The entry stroke on lc b and lc thorn isn't working for me, although I like it on the lc i. Perhaps it's because I then expect it elsewhere, like on lc h, l, k, etc. Also, the counter in uc Thorn looks a bit small to me, especially next to the lc version.
Interesting stuff. There are some strong stylistic 'contradictions' in this 'face (see, for example, h versus n). I wonder what's the rationale behind such design conflicts. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, per se, I just think that the contradictions are too strong/ evident here. The letters need a little more formal coherence, IMHO.
I like the uppercase a lot, but I find the lowercase too flowery in places (entry strokes etc.). That's a taste thing though. I'm not qualified to offer any professional opinions ...
Interesting, but some glyphs needs work. Lc & uc "s" is too weak, lc "j" is a little bit too heavy. You should shift ogonek to the right on "Aogonek" and "aogonek". Lc "k" is too wide for me. All alternative acutes (Polish kreska) on sacute, cacute, nacute, oacute and zacute have too much stepper slope, and now should go to the left. It is nice that you did an alt.acute but for me the first one, is enough for Polish language too. All accents above (not dots) are to weak (light) for me.
You have taken on an interesting challenge of having a greater variety of treatments of individual letters, and still have the whole harmonize and balance. I think a PDF with text would help to see how well it harmonizes or fails to and contradicts itself. The few words you posted promise a nice harmony and balance. If it does harmonize it would be valuable, as you would have achieved a greater differentiation of letters, and possibily easier readability, than is usual in a sans.
Thank you all for taking the time to comment. I have made most of the suggested changes: beefed up the S & s, shifted A & aogonek, narrowed k, fixed Uc Thorn, beefed up all diacritics except dots. I think the "j" weight was an illusion caused by the GIF. Besides the helpful comments of Robert Ole
I get an error message when I try to start up your PDF. 'Acrobat cannot decript this document'. Can you check it?
The more I look the more intriguing this is. Overall, I think the 'inconsistencies' work harmoniously together-though I want to see that PDF!
I wonder whether the h or k or both need the b treatment for the sake of the harmony of the font. Even though they don't have a 'reflection' they could, and it might look more harmonious. The ldq would still have a visual 'reason' not to have the bend.
The only character I don't think works is the g, because unlike the rest it looks odd to me and the oddness doesn't go away. A single story g might still keep to your design rules for this font and work better.
Hey Chris, you're talking alphabet reform! A pet project of mine since '98. Using "conflicts" in the Latin alphabet*, I arrived at the following structures: http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/maslucida.gif It's not a font, of course - just structures, and explaining everything is a pretty long story - like the fact that they represent an "ideal"** and a given actual font can "tame" the structures as needed - perhaps arriving at somewhere close to Leporello.
Of course to some people it's the highest form of Blasphemy to suggest that their alphabet is anything short of divinely perfect - and they can hold a covert grudge against you for all Eternity, devoting a big chunk of their lives to striking down anything else you might ever say about anything at all, using any maneuver, any awkward angle of attack - such is the nature of true Devotion, I guess...
> It's not a font, of course - just structures, and > explaining everything is a pretty long story - > like the fact that they represent an "ideal"** and > a given actual font can "tame" the structures as > needed - perhaps arriving at somewhere close to > Leporello.
I understand that polishing those structures and making it a real font would require it to be 'less ideal', but on the other hand, how can you measure, how can you tell if it 'works' or not if it's not a typeface, just an 'idea' of typeface? I mean, how do you know that it needs re-tweaking? I only ask because I really want to know.
> You could read my essay in this book if you're > interested in learning more: [...]
I've read it. I like your ideas about reform, but the article seems 'dated' now (well, probably because I read Typophile every day).
You can never know, but you can always "tell", so to speak. Fear of being wrong is something you have overome to create progress, otherwise you're just rehashing established practice. So don't really want to know, really want to invent, I guess.
Yes, the article is dated. But it still ruins lives. ;->
Not surprisingly, this is a face that cannot be evaluated in the normal fashion - otherwise one would blindly conclude "it's ugly" and leave it at that. The relevance of such a design is tied to the existence of the "dark half" of reading, the half where a reader doesn't notice the details of the font, but is affected by it nonetheless.
Evaluating such a font requires a very strong understanding of readability, and the deeper mechanisms of reading, for example to what extent familiarity matters, and what details readers notice. I don't know anybody who can do this. But I can try to share some of my own hazy insight.
- I think the "a" needs its lower-right spur. - And the "g" needs its ear. - The "k" needs staggered arms, maybe one of them bowed. - The "v"/"w"/"y" are too static as a group. - I'd make the "J" descending. - The "@" is too chirographic. - I'd flatten the UC acutes/graves. - The BP is off. - That "L" in the Pilcrow is bril! - I don't think the Differential should lean. - The Florin should lean though.
