that you have an re-opening taper on the 2, A huge one on the Ampersand, a ball on the 4, r & g, x z, and then there is the finish on the s. Anyway. I don’t think you shouyld be doctrinare about this but looking at finnishing strokes I am seeing more variety than is maybe ideal.

Also, looking at the xyz I seem to see 3 different ideas about how to manage diagonal widths. The y suggesdt that stroke variation will be low. The x suggests it will be high. The z is quite light. Looking at the e and g, both of which seem right for some reason, I think I see the weight I would have the xy&z adopt.

I am looking foreward to seeing the new 4. I agree that the wiggles add to the face in general. Did what I was saying about woodtype make any sense to you?

I’ll have to do a bit more research on the woodtype, but I think I understand what you’re getting at.

I’m about ready to post another revision sample, but I’m becoming bored with my presentation. Should I keep it the same for the sake of consistency in comparison, or what, if any, other direction could I go in?

Keep the 1st page the same for the sake of continuity & then use 2nd 3rd (etc) pages to show us how you think the face might be used to best advantage or to exhibit new questions, problems, alternatives or features.

OK. Here’s what I’ve been promising:

Lots of changes here, including a whole new teapot a, Q, accented characters, a new 4 and 6, a bunch of changes to misc. symbols, modified x, y, &,*, °, and more.

Much work still to do with the spacing.

PDF 7 up top.

Quick and dirty, just to see what it looks like in different colors.
Without an idea in my head.

Very Amusing!

about the changes - I like the increased consistancy but the stroke contrast in the digonals seems a bit harsh. Especially on the y & cap V. I like the new six but I wonder if it wouldn’t be better flipped for a new 9. What if the 6 had a longer ascending arm? I think you need to give the Q’s bottom stoke a bit more weight to carry it off. But it’s a fun idea.The e has to gain some weight to match or the others have to loose a little.

Yeah, it looks like I got the contrast on the y backwards too.

It occurs to me that many of the caps are too narrow. They look all condensed while the lc looks all fat, even though the stroke widths are nearly the same. Also the O isn’t obviously different from the zero. Handling this problem would mean quite an overhaul, though. Any idea how I should go about that?

There is something about the 9 that I really like. I know you keep telling me to change it, and I agree it is a bit strange, but it works for me.

What do you think of the new 4?

The 3 does have an odd finish, but that’s meant to make for a good <3 emoticon.

I love the italic g from Galliard, but I wouldn’t put it in my Cyril. Just because a glyph is good doesn’t mean it fits. The 9 is interesting, but I don’t think it works here. I also question the motive behind the 3: to make a good emoticon? Which will people use more often: the 3 or the emoticon? If you really want to be able to have a good heart, just draw a picture of one and stick it somewhere in the font.
If something looks wrong, don’t hesitate to fix it, even if it does mean “quite an overhaul”. In your case, it actually won’t take a whole lot to just widen the caps that need widening, like OGHCDB. Make them all look consistent with each other. Giving them similar amounts of white space is a good place to start. (This feels a bit weird, because I can remember when I was on the other end of this exact same critique with Cyril. In my case, the font was totally not what I had meant to draw the first time, so I redrew it, but I don’t think that’s really necessary here.) The new 4 strikes me as better, but I think I prefer the old 6. The 1 needs more character.

So I’ve fixed most of the things that have been brought up so far. With all the things I’ve done to unify the font, it seems I’ve neglected the punctuation somewhat. It’s all very square and seems undersized to me, but I could be wrong. Also my accents acute and grave are awfully steep. I don’t use them extensively in my language, but does that bother anyone who does?

The font is on the whole juicy. It seems like the punctuation should be too. The dots on the i & j seem over weight to me ( slightly ). Also the Caps now that they are wide enough seem to need some air. Maybe add a bit to the sidebearings. Look at all those Es. Also I thought I should metion that something is going wrong with the encoding such that some glyphs don’t display when I open the PDF. Like 3-4 I think... I can tell you which ones later. But in the meantime what encoding are you using & why?

Here is the next iteration. changes here to the 1, 3, 6, 9, *, µ, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, L, M, O, Ø, Œ, P, Q, R, S, U, V, x, y, and probably some others I’ve forgotten. Widening the vowels screwed up the spacing on their accented counterparts, so I’m working on repairing that now.

I think I did a bad thing to the B. Back to the drawing board on that one.

This relates to PDF 8 in the first post.

BTW I like the new 3 6 & 9. I guess my comments about the caps were about the acccented caps! The others seem good I think.

I’m using default settings for Macintosh encoding in Mac TrueType format from Fontographer 4.1.5 NFPU.

I did get a report of some sort of encoding error when I viewed the PDF, but I didn’t notice anything missing from the displayed characters.

edit: Upon further review I do notice a couple missing characters on the bottom line. I’m doing my PDF output with Canvas 8, if that makes any difference. Hey, I’m broke, and I got it for the cost of a magazine, and it does the job, more or less.

I’m not trying to give you a hard time. Just letting you know what happens. Cheers!

Oh, I know... Just hoping you knew how to fix it.

Hmm I would post a new topic about the missing glyphs here on typophile. That will be the best way I think.

The most significant changes this time around are the punctuation and accents. All that was square is round now.

Also, B, f, fi, fl, and Florin have changed.

Ohm and Delta are the characters not showing in the PDF, resulting in the error message. I haven’t a clue why yet. Version 9 is up top, and it works but for those two. I just need to figure out how to get the rest of the characters in there. Canvas 8 doesn’t have the character pallette to input them with.

Since I have the file open right now, is there anything more I can do to improve this?

Here are some ideas to keep you busy: Pull the nose of the 2 in slightly. ( Maybe) Give it more overshoot on top. The tops of the eights & nines seem to thick maybe. The left side of the 7 seems to light/weak. The curve on the lc k could be more weighty/exuberant. I can’t find a way to love the flat r - why not lower the join of the n & m & make an r that matches? Why not throw in the p while your at it? ( it might be better like the b) What about a loop at the beginning of the Q’s tail instead of a reverse. That might be more ’ballsy’. heh heh ( rolling of eyes obligatory ). But more meaninfully it would create a more ’even’ feeling in the weights. The Q is too light now. In the case of your font I think a flat side to the inside of the O in OE might be better. Why does the l & t drop their bottom? I am not diggin’ it. How does that go with the rest? I like the lc v but the lc w & y still don’t quite sing to me. The left bottom of the lc z needs more weight somehow. It feels lopsided. The ae seems too wide & lumpy to me. The UC W could be wider. Why not? It’s such an exumberant face in general why not give it some room? What about dropping the Join on the UC Y? It seems a bit cramped with those big serifs. I would add mnore weight back to the CAp S in the middle. I don’t lknow if the UC T needs to be quite so wide. The N needs some air & width ( a bit ) - The C needs more space & a more gracelful left curve. The G too. Even more, actually. The serif on the UC M makes it look like it’s sad. Your best glyphs have a a hardy readdy to do anything feeling about them. The UC A has it. TheB,R,g,s,o & V too. Get that spirit in the rest. The $ is not wide enogh at the bese especially the left side. British Pound sign - same thing.

Eben, I agree with most of your suggestions, though I’m not sure how to efectively implement them all, with the exception of the lc r.

I have a specific reason for not making the r similar to the m and n, which I go into here. I may still try lowering the joins on m and n, but we’ll have to think a bit more before doing anything drastic with the r.

Perhaps raise it slightly higher then. That has historical precedent actually. And in the end it’s your eyes that count. Cheers!

Nice looking font, very consistent shapes all through the design.
Only things I see right now are:
The indent on the leg of the cap R, it catches the eye, since only that char and the lc ’k’ have it. Not that it looks bad, but it sticks out a bit maybe.
And the circumflex, which is a bit square / pointed and straight-lined, compared to the other characters. If you know what I mean.

Do you mean the ASCII circumflex or the combining diacritical circumflex? They’re very and deliberately different.

Both, but mostly the ê, â, etc.
If you deliberately made then different, you obviously thought about it, so then it’s fine. :)

Does the accent acute look all lumpy compared to the accent grave, or is it just my monitor? I saw some odd curves on the asterisk too. Anybody else catch anything?

Yes, checking pdf no.9 I see that too. The acute has a couple of ’corners’ in it, on the left curve, not a smooth line. The asterisk as well.

I can’t explain why that is happening. These flaws do not appear in Fontographer, but I see them in the PDF just as you do. The acute is a simple H-flip of the grave, and the asterisk points are rotated copies of the top one. I suspect some artifact crept in there when I added points at extrema and aligned points to grid, and possibly even in the output to TrueType, but I think it is more likely a flaw in Acrobat rendering. I’m also noticing a vertical stretch overall in the PDF compared to how the forms appear in my graphics programs.

Florin isn’t working, x still has reversed stress, counter of a should be more symmetrical I think, and W’s usually have the thicker diagonal continued all the way to the top. Serifs of s have no relation to other letters (consider making them like c, ß, or S), and ß has wrong stress: on the bottom it should be like s, and on the top, the outward-facing curve should have it, not the in-pointing one (viz. Sabon). Z too light, WwX too heavy. Corner at bottom of inner curve of J no good. M too wide. Cedilla not bold enough at parts. 9 needs a corner at the terminal, not curves. © way bolder than ®. “n-ary product” sign comes below baseline. Ah, revising: so much fun, no? Keep fighting the good fight.

I have had similar weird glitches when I export to TrueType. I usually make and export it in otf. But I’m not too experienced as a type designer. But TTF-curves are weird, heh.
What program did you use to set the type in, and export to PDF?

Both the PNG images and the PDF files are generated with Canvas 8. I suppose I could use my ancient copy of Illustrator in Classic mode, but that would mean installing the fonts in the old system folder, and well, now that i think of it it’s not too big a bother, but I don’t want to bother.

For some reason Fog’s export to PS1 fonts is glitchy (which is why I’m making as TrueType. OTF isn’t even an option), at least when i comes to installing them— the space gets all stretched out, but returns to normal after purging caches with Linotype Font Explorer. I’m not sure exacly where the problem lies, apart from the fact that I need a new compuer and software updates and I can’t afford any of it right now.

Once I get it done, I might try making a PS font from Fontographer then converting that to OTF with FontForge, but I don’t want to geet ahead of myself just yet.

Try renaming your font for the purposes of checking. I had Font Explorer seemingly cacheing some of my old data. It didn’t go away util I changed the font’s name. There is probably another work around but that’s the one that worked for me. You should also be aware that FOG doesn’t work in whole numbers. It uses fractions. So when you export to TT at 1000 UPM some numebers may round up or down on you producing results that may not be expected. You have come pretty far with this. Why not go the extra mile? Also, re-reading the thread I started to wonder what you meant by I’m not sure how to efectively implement them all. What upm are you working in?

Just that it might take more than the moment I used to write the response to come up with solutions to the problems you pointed out. (And likewise for some of Nathanael’s comments.)

7, k, w, y, C, G, and M you made somewhat perplexing comments on. The words themselves are not but figuring out how to make them happen is. I’ve already made a bunch of changes and will try some more before I make another test image.

My em square is 1024 UPM.