BTW, looking at the vertical proportions and color, it looks like a face that would work best at larger text sizes, like around 12 point. But for that the spacing is slightly loose.
Whatever you do though, don't expect virtually anybody to understand what this is about - the Modernist age is not good at tolerating such extrapolation - it's just something you'll have to believe in, and apply in the best way you can.
--
> If that were not so, what would we strive for?
I feel the same way. But some people like to celebrate more than strive. I guess they have more fun though.
> some of the letterform structures you used > in your GIF look very Middle Eastern
It's possible - although probably based more on my own [circumstantial] background than some actual "old-world" merit...
Hmmm. The text in the PDF for me doesn't solve the harmony problem well enough. It may be the width of the letters is the problem rather than the forms, though. I suspect that you need to narrow the stemless letters - doesn't Dax do this? And also the a seems too wide to me. The flag at the top of the b sticks out too much; its seems visually higher than the straight ascenders - would shortening it make it more harmonious?
You have quite a challenge getting even rhythm into your unconventional forms, but if you succeed you will have something unique. I don't think it's there yet.
Look at acute in Gentium and Linotype Palatino. Palatino has acute about 27 degree, Gentium has acute about 35 degree. This is correct for Polish language.
aogonek and eogonek looks good now (may be very good).
When ogonek is merged with lowercase a in order to create aogonek, should be placed near the right boundary of "a" and sometimes can exceed it. Ogonek in eogonek should not exceed "e". Yours is OK.
I am attaching another PDF witth the changes I have made so far. This time I have only included a limited character set. I have slightly condensed the font and made numerous tinkerings. There is also a couple of words in other weights. I actually started the face as a medium weight. Even though medium is the least usefull weight, it gives me clues about all other weights. I then did a bold and a black before starting the regular. I did not show the bolder weights before because they would not work well as a text face. I still have much work to do on them all but would like your collective feedback on what I have so far.
In an attempt to show my overall plan, I am posting 2 more PDFs. The first is a showing of lc alphabet and brief line of text in 2 styles and 4 weights. The first showing is "Leporello Plain" which has no entry strokes. The second is what I call "Leporello Cloaked." It is the same one I have been posting. I intend a third variation "Leporello Masqued" which will be a half serif version (I have yet to start this version). The other showings are very rough weight variations and obviously need much work. These are: Medium, Bold, and Black.
The second PDF shows a synopsis of the opera Don Giovanni used as text. It explains the opera as well as my reasoning for the naming; Plain for Leporello as himself, a servant; cloaked for Leporello partially disguised; and Masqued for him as his master.
The left column of text is in "Plain" and the right column is n "Cloaked."
I think the narrower letters and the change in the serif on the b are both good improvements.
Now I see your idea of great variation in the letters in your 'cloaked' version. It think it is too much.
There is a balance between repetition and variation in any pattern to make it work aesthetically. I have heard, I forget where, that in music it is about 50-50. If the melody doesn't have some kind of repetition it doesn't come together as a melody, but just is a series of notes. Thus you have the typical establishment of the theme in four bars, the next four bars with variation of the theme, the third four a different variation, and return to the theme.
In other words with too much variation a melody just doesn't come together as a 'gestalt' that the mind can wrap itself around. On the other hand, if there is too much repetition it becomes boring and annoying, like the infernal 'Doublemint' jingle.
I think that this kind of patterning principle also holds for readability. And I think you have gone too far in the variety direction. But if you figure a way to pull back - there are a lot of ways to do it because you have so much variation - you could end up with something that is balanced and innovative.
By the way, the narrowed top of the g works now for me, where it didn't before. But I think the connecting loop to the bottom is off somehow now.
>... I think you have gone too far in the variety direction. But if you figure a way to pull back - there are a lot of ways to do it because you have so much variation - you could end up with something that is balanced and innovative. <
Thank you William. I will keep working on it. I have started work on the italic, perhaps I will find some clues in that process that I can bring back to the roman. I will try to bring it back far enough to more approach the 4 chord progression. Perhaps I was going too close to Sch
Here is yet another tinkering. Besides many small adjustments throughout, I have mostly abandoned the 2-version concept since the difference between Plain and Cloaked was so small it made no sense to keep both. I went back to just "Regular" and made the entry strokes more normal and predictable at least for now. I also added, just for fun, a few dingbats that were in keeping with the libretto of the opera. I added a mask, swords (pointing left and right and dueling) and even a "Leporello folder" I also changed the Pilcrow to resemble a sword broken in two (even though Hrant liked the earlier one. I still have no kerning but am working on the diacritics now and flirting with an italic. Hrant-I never liked the stepped "k", it always lookedlike a broken chair to me. I tried the ear on the "g" and the "a" but it looked silly and out of place with the rest. Please have a look at the PDF and let me know what you all think.