“n-ary product” sign comes below baseline.

Um... pardon my ignorance, but which character is that?

A bunch of changes here before I head out, covering most of what people mentioned. Another spacing error crept in as well as the recurring PDF problem. PDF 10 on top.

The usual UPMs are 1000 (usual) & 2048 (the microsoft standard). You can use something else but you might not want to. Did you mis-type?

It seems like the whole thing is starting to tighten up. Would you post a PDF with some text so I can what’s happening better? Also what about posting an example of how you imagine the font being used. That would helpful too.

The Fontographer manual suggests a multiple of 1024 fo the em square for TrueType, so that’s what I set it at. Naturally 2048 will double the pitch of the grid, which would be handy.

I’ll give a shot at some layouts. I’m not really sure what a good use for this is right now. It calls attentiont itself a bit too much for body text, and is a bit bold for that anyway. I might come up with a lighter weight version once this is nailed down and see how it works. Maybe with slightly looser spacing it work for advertising copy. Would you buy a luxury car from this font? Eh... maybe not.

I think I overdid the Q—rather than going with a loop instead of a reverse on the tail, I did both. Is the result too heavy/busy for such an infrequently used letter?

I took a cue from the curve of the k to reshape the h, m, and n. Is it an improvement?

I think the hmn are improved. I don’t know that it completely matches the face yet exactly. But you should look at your b I have it match the new letters a bit more. Or make the others match the b. Or something else but getting them all on the same path. Speaking of which ... Maybe think about that p too. It’s an odd man out. All of this is a big deal beacause you will gain in legibility going some ways but I know you wanteded your own solution. I would keep trying things.

Similarly I think you can make a case for keeping the g & q with the structure they have. I think you might want to bring the d in line with them to some greater degree. the g is looking abit too closed right now. Almost like an odd 8. I like the opening on the y - even though it’s got the same structure the opical difference is huge. Optics are what count.

RE; the cap Q I think you can make it work ( maybe) by adding weight to the bottom of the curve before it loops. You might have to drop the tail slightly to do that. But I bet that would work. I like the Q. I want it to work.

The top of the 3 feels off balance - maybe it’s too heavy. The 8 feels denser & darker that the other #s. Maybe open it up a bit.

BTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_mathematical_symbols

The “n-ary product” symbol is the uppercase pi. I note that you changed the W but not the w. I’m not entirely sure the dot in the zero works. The Q does seem a bit extravagant. Also, the tail of g doesn’t look good—try squaring it out some. The point inside the k is too sharp.

(Accidental repost)

That’s what I thought you were talking about. Fog only gives the character name as “product”. This uppercase pi does not come below the baseline, which is why your comment confused me. Are you saying it is supposed to?

The g hasn’t changed since the v.6 beta. How does it attract attention now that it has been stable through 4 iterations?

The thing is when you have bigger problems with a font they are more obvious and get pointed out first. Also, people don’t have time to look for 1000 things to fix - just 10 or so. And how would you feel if you got a list of 1000 problems? Overwhelmed or irritated or depressed I expect. You must do whatever you want with your font. But I think Nathanael Bonnell ( no.3) is probably right.

I posted a Q&D page layout showing the font at various sizes. It’s not very good as a layout, but it gives an idea of what it looks like in use.

Yeah, I was saying it’s supposed to.
Looking at the font actually used to set text, it looks pretty good now. A good quirky feel. I maintain that the Q is too much. I think that (along with the Q) your most distracting characters right now are g,u, and maybe a. The u should probably have a different serif scheme—no other letters have a similar one. I’m thinking top serifs perhaps like Weiss, or maybe just as though taken from a rotated Agamemnon n. And the g will probably be okay once you square it out like I suggested. Oh, also x is a bit wide. Next sample post a pangram or two so we can see the whole thing in action!

I realize ∏ in a Latin font is meant as a mathematical symbol and not for writing Greek, but looking at the wikipedia page Eben linked, ∑ is set the same way in equations. Should that be similarly oversized too?

Looking at these characters in several other fonts, I can find no consistency to this rule. Hoefler Text has both at standard cap height, in Helvetica they both drop their bottoms to the decender height, in Chicago they both go below the baseline, but not that deep, and in Courier they extend both above the cap height and below to decender level. If there is one correct way, then three of these fonts must be wrong!

I don’t think that’s the case, It’s just understandably confusing.

Pangram sheet now in the PDF collection.

Yes, I forgot entirely about the summation symbol (the Sigma); that one also descends. Wow, we must be losers, spending this much time quibbling about whether math symbols descend below the baseline. (But for the record they do.) By the way, check out the stress scheme in other fonts’ summation sybols. That’s the generally accepted way to do it, though you could probably get away with the current one.

In what way is the d not in line with the g and q? When I started, at least, the a, b, d, p, and q were all derived from each other through rotating, flipping, removing the stem, &c, as was the g with the addition of the hook decender. in fact, the h, n, and m were in this family too, just with their bases opened. I went with the 2 story a because the earlier æ wasn’t sufficiently distinct from the œ. Apart from that, are you suggesting I revert to the original shapes, or that I replicate the curve on the n to those letters that don’t have it yet?
I thought the blended serif-curve ripple was an identifying characteristic of this font. Is that worth eliminating? It seems that would be removing a cohesive relationship rather than adding one.

Damn, that sounds plaintive. I’m just trying to understand the thoughts you’re contributing. Most likely it’s a matter of my lack of experience and limited vocabulary that I’m just not getting it. I truly value and welcome your advice, and I hope to avoid any misunderstanding.

I may be trying to hold you to a higher or simply different standard than you are interested in. Which may well be unfair. But, I think this face might actually sell with more of the kinks worked out. (You should get other folks opinions on that)

But that makes me think: what sells more? Display or text? ’Text’ is answer. And the closer to a text face a display face is ( & this is a display face) so that you can use it for pull quotes & stuff the better it will sell. So the suggestions I have been making have been geared towards making the face a bit more suitable for text. If thats not your thing- no problem.

So. Assuming you could be interested in the text thing: About the b h n : One of the features that help identify a b h or n is the notch where the leg joins. If you look at the face FF dax you see an alternative solution. But conventionally speaking, and your face has some of it’s roots in convention, there is usually a notch.

About rotating & mirroring: Conventionally the q should not mirror the p. The d aught not to mirror the b. Sure they do in some faces like DIN. But it is a 20th century affectation having to do with modernist reductivism. I don’t see that focus in your type. There are many other alternatives but first let’s look at the traditional one:

These are from Sansa Slab (Ourtype). See how the forms differ? Look at d the q! I see the d & q as a more vaiable place for your wave. Maybe the r too. Maybe not though. I would maybe make it more narrow. Maybe a different kind of wave aught be available for the b h & n. So I think you should retain your ripple but think about ways to integrate & vary it with the greater diversity of forms found in text faces. Applying ’rules’ can backfire if it interferes with the distictiveness of a letter.

BTW - You are right to be concerned with cohesion, but there are many ways of achieving that. The wave was not enough. There is stem weight, optical weight matching, spacing repeated themes in the ornament, and the ends of strokes.

If you can clarify what you want from the face the choices are easier. For instance: if you plan on the face being used at 36pt and larger then your g with it’s narrow opening may be okay. Looking at large text it doesn’t bother me at all. But if you want people to be able to think of using this font at 12, 14, 16pt etc; then I would definitely open that thing up right away! Context helps. Keep thinking about your intended use & the choices you make will be easier & smarter. 100% of these suggestions are refutable in the right context.

It would be great if this could work as a text face. As it is, it’s a bit too bold and tightly spaced, so I’ll have to loosen it up and make a lighter weight version once it is fully nailed down. (To say nothing of corresponding italics. I’ve never done those before.)

And, I have opened up the g in the next iteration quite a bit. I also increased the em square to 2048 (surprisingly painless).I’m still poking around for other things to tweak. I should be ready to show those developments later today.

In the mean time, here is a sample to compare with your example of Sansa Slab, plus a few extra letters:

In version 11ß, the bowl of the b will have a similar top to the archof the h,n, and m. but as I understand it, you’re suggesting that follow on to the p as well, and also be reflected on the underside of the d, q, and maybe the g.

The wave I speak of is most clearly evident on the top of the r, but it is present on the top of the p, q, and g as the curve of the bowl flows into the serif, and similarly on the bases of the b and d. To apply your suggestion (in the manner that I’m understanding it, which could be wrong) would wind up putting notches in the d and p that aren’t there now. Am I getting this right?

You almost have me. What I am saying is that the glyphs which have bowl or arms that emerge from the left to right ( nmb&p & maybe r too ) will all benefit from being notched as in the Sansa example. Whereas the qd & g all seem to take to the wave shape ( on the top ) more naturally. Looking at the b I see is has the wave on the bottom. So there is your connection still in place.

Assuming you agree that this is worth trying out I should add that the n & m do have that 1st serif that make them semi cohesive already but the way the arms are coming out don’t look quite right to me with the rest of the design. What if you used something more like the b’s bowl top join. That feels more relaxed.

As for the r I would either give it a b like arm connection or alter the wave for that glyph. I realize that it was the concept glyph but I think it could be better. You could raise the height of the r’s arm & ball too. And or you could try to make the glyph less wide. It’s creating an odd break in flow as it is. The a might be slightly less wide too.

It took me a little longer than I expected but there it is, version 11, including a lot of the changes we’ve talked about. I do not like what’s become of the r, and I’ll likely revert back to the previous version.

Here is that short sample I posted earlier done up in the new version:

New PDFs are up on top too.

I like your first ’r’ better also. Although the ball terminal works in itself, it’s too slanted and sticks above the x-hight too far. And the serif is too distict. But you already saw that. ;)
The decrease in size of the loop in the Q opens the shape up, good thing. The rest of the overall little changes are improvements, I think.

I think some of this is exactly right. The b p & h now have a notch but they also look utterly natural. They fit right in. About the lc r. I agree it isn’t working. Oddly enogh it looks you took both of the ideas I was suggesting for the r at once! I was thinking high or less wide. It’s actually incredible cool to see both just from an interest point of view and I think you did a great job but I think one or the other is right way - especially now. I would try less wide and model it partly on the n. The g looks much more readable at small sizes. There rae still some letter relationship things left - like the am&b all seem to be thinking about different x heights. Do you see what I mean? I think I like the a as the model for ideal height the best. What do you think?

The a is a bit taller than the rest of the lc, a side effect of swithching to the two-story design. but looking at it that is probably a better height to aim for with the rest of the letters. It will mean making adjustments to almost half the characters, but it should be worth it.

Jelmar, I think you could be seeing an illusion in the Q. The loop is larger, not smaller, than in the previous version, but there is an overlap in the loop that got rendered even-odd by Canvas exporting to PNG and needs to be made solid. It should render correctly in the PDF samples.

I was looking at the PDF of pangrams and it struck me that when you are done with the next round of changes it might be most productive to start altering spacing and then maybe kerning.

I have been wondering what effect the rolling shapes would have when set into text. If for instance they would produce an unpleasant unevenness or if they would be colorful and attract the eye. Of course it’s a little preliminary to say, but I think it’s the later & better of the two. Nice. I especially like the z. It’s really doing it’s job.