>And I think you have gone too far in the variety direction. But if you figure a way to pull back - there are a lot of ways to do it because you have so much variation <
I think I have "pulled back" enough this time.
I fixed the ligs so that they were not too heavy like my previous post. I have putzed with the sidebearings more and am ready to do more work on kerning now. I finished the complete character set and added text in Italian, Polish, Czech, and German. I read Victor Gaultneys essay: "Problems of diacritic design for Latin script text faces" (thanks Robert) and Adam Twordoch's article as well so I hope I got it right this time.
I have attached a 2-page pdf file which I hope will get some comments (he says, speaking but to himself). The character set and language texts are on page 2.
I'm just working on my first typeface, so be forewarned you are not getting the voice of experience here.
The thing I like most about this now are your serifs at the top of the ascenders.
My suspicion is that if the n, h, and o were slightly narrower it would make for a better rhythm in the text.
I wonder whether it would be better with the l with the serif on the ascender. The bl combination is a little jarring in the text. Having the d with no serif is more 'natural' looking as the serif on the d in a serif face is sometimes different than all the other ascenders.
The bottom serif on the l - should the terminal be more similar to the ascender serifs?
The i serif. I think this needs to relate more to the ascender serif also - maybe just being shorter would work. Now, with the serif bending down, it think it should overshoot like the o; it looks short now. Also you could consider putting a stem on the r. As the Underware fellows explain here the r usually has more of a notch than the m,n. And that helps keep the rn from looking like an m. If you are going to have as serif on the i you might consider doing something on the j and r also.
I don't know what can work here, but I do think that the serifs on the ascenders are a success, and working the face to make it harmonize and work best with these is the way to go.
I am posting another updated PDF with adjusted metrics (started more kerning) and fixed the f ligs so that their joins do not look so heavy. I also narrowed the o, O, c, C, G, Q, and D.
William, I see you are a neighboring northern Virginian. Thanks for taking the time to look at my font. Now I don't feel as much like I am talking to myself here online :-) >The bottom serif on the l - should the terminal be more similar to the ascender serifs?< I was going by my old caligraphy days where an entrance stroke from a flat pen had a different character than it did at pen lift but that is just a minor historical rationalization. The truth is, I like it that way. It is a mix of caligraphy and character reognition fonts of late where the "l, I, 1" are differentiated. It just feels right to my eyes. I have tried it your way and several others and have gone back to this. The "i" does overshoot but not quite as much as the "o" because it is MUCH flatter.
Chris, you're not speaking to yourself - on my end I was saving the best for last.
Few people can appreciate what you're doing - it's way out there - it requires a dedication to the dark depths of reading - something very rarely promoted.
Know that most type designers who see this will think it's garbage (and most of them won't have the balls to tell you). Some people will think it's "cute". My advice is this: filter feedback based on context: learn to ignore certain specific kinds of advice from people who might be great conventional font designers but have no real idea of the dark currents sweeping to and fro in the recesses of the human brain. Or: Don't ask a poodle trainer to handle an anaconda.
--
It's a good time to back up.
What I think you should go for (and you might already be doing this) is a font that creates a texture (at reading point sizes) the layman won't reject, but diverge the forms as much as possible nonetheless. I think you're actually being slightly conservative! But it will make for a great test case. You will have to publish a booklet (not related to typography) that uses it, and ask laymen (NOT other designers) what they think - and ask them in the most indirect -even devious- ways - to see what's really going on.
Some specifics: -Why are the caps and numerals so conventional? -I'd make the eye of the "e" smaller. -I'd make the "s" narrower and the "y" wider. -I think your accents are generally smallish. -Try making the blank space a hair bigger.
--
> There is a balance between repetition and > variation in any pattern to make it work > aesthetically.
But there's a critical difference here between display and text, between deliberative and immersive reading. The threshold of harmony/discord depends on how deep into the subconscious you're aiming.
What is seen as discord by our finicky -and subjective- conscious aesthetic appreciation is used by the subconscious to read more efficiently.
> the infernal 'Doublemint' jingle.
Tellingly in fact, a study has shown the more obnoxious a jingle the more memorable it is! What we think we like isn't necessarily what we really like.
Hrant, Thanks for your input. I needed your push to tilt me back to heresy and away from dogma :-) I was never one who liked to adhere to fixed absolutes.
>>-Why are the caps and numerals so conventional?
Because I figured caps rarely appear in text and didn't seem to be an issue--However, I have some ideas for the caps too and will try them out.
>-I'd make the eye of the "e" smaller.
I just did, it is better now. You will see when I post the next PDF.
>-I'd make the "s" narrower and the "y" wider.
I see your point with the "s" but I will have to be careful not to make it too dark; tinkering is 90% of this work. The "y" has always bothered me, maybe it is something as simple as the width. I kept thinking I needed to curve the right fork back.
>-I think your accents are generally smallish.
I just enlarged them. (god, I sound like those awful SPAM emails)
>-Try making the blank space a hair bigger. . . .
I have this dilemma with the word space. It seems to need more, as you say, at text sizes but a bit less when used larger. I guess I should trust the user to track the larger sizes tighter.
>But it's less of an "x". <<
Yes it is but I am working on a somewhat different solution involving curves but not stepped. I will post it when it is more resolved.
I have been trying to push a solution (probably too quickly) just to have something for TypeGallery so I went conservative. After I step back for a couple of weeks, I will have a more distant vision and be able "see" better. Right now I am too close to the forest. All of my less-than-typical attempts at this point look completely normal to me. I don't see anything at all radical in what I have done. Perhaps it comes of being too immersed.
I hope you will review my next PDF as well, I need someone to keep me off the straight and narrow :-)
Yes I'm a neighbor not so far away. I do think your narrowing the o helped a lot. I don't quite know how to react to the typeface as it stands. It has polish, and a much more lively texture than most san serifs, which is all to the good. But to me it also looks excentric to a point that is a bit distracting.
It may be that Hrants view is right that the way to go is just all the way with the concept, and just make it as good looking as possible with its varied shape, or maybe even more varied shapes.
Emigre has done a lot of to me excentric stuff that has found a place in the type world, so maybe that is a model.
Actually I think this (or at least what I'm talking about) is a world apart from the Emigre school, because the "eccentricity" is not [purely] for aesthetic effect - it's not a form of artistic expression. In fact more than eccentricity you could call it "realism": referring to the reality that laymen don't care about formal aesthetics the way [most] type designers do - they're essentially concerned with accessing the content instead. Crazy laymen.
I have made numerous adjustmentsto the Regular and have since drawn an Italic version as well. Here is a GIF to see as well as a 3-page PDF which shows alphabets and some large text in Regular, Italic, and mixed together.
Hi Steve. Thanks for your comments. One question regarding the dots on the i and j italics--they are the same, just a copy and paste. Did I perhaps misunderstand you? BTW, the "K" bothered me too but I think the solution is in thinning the right half. I will give it a shot both ways.
Chris, FYI you might want to look at Beret by Eduardo Omine, one of our typophiles here. He recently did a sans with a 'bent' ascender, now published by Linotype.
I think the dots must have been on my eyes! I swear they looked different the first time I checked out the PDF, but now that I go back, they do indeed look the same. Hmmm.
Here is a corrected version of the italic. I fixed the K and p, smoothed the flatness on the bottom of the s, worked on the punctuation to make it more italic like, fixed the tail of the option-R, and included some 10 pt text at the bottom.
The K and p look much better. The whole thing works well at text sizes, which pleases me greatly.
FWIW, I looked at this on my iBook, and the dot issue I saw before seems to be from the screen on it (both Preview and the Shubert plug-in). So, I'm not crazy (or at least this isn't confirmation).
I don't think it would be too calligraphic, given the rest of the traits of the font. Just keep the diamonds the same size ;-) (and don't make them too pointy).
Have you had a chance to look at the slant issue I brought up earlier? I've recently been playing with Syntax, and its ever-so-slight forward slant is very pleasing.
>Have you had a chance to look at the slant issue I brought up earlier?< Maybe it is me but I don't feel the backslant you mentioned. I showed it to a few friends and none of them saw it either. Were you on your iBook again?
No, it definitely isn't an iBook thing. I even printed out the PDF to make sure. My wife's comment was "It looks like it's going to fall over." Give it a 1 degree forward slant and see if it doesn't feel more dynamic.
I am posting a new version of Leporello Regular with a 1 degree slant to test Steve's concept. I have also completed a "Light" version (not slanted) for reviw as well.
Chris, have you tried 1/2 degree? 'Syntax' has that,and it might work for you. Hrant, in the thread that Steve linked, argued that in some range, and it may include the 1 degree, there was an ambiguity that we switch in interpreting as leaning or not. With Syntax you don't notice the lean, but just feel some dynamism.