Ohh, yes I see. I was mistaken, I switched them around.
Well I guess I like the previous Q better then. Although you did reduce the weight of the loop, which also works.

I think now might be a good time to look at how far this has come along. Remember, this is something I started a several years ago before picking it up again last October. Here is pretty much what I started with (corresponding with the agamemnon 4 PDF):

And here is where I’m at as of yesterday (v.11ß):

What do you think of how this is evolving so far?

Come to think of it, I should try that same layout with an even earlier version. I can’t think of why I didn’t.

Well here it is, derived from the oldest backup I could find, created 3/17/01, last modified 9/1/03.

Yes, it’s gotten much better. What’s next? Will keep on with it - or put it away for a while?

I have another update to show. There are just a few kinks to kick out of it.

I solved one missing glyph problem (seems inherent to Canvas 8) but for some reason the lc y acute and multiply won’t generate in the TrueType font, and I’m having loads of problems when I output to PS1 format. A whole bunch of glyphs go missing and the space comes out four times too wide.

I might have to boot into OS9 and see if that solves the problem, though I dread having to do that.

PDFs seem to generate just fine from the print dialog in TextEdit, so I’ll be using that for my character sample. I’ll have to see if I have anything else that will do as well and allow a 2 cloumn layout for a text test.

Well, the above issues remain unresolved, but here is revision 12:

I normalized the x height overshoot of rounded lc to match the a, redid the r again, along with æ, œ, more subtle tweaks to move some serifs that weren’t lining up across the board.
Loosened up the spacing a bit too and I think it’s good, but the kerning pairs still need work. Any flaws you can cal my attention to would be appreciated.

The new PDFs are multipage documents. You may want to only print the first one or two of each.

Maybe there is missing info in the glyph itself, or wrong info. I ended up pasting my outline data into a whole new font ’holder’ to get rid of a corruption problem. I don’t know that any of this is what will help you - but it might. The other thing is you might want to search the Typo-L archives and typophile archives for similar problems that may have been solved already or create new threads on typophile with one specific problem per thread. There is also a MSN group for the company Fontlab - and you could post there as well to see if anybody can help you get a grip on the tech.

Aside from the technical issues I’ve already mentioned, is there anything that still sticks out as inherently flawed? How does the spacing look now?

I’ve already widened the feet on the Ohm from what I’ve shown. I’m still a bit concerned with the terminals on the C, G, S and c, e, s groups. Might as well bring 2, €, §, £, ¢, and $ into the discussion too. Should I force them all to match each other, or are they fine as they are, or do some need fixing and not others? I’m at a bit of a loss at the moment.

I’ve copied and pasted the characters into a new FOG file. Sadly, the guides and templates did not carry over, but there was so much dead weight in there I suppose that’s for the best. If I need reminders of the past I can look in the old files.

About the lc : I can thing of two things to try : You could pull the upper arm back slightly & see if you like that better at text size. OR you could add weight to it and move the spacing slightly further to accomodate it.

I think the e is fab. You could add a little weight to the bottom - not an issue at display size but it would make the text size work better. Maybe the s could benefit from some similar tratment above & below - but be careful. Even small changes are a big deal!

I basically like your CG& S. What issues do you see?

The main thing I am noticing at text size is that the X height portions of letters are maybe too contrasted with the overshoots. The w is dwarfed. The m & n seem to jump. I don’t think you have to match the usual text convention. But the ’deviancy’ could be softened.

BTW if all this seems too text centric the other thing you could do is go back & make a display version! That would be an awesome pairing.

What about a ball terminal on the 2? The Pound Serling might be better with one too.

BTW I really like the german double s. Could I see it in use?

I think the euro is okay but it is a little light. What about a heavier initial mark on the right?

The Bar D ( Eth) & Bar L have bars that are too heavy. The lc eth has the cross bar at too acute of an angle. and it is too far down. Have you seen this? < a href=http://briem.ismennt.is/2/2.11/index.htm>(link) Thorn and eth: how to get them right

What is next to that Yen Sign? It seem interesting!

The infinity is pretty weird. What’s the idea there?

What if the fi lig joined at the top rather than the bottom of the dot?

What precedent is there for a curl under the ’mu’ sign? That looks odd to me.

Apart from a funny feeling the sterling sign is going to fall over I think I like the Currency symbols. They seem to match the spirit of what your doing.

The Section symbol seems to belong in another font though. It’s so quiet & small. Maybe try making a new one from a Cap S. Ahve a look at some other fonts. Also it should be bigger and taller - that is the Height should be that of the Cap but it should descend to the depth of the lc g.

I saw a lc k like yours the other day on a font caled Olive Green Mono. It’s on the italic. I suggest you have a look at it! It has a motion woth emulating.

you mean this ?:

It’s a personal logo of a sort. The father of my girlfriend at the time was a curator at the National Museum in Taiwan, and quite an accomplished ink painter and calligrapher himself, helped me with the design. I forget what it literally translates to, but it kind of sounds like “Jason”. It’s the first thing I ever literally carved in stone.

Since then I’ve put it in the “apple” key space in my fonts. Maybe it’s not right, but I don’t think it’s right to put the Apple, inc. logo there either unless they’re licensing the font.

The reverse curl of the mu is indeed rare (I’ve usually seen them extend left and hang straight), but I have seen it in other fonts. I’ll have to get back to you on which ones.
Too many older fonts never even bothered with matching shapes for all these special characters and just substituted from whatever their basic serif or commercial pi font was. I hope that doesn’t go on too much anymore.

I have read Briem’s pages, but it looks like I’m due for another review.