I think the light version is very elegant. Sans with a touch of engraving. Of course, I think it too would benefit from a slight slant. The only characters that didn't quite look right are the (double) quotation marks. However, I'm at a loss to describe what I would do differently, or even what exactly the problem is.
William, I will try the 1/2 degree. I think the 1 degree is too much--especially at larger sizes. I am still not sold on any slant yet. I am just letting it simmer in my eye for now. I didn't see the back-lean that Steve saw so it is hard for me to judge. I am the kind of person who relies heavily on my eye rather than any kind of set of standards. This makes it hard for me to correct a problem that I don't readily see. I am open to my human failings though and will give it a try.
Steve, The quotes may be just an issue of spacing. It might make it look a bit dark as I have it. I think I will try to nudge them a tad further apart.
I think 1/2 a degree is much more likely to give the effect you want. One degree is probably in the barfogenic zone*, so to speak.
* A term borrrowed from computer animation, where frame rates that are high enough (above ~1/15) are percieved as motion, those low enough (below ~1/8) are percieved as individual images, and anything in between actually makes you physically nauseous.
In a few days fury, I have completed the "Leporello Black" weight and am posting a PDF here for comment. One of these days I am going to have to start thinking about how to release it and what foundries might be interested.
Chris, as I said early in the thread, I found this alphabet as having too much variation in it. Your black version has changed the bent stems effectively into serifs, which for me work much more harmoniously. My guess would be that if you worked backwards and did the lighter weights with a similar treatment, you would have a result that would be more harmonious, and have more use. Two things still stick out to me as awkward. The 'k' having the serif go the opposite way from the b and h I don't see the visual logic in. Also the arm on the r seems too heavy or droopy or something.
A lot of successful faces, I have read, have started out very 'far out', and then the designers have pulled back into a more conventional direction, until they had a more conventional alphabet, but with a distinctive flavor.
Because type design is in my view by nature a very conservative field (unlike science), I think this is the wiser way to go. But of course I am just one pair of eyes, and not professional ones at that.
William, Thanks for your thoughts. I actually started the lighter weights that way and found the serifs too heavy. I will give it some more thought now that some time has gone by and I am starting to get a better understanding of FontLab. I still think the k and h fit my earlier stated design philosophy. It may take some getting used to for many type-savvy people. I have gotten so used to it now that it looks quite normal. When I show it to laymen, they don't even notice even when I point it out to them. I really do appreciate your continued willingness to share your insights. You, Hrant, Steve, and a few others here, have been a very supportive group of sounding boards who are always kind enough to take their time to critique my work. This helps me either focus harder on the pros and cons or shows me possible errors of my ways. Thanks to all my colleagues here online.
I have just completed Greek and Cyrillic character sets as well as Latin Small Caps for Leporello Black. I am familiar with Greek letterforms. My family came to the U.S. from Greece and I spoke Greek as a childbut not much in over 40 years. I know almost nothing about Russian and just took a blind shot at Cyrillic based on my Roman and Greek glyphs so I really need help in Russian arena. Small Caps in a very heavy weight are not the best use but I thought if I could make the Black work, going back to the lighter weights would be easier. Attached is a 2-page PDF with glyph sets and some 10pt text.
The FreeSet shows you what you can do in a Cyrillic be to compensate the overly blackness (reduce the bowl). Currently, your be looks rather weak. Your Cyrillic i is far too deeply cut-in, looks as if it will fall apart. Connect the slanted element more firmly with the stems. Remember that a Cyrillic I is nothing like a reversed Latin N. Compare:
Your Cyrillic ka and zhe are nice, although, since your typeface includes these strange curves like on the top of the Latin k, you might try to make the Cyrillic ka and zhe more curvy, as in the Black Grotesk or Bell Gothic examples:
Fine-tune your Cyrillic el and de -- the left stem of the de should really be slightly slanted. Your lowercase Cyrillic ef is too light, and you're not showing your uppercase ef, so it's hard do say. But you definitely should do some work on that.
The curvy teeth on ce and shcha work well, but they look awfully in the de -- you need to think of something better there. Remember that the teeth in de should *never* point outwards, this makes the letter look like an unskilled skater. The teeth should be either parallel, or they may point inwards -- you sure need some more solid work, and ideally an expert's advice on that.
For a start, your Cyrillic is adequate though. You managed to avoid the most horrific atrocities often found in first-timers' Cyrillics.
The lslash in the Black cut as shown in http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/29/Leporello_Black-53536.pdf is good but the Lslash is not. The slanted element in Lslash should be flatter (i.e. slightly more towards horizontal) and the right arm should be a bit longer. But principally, the Black is very handsome.