If the fi lig connected to the top of the dot instead of the bottom, the arch of the f would be much wider and more open. The hook of the regular f is very tight in comparison already. Is it wise to make them more dissimilar?

I’m not sure what I was thinking with the infinity other than I did not want it to be a sideways eight.

This is something I’ve been meaning to ask in a more general context (rather than specific to this font alone) but exactly what features differentiate a text and display face (and other optical size categories, if that’s the right term) of the same weight?

While I haven’t found another mu with a similar recurve to the one in Agamemnon, the following have at least a noticeable rightward hang to the descender:

Adobe Garamond
Bodoni
ITC Cheltenham
Souvenir
ITC Veljovic italic

What I noticed a lot more of, though, was the use of an italic mu in otherwise upright fonts, and quite frequently a mu from an alltogether different font, often without even regard to matching weights. These are from the big foundries like Adobe, Bitstream, URW, etc. Those that do have a matching mu often look like a u with a p descender snapped on the left upright, though about as often there is a lachrymal descender.

The C, G, S, and € each have a different spur on top. I think the one on the C is the weakest, while the one on the S is a bit too strong to directly transplant to the rest of the group. I just feel there must be some way to make them more consistent without making the designs fall apart individually.

Ouu. I found a very good example of a right-hooked mu, in Halter from the Apostrophic Lab.
I don’t know how much of a precedent that counts for in font court, but there it is.

This is something I’ve been meaning to ask in a more general context (rather than specific to this font alone) but exactly what features differentiate a text and display face (and other optical size categories, if that’s the right term) of the same weight?

This is topic much discussed. There are ways of searching typophile - ( admitedly not all the search boxes work for me) but google can help. In general though it’s things like x height being in a certain range and a a whole bevy of other tendencies. Really your face is never going to be used to set a novel or a whole story in a magazine even - so it will not be a text face per se. But it could be used for pull qotes and a whole range of other near text tasks now that it would not have been acceptable for before. Actually, do you agree it is better now - or not so much?

About the serifs- (CGS etc.) Your right about their needing to be different while maintaing consitancy. My adice to is to go look at the many & in some cases contradictory things that have been done & find a model which you think suits your font best & try it. Alternatively - trust your eyes. Find what feels right. Try things.

I was looking at the mu in the new Arno Pro from adobe & it actually kinda close to yours. It’s basically down with a slight curve in & then a ball-ish blob. It’s less wild than yours if you see what I mean. But realated. It comes with the trial version of the latest Photoshop. Maybe it’s in the font shops too. The bold 36pt has a weight kinda like yoyr too. Have a look if you want.

Well, just to see how it looked, I did actually transplant the spur from the top of the S to the C, G, and €, and y’know, it works well enough, and much better than what was there before. I think the spur on the Euro mark is supposed to be angled, though, so I might have to alter that one some.

I’ve calmed down the mu. It still has a curved stem but the descender ends in more of a blob than a hook.

I ought to have the new one up tonight, or maybe early tomorrow.

Here is version 13 (associated PDFs up top as usual. randomtext shows ß, ð, and þ in use, though the passage is nonsense.)

In addition to the points touched upon earlier, I raised the lc serifs to the x-height, reversing the slopes on most of them. This results in some of the serifs being tapered, which I couldn’t quite figure out how to match on the v, w, x, and y. Maybe it doesn’t matter. At least there isn’t that big jump between the serif and the humps of the m, &c.

I have printed out the latest. I am looking foreward to checking it out.

Overall I am finding the face really really pleasant. I especially like the k oe ae r s e h.

My opinion is not informed enough so take it with a grain of salt but I like the german double s too. Maybe ask a german speaker about that.

Nice!

But of course I found things that bugged me too. So here is what I noticed when I printed the pangram sheet:

- on the second line ’funtidrk’ the ti seem to be clashing. It’s a spacing kerning issue. But before you address that you might want to alter the ’t’ which looks odd & a little weak compared to the robustness of the other glyphs. The ending that works for l is not strong enogh for the t

- with such a robust face the ’eth’ ( reverse italic looking d with a slash) will need to be ajusted the slash is still in danger of being swallowed by the bowl. Why not extend the height of the ascender to that of the h & d?

- I am still finding the Cap M looks pidgeon toed. Can you alter those serifs at the bottom? On a related note the serif in the upper right of the Cap N seems overlong to me.

- If the end of the question mark stroke ( near the dot) was just a bot lighter and perhaps had form more lik ethe end of the lc r I think it would be better.

- the lc u seems too wide. Try reversing that lc n perhaps. It needs to have that bite out of it too - like the nmr & so on.

Cheers!

So on the t, do you think it should have a full hook, as the decender of the j, or a flat base like the f?

I think the t would look bizzare with the flat base. But try it & the reverse j hook & some other things besides. I suspect it will need it’s own shape. But you can start from those places. Also you could try clamping on the trail end of the lc z for fun too.

Dang, I have a drawing of the t to share and now the “insert image” doohicky isn’t working.

Anyway, I tried it with the ball terminals from the j and z, and they just seemed too out of place above the baseline like that, so I took the flare terminal from the c and shortened it up a tiny bit. With a lengthened crossbar, I think it looks pretty good. I hope the description is enough, since I can’t get the picture to upload.

Let’s see if this works:
link to picture on ImageShack.us

Can’t seem to hotlink an image either.

Jason, what is the latest PDF. I want to peek and give you my 2¢ but am too darn lazy to play catch up.

Miss T: The last three PDFs at the bottom of the list of attachments are the most recent. Each begin with “agamemnon13-” and refer to the same font version. “allcahracters” shows all the characters in the font at 48 pt. except the multiplication sign and y acute, which for some reason Fontographer won’t include when generating the font file. The other two show the font used in blocks of text.

The image linked above your post shows changes to the t after those PDFs were made.

What about looking at other fonts with similar charcateristics? Ball terminals in them and a heavy weight like this & so on. It might be very useful to observe what they do and how they do it. Also : A pencil & paper might be just the right tool at moment. ;-)

Tiff, thanks for taking a look. If this font seesm like the cup of tea of any typophiles you know please let Jason know. I have been doing my best but I think he would benefit from a diversity of opinions now. Take a look at the 1st version. I think he come a long way. :-)

Your y-acute appears to have the accent after the letter.

In the text sample, yes it does. The proper combined y acute isn’t in the font so I typed in the accent after the y.

It exists in the FOG file, but it won’t come out when I generate a TT font file from it. I guess I’ll have to spring for the upgrade one of these days.

Just for fun, I’ve been making some short words and testing them out on WhatTheFont over at Myfonts.com, to see if there is anything similar out there already. One thing I’ve discovered is that their OCR initially recognizes my k as an h, and that there is no other instance of a cursive k like this in an upright font, at least as far as the matching engine can tell.

In this 14th iteration, the t, r, u, &, ?, and £ have undergone significant changes. There are also subtler adjustments all around.
I’ll get PDFs for your high resolution perousal posted shortly.

I’m going to be away from my computer for about a week now, so please take your time picking this apart in detail.

To name but two, Bernhard Modern and Berlin Sans have cursive k’s despite uprightness. (Incidentally they were both designed by Lucian Bernhard.)

I knew there had to be something out there. Either it means WhatTheFont is dumb or Bernhard Modern and Berlin Sans are not in its database.

Well, it is possible that those fonts are sufficiently distinct in other ways that they wouldn’t score a match with what I have here, but still...

Anyway, any feedback on the latest update?

Here is some:

- The exclam point is too uniformly fat. It’s a good weight but it needs some thin parts too.
- The bottom of the lc g seems too light.
- The cross bar on the t & f seem too light. The bottom of the g too perhaps.
- The double l looks great. The k still seems tasty too.
- The w is too wide. It looks lile it’s getting pulled to the left by the ear.
- The u is wider than the n. Why is that?
- The stem width feel irregular. The too wide d, the r too, the might be too thin. the 1 too.
- The ’el’ l’s bottom could drop past the baseline.

I appreciate all the help you’re giving me, Eben. Still, I can’t help but wonder what might happen if still other voices were to make themselves heard.

I’ll give the ! a shot, but I’m not sure how much I can do with it.

I may be putting too much effort into making the thickness of the horizontals consistent. There is room for more variation. The t, f, g, and others will benefit.

All the letters with strong diagonals (e.g.: A, K, R, M, N, V, W, X, Y, Z, k, v, w, x, y, z) give me trouble. What am I doing right in some that can be applied to fix what is wrong with the others?

The u is not simply a rotation of the n. Is the difference in width causing further problems? Would the problems be resolved by matching the widths?

I’m fairly certain the stems are of consistent width, but I will measure them again to make sure, Even then, some might be giving the illusion of being irregular and need adjustment to compensate.

You mention a couple pairs of letters (ll, el) I hadn’t really given much thought to those or other pairs besides kerning. Should I make a contextual substitution for the el pair? I don’t think I can do that in Fontographer. I haven’t even begun to touch on learning the wonders of preparing OpenType fonts, and the only tool I have to do that with anyway is FontForge. I’d like to get the basic letter shapes settled before trying the fancy stuff.

I appreciate all the help you’re giving me, Eben. Still, I can’t help but wonder what might happen if still other voices were to make themselves heard.

I could not agree more.

Do you have good relations with anybody else on the type board? Why not email some people you respect & ask them if youcan email them a PDF?

The u is not simply a rotation of the n. Is the difference in width causing further problems? Would the problems be resolved by matching the widths?

You are right about the n & u not just being rotated! But I think that your n rotated would be a better base from which to work out a corrected u than the one you have now. And you would be starting with a width & stem weight that was matching.

I’m fairly certain the stems are of consistent width, but I will measure them again to make sure, Even then, some might be giving the illusion of being irregular and need adjustment to compensate.

That might be going on. Yeah.

I’ll give the ! a shot, but I’m not sure how much I can do with it.

If it was me I would narrow the beginning of the base of the stroke inward to create a contrasting weight - so that the top flares out in comparison. Have a look at other faces though & see if any of them inspire.

About the diagonals. I have a couple of thoughts about that. One is that compared to the issues you have solved now these were more minor. It may be a good time to adress them now however. On some level I have been reticent to suggest changing these until I saw the effect of the other changes because the two aspects relate to each other and with one thing sorted out for the most part it’s easier to se what to do about the next. I also had a sense from you (and I wasn’t sure I disagreed) that some of the important character of the design might be caught up in these diagonals & serifs.

But now that I see where we are I think that yes you could adjust things. To my mind the biggest blockage in getting the diagonals sorted is the serifs. Most of the glyphs have an unusual pidgeon toes look to my eye. I think that may be fine now and a source of color in the face but I think it may just bee too strong. The serif have a big impact on how the diagonals feel. Why not bring them in on the interior a little in some cases or center them more? I would try both & see what you think. More centering could bring up letter spacing issues of course..

But let’s do this. Let’s pick just 3 letters & try a few things with them.

- UC V let’s try trimming the inside serif on the right side.

- For the K let’s try bringing the upper diagonal stroke back to the left a little. The join can occur higher up.