The junction of ogonek with the basic letter in the Bold cut is too thin, but in the Black, it's very good. In other words, in the Bold, it looks as if the ogonek is disconnected from the letter in a uglyish way.
As Robert already pointed out, the slanted element in the Light cut as shown in http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/29/Leporellolite10-29-52377.pdf is just too thin. Also, it lslash, the slanted element is too wide, especially to the left. On the other hand, in Lslash, the slanted element is too short to the right, and too much pointing upwards (should be flatter). Also, in the Light, it really looks as if the ogonek were not connected to the letter, which gives a strange effect. Rotate your "p" by 90 degree to the right and look at the connection between the bowl and the stem: it's much "stronger" than your connection between ogonek and "a". I do appreciate your attempt to make a sort of an ink trap there, but it's just too much of an in-cut.
Finally, the figures: somehow they look like a plain rip off from Akzidenz Grotesk. They don't seem to follow the style of the letters. They're just too plain and too round
As usual, Adam comes down hard with a ton of invaluable insight!
I myself would offer this important alert: When a font is structurally "pushy" (not mainstream) like your Latin most certainly is, you have to be very careful about how you cast non-Latin extensions. Since a font is something useful and -hopefully- not just a formal exercise, the various script components of the family have to be useful in the same way for a user to be able to combine the components with a controllable effect. The non-Latin instances of Leporello should be equally pushy, and in the context of users of each script. This is very hard to do for a non-native...
So for example when Adam writes "since your typeface includes these strange curves like on the top of the Latin k, you might try to ...." I immediately think: it's not just about the shape, it's more about what the shapes are supposed to be doing.
Adam, Thank you for taking so much of your valuable time to help me with Cyrillic and CE. I will take some time now and digest your many very helpful comments and make corrections to my fonts. It is a good feeling to know how helpful the world-wide Typophile community is and willing to share their expertise. I didn't realize that the numbers were so AG-like, it was not intended--Good heavens, dare I stir the wrath of Chicago? I'll quickly unAG them :-)
Hrant, Forgive my lack of confidence in pushing the non-latin letterforms. I am the kind of designer who depends on my eyes to see forms digested from my intelect. Since, as you said, I am a non-native and perhaps too cautious in my first venture into Cyrillic (not much had been digested in that arena). I will have another go at it and try not to be so timid. I know I can depend on my colleagues here online to tell me when I have "overpushed" in my attempts :-) Thanks again for your continuing feedback.
Adam, I have worked on the CE glyphs in my Leporello Bold. I also redid the figures as you suggested. I have not worked on the Cyrillic or any of the other weights yet.
Attached is a 3-page PDF with character set and some CE text following it.
Please let me know if I am getting closer especially with the CE.
Very good changes. The ogonek in eogonek could be a bit more to the left (some 7-10% of the glyph's width), now its placement is somewhat not harmonous with the other *ogonek glyphs. Good work on the tcaron/dcaron/lcaron. I think your macrons are too weak and a bit too narrow. The slanted element in lslash is now a bit too bold, make it just as bold as the middle element of the lowercase "a". But the boldness in the uppercase Lslash is OK. Actually, in this particular typeface, you could add a little curliness to your slanted element in Lslash/lslash, just like in Martin Majoor's Seria: http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/%7Eluc/atypi2004-prague/516-medium.jpg or in the 1928 Polish Poltawski typeface: http://www.twardoch.com/tmp/poltawskilslash.jpg This would mean that you'd have to make the endings of the lslash slanted element not completely vertical, but having a slight slant to the left (just as much as in the lower part of the t or l). The curliness wouldn't have to be much, too, but it would add some nice native flair. However, making the slanted element straight as you made it is also fine and looks good. The figures look more comfy now.
Adam, Thank you for your swift reply. I will make the corrections. I like your idea: "you could add a little curliness to your slanted element in Lslash/lslash".
Also, the TYPO link is quite helpful. Filip did quite a good job with his article. That is an exellent publication that every type designer should subscribe to.
Adam, In the Bold, I made the L and l slash more curly as you suggested. I also fixed the macrons and eogonek.
In the Black, I worked more on the Cyrillic and attempted (in my naive way) to correct the errors you noticed. I also tried to bring more harmonious elements from the Latin glyphs into the Cyrillic.
I have designed the Greek and Cyrillic glyphs for the light version of Leporello and added oldstyle figures to the weight as well. I also made further corrections on the Black. Attached are 2 PDFs, one Light and one Black.
I really like how this family has developed! If it's not too expensive, I'll buy a copy of the finished product. I can definitely find uses for it.
The Cyrillic clearly needs more work; my feeling is that it lacks much of the personality of the Latin glyphs that you worked so hard to create. Here are a few specific suggestions:
Forrest, I very much appreciate your comments on the Cyrillic! Thank you for your well thought out suggestions. Since I am not a Russian speaker, I was most cautious about my drawing of the Cyrillic. I felt uneasy departing too far from what was in my limited exposure to slavic languages. I really wanted this font to be as open to language difference as possible so I felt Cyrillic was a requirement--and still do. I do want to push the Cyrillic more as you suggest. I would like to take you up on your generous offer to send scans of Pushkin and whatever handwriting and calligraphy you can spare. Also, if you know of any other good sources in print or online, please let me know. My Google search didn
A comment on Cyrillic: The only thing that truly influences the readability negatively is that 'de' and 'el' have too much empty space in the upper-left corner. Look at the text and you'll see that every time 'de' or 'el' appears inside the word, it creates a huge gap with the previous symbol. Second: usually Russian 'e reversed' and Ukrainian 'ye' are created by taking 'es'=c and putting a dash inside to create a mirrored bottom part of e. They should not be left so open. All the rest looks quite well.
Dunno really. Rich Kegler used it once to describe some font outlines and I thought it was a good word. :^/
Images. Hmm. I have just been told that the masses are having difficulty seeing attachments. As I’m not a technical person and only a loud-mouth (mouth piece) here I wasn’t aware of this problem. So, I’m not sure others will see your images. :^(
Chris, I found Mathew Carter’s critique of your typeface really interesting—it helped me too. He said of some feature—one of the bent ascenders I think—that you don’t really notice it text size, and if you don’t see it, then you should cut that variation. The idea I carried away that when you do some design feature, it should be done with confidence, and to make a difference. That idea of being very intentional about making a difference with a design feature gave me a better concept myself.
Following this up, I wonder what Leporello ’Straight’ would look like. You is so polished and extensive, and that variant might be more quickly welcomed and have strong merits of its own, along with the ’bent’ versions.
William,
I tried that last year. If you scroll back up to my June 20, 2004 post you will see:
“The second PDF shows a synopsis of the opera Don Giovanni used as text. It explains the opera as well as my reasoning for the naming; Plain for Leporello as himself, a servant; cloaked for Leporello partially disguised; and Masqued for him as his master.
The left column of text is in “Plain” and the right column is n “Cloaked.” “
How Leporello goes by now?
Overall I really like it. Only one comment: take a closer look at the bottom bowl of your æ glyph compare to the a. The join between two letters seems not smooth enough.
Good work and keep going this very nice face.
2.Jun.2004 9.17pm
Too bad we can't have MM Leporello ;-)
Overall, I like it, especially the lc g.
The entry stroke on lc b and lc thorn isn't working for me, although I like it on the lc i. Perhaps it's because I then expect it elsewhere, like on lc h, l, k, etc. Also, the counter in uc Thorn looks a bit small to me, especially next to the lc version.
3.Jun.2004 7.53am
Interesting stuff.
There are some strong stylistic 'contradictions' in this 'face (see, for example, h versus n). I wonder what's the rationale behind such design conflicts. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, per se, I just think that the contradictions are too strong/ evident here. The letters need a little more formal coherence, IMHO.
3.Jun.2004 9.15am
I like the uppercase a lot, but I find the lowercase too flowery in places (entry strokes etc.). That's a taste thing though. I'm not qualified to offer any professional opinions ...
R
3.Jun.2004 10.19am
Interesting, but some glyphs needs work.
Lc & uc "s" is too weak, lc "j" is a little bit too heavy. You should shift ogonek to the right on "Aogonek" and "aogonek". Lc "k" is too wide for me. All alternative acutes (Polish kreska) on sacute, cacute, nacute, oacute and zacute have too much stepper slope, and now should go to the left. It is nice that you did an alt.acute but for me the first one, is enough for Polish language too. All accents above (not dots) are to weak (light) for me.
4.Jun.2004 5.38am
You have taken on an interesting challenge of having a greater variety of treatments of individual letters, and still have the whole harmonize and balance. I think a PDF with text would help to see how well it harmonizes or fails to and contradicts itself. The few words you posted promise a nice harmony and balance. If it does harmonize it would be valuable, as you would have achieved a greater differentiation of letters, and possibily easier readability, than is usual in a sans.
7.Jun.2004 8.17pm
Thank you all for taking the time to comment. I have made most of the suggested changes: beefed up the S & s, shifted A & aogonek, narrowed k, fixed Uc Thorn, beefed up all diacritics except dots. I think the "j" weight was an illusion caused by the GIF. Besides the helpful comments of Robert Ole
7.Jun.2004 8.47pm
I get an error message when I try to start up your PDF. 'Acrobat cannot decript this document'. Can you check it?