- In the case of the lc x offset the lighter digonals by making the pitch or angle more vertical. You could also widen & open the letter up a little by offsetting the heavy diagonals more too. You don’t have to do that with the UC X because the glyph is less cramped with stuff going on.

There are other ways of doing these things too. Look around try different things.

With diagonals the solutions are often one-off. A common approach or priciple might be shared across letters but the circumstances are often too unique for the ’solution’ to be common across more than one letter.

about the el: I didn’t mean the e & the l. sorry. It’s jist that l & 1 look alibe so I was sounding it out. All I meant was that with the base of the l having the shape it does I would be good if it overshot the baseline. You could also change the shape to be flat & sit on the baseline. I am not suggesting either one is better. I just think the l floats as it is & looks odd.

what don’t you like about the lc z?

I’d like to get the basic letter shapes settled before trying the fancy stuff.

exactly. I agree.

There isn’t a particular problem I’m having with the z, but it, like the others I mention, has the diagonal stroke, which, by the function of the software’s drawing tools, are a bit more difficult to adjust than the strictly vertical and horizontal lines and keep consistent angles and stroke widths, especially when they intersect another stroke. It isn’t that difficult, but it does involve some extra steps.

Good relations? No, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say I have bad relations with anyone either. I just don’t really know anybody.

So, how is it the I, lc l, and 1 resemble each other? I thought I had made them fairly distinct.
In earlier versions, the l did descend, as did the t.

(Have you noticed that dark chocolate Hershey’s Kisses® have a subtle cinnamon flavor undertone?)

So, how is it the I, lc l, and 1 resemble each other? I thought I had made them fairly distinct. In earlier versions, the l did descend, as did the t.

Oh! I see what you mean - I don’t mean in general I mean as far as their bases were concerned. They have flat bottoms with serifs. The l does not. That’s what I meant to get across.

(Have you noticed that dark chocolate Hershey’s Kisses® have a subtle cinnamon flavor undertone?)

Yes. Sometimes. I think they do it when they cocoa they are using is lacking something.

Here it is, version 15ß:

Tell me what changes you can spot before I post the PDFs. I have to run, so that won’t be at least until next morning.

Nobody spotted it?
In addition to most of what’s been discussed, I changed the !, ¡, gave all the horizontal strokes a bit of a flare before the terminal serifs, evened out the length of the horizontal serifs all over (though I think in some cases I shouldn’t have), reshaped the J and a few other things I can’t quite recall.

PDF set 15 (3 files) is now attached on the first post.

I am up to my eyeballs but I will look again soon. Looking good though!

You do what you gotta do to put food on the table, Eben. You’ve already been a far greater help than I could have hoped for.

Now, if only I could somehow attract other experts to have a look at this project. Is it uncouth to advertise this thread in another forum section, like “Design”?

Should I be typing things I mumble under my breath like that?

Thanks! I appreciate that. You have been good at taking my suggestions in too. About the muttering: I think it’s okay.

Here is what I would do: If you have been on the board long enough to know who you respect here; tell them. Ask them for help. Be ready for harsh reality or praise. Whichever it is. It might also be that they don’t have time or they don’t think enough of the design to rate it. That would be the worst I suspect. But be ready.

The thing is, when you started this design looked pretty scary. Not that it was ugly. It just had a ton of unresolved aspects. It probably looked like too much work to wade into casually. Now though I think you have a shot. You have done much of the that work now. Your face is decidely quirky but it’s getting more solid all the time. And quirky & solid are a great combination I think.

And I do want other folks to have a look in. I think the font will benefit from that.

Do you know how to use the typophile IM?

Do you know how to access user profiles & find out if they accept email or not?

Cheers!

So anyway, I’m getting more satisfied with how this is looking. I still have serif issues, but right now I’n giving another go at the Q. I have a new design, with the loop in a more customary position, but I’m afraid it is getting too “2”like, and not really fitting in with the rest of the font, no matter how hard I try. Tell me what you think so far, please.

Stupid Canvas 8 won’t fix the overlap. I’ll do that later, but I’ll keep it while I’m working on the overall shape.

I think there is something worth keeping in this idea. And that there are several ways to find a way of doing that. The idea I have is that you could begin the stroke not inside the o but instead at the left of the loop. But that might be sucky. Try it & find out. I would sketch it in pencil over & over until you get what you want. And I would consider some more expected options too. Leave yourself open to the best solution. Have you contacted/email anybody on the board to ask about the font? I am glad it’s giving you greater satisfaction. I have been told by people I trust that sometimes the best thing after an intense bout of development is to take a break & work on something else to give your eyes & brain a chance to freshen up. I am not saying that’s what time it is - just that it’s an option.

I like it, although I agree it is much like a 2. In context, it would probably work out ok. You might just include it as an OpenType alternate.

Jeremy Dooley
www.insignedesign.com

The new Q is very Goudy-looking. It reminds me of his Q in Aries or in Goudy Swash. I think it will work, mainly due to the fact that when in use it will most likley be combined with other characters.

I just saw a Q very like yours and I finally think I get what you are up to here. It was an Italic Q cut for Elzevier foundry (pub appox 1650-1700?). Unlike your K I don’t know if you can made the Italic form work here. But I encourage you to try just for kicks. Where did you get the idea for this Q?

Two things inspired the new Q. The first being that the previous Q is kind of weird, and the second in that I liked what happened when I added the loop to the pound sterling, so I wanted to see if it would work on the Q. I didn’t really look around too much for historic inspiration as much as my vague memories of elementary school handwriting lessons (which among other things gave me a psychological block against writing to this day).

I guess my intention was to get something a little more normal for this character and as far as that goes it failed pretty badly. I suppose I could go back to an early version of the Q resembling an O with a stick through it, but I don’t really like that idea.