The more I look the more intriguing this is. Overall, I think the 'inconsistencies' work harmoniously together-though I want to see that PDF!
I wonder whether the h or k or both need the b treatment for the sake of the harmony of the font. Even though they don't have a 'reflection' they could, and it might look more harmonious. The ldq would still have a visual 'reason' not to have the bend.
The only character I don't think works is the g, because unlike the rest it looks odd to me and the oddness doesn't go away. A single story g might still keep to your design rules for this font and work better.
7.Jun.2004 9.13pm
Hey Chris, you're talking alphabet reform! A pet project of mine since '98. Using "conflicts" in the Latin alphabet*, I arrived at the following structures: http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/maslucida.gif
It's not a font, of course - just structures, and explaining everything is a pretty long story - like the fact that they represent an "ideal"** and a given actual font can "tame" the structures as needed - perhaps arriving at somewhere close to Leporello.
* http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/m&s.gif
** Actually, they need tweaking. Again. :-/
You could read my essay in this book if you're interested in learning more:
http://www.gunnarswanson.com/GDandR/GDandR_Book.html
Of course to some people it's the highest form of Blasphemy to suggest that their alphabet is anything short of divinely perfect - and they can hold a covert grudge against you for all Eternity, devoting a big chunk of their lives to striking down anything else you might ever say about anything at all, using any maneuver, any awkward angle of attack - such is the nature of true Devotion, I guess...
--
BTW, I couldn't load the PDF either.
hhp
8.Jun.2004 7.53am
> It's not a font, of course - just structures, and
> explaining everything is a pretty long story -
> like the fact that they represent an "ideal"** and
> a given actual font can "tame" the structures as
> needed - perhaps arriving at somewhere close to
> Leporello.
I understand that polishing those structures and making it a real font would require it to be 'less ideal', but on the other hand, how can you measure, how can you tell if it 'works' or not if it's not a typeface, just an 'idea' of typeface? I mean, how do you know that it needs re-tweaking? I only ask because I really want to know.
> You could read my essay in this book if you're
> interested in learning more: [...]
I've read it. I like your ideas about reform, but the article seems 'dated' now (well, probably because I read Typophile every day).
8.Jun.2004 8.01am
Oh, and thanks for the explanations, Chris.
I'd like to see the PDF too, to see how the divergent letterforms work in text.
8.Jun.2004 9.42am
> how can you tell
You can never know, but you can always "tell", so to speak. Fear of being wrong is something you have overome to create progress, otherwise you're just rehashing established practice. So don't really want to know, really want to invent, I guess.
Yes, the article is dated. But it still ruins lives. ;->
hhp
8.Jun.2004 2.37pm
Sorry about the PDF. I saved as version 6. You guys probably have older Adobe readers. I resaved it as version 4 and hope it is now readable to all of you.
Also, I meant to include the PolishDiacritics link:
<http://studweb.euv-frankfurt-o.de/twardoch/f/en/typo/ogonek/ogonek.html>
ChrisL
Leporello674.pdf (52.6 k)
8.Jun.2004 4.42pm
>You could read my essay in this book if you're interested in learning more:
8.Jun.2004 9.59pm
OK, the PDF works now.
Not surprisingly, this is a face that cannot be evaluated in the normal fashion - otherwise one would blindly conclude "it's ugly" and leave it at that. The relevance of such a design is tied to the existence of the "dark half" of reading, the half where a reader doesn't notice the details of the font, but is affected by it nonetheless.
Evaluating such a font requires a very strong understanding of readability, and the deeper mechanisms of reading, for example to what extent familiarity matters, and what details readers notice. I don't know anybody who can do this. But I can try to share some of my own hazy insight.
- I think the "a" needs its lower-right spur.
- And the "g" needs its ear.
- The "k" needs staggered arms, maybe one of them bowed.
- The "v"/"w"/"y" are too static as a group.
- I'd make the "J" descending.
- The "@" is too chirographic.
- I'd flatten the UC acutes/graves.
- The BP is off.
- That "L" in the Pilcrow is bril!
- I don't think the Differential should lean.
- The Florin should lean though.
BTW, looking at the vertical proportions and color, it looks like a face that would work best at larger text sizes, like around 12 point. But for that the spacing is slightly loose.
Whatever you do though, don't expect virtually anybody to understand what this is about - the Modernist age is not good at tolerating such extrapolation - it's just something you'll have to believe in, and apply in the best way you can.
--
> If that were not so, what would we strive for?
I feel the same way. But some people like to celebrate more than strive. I guess they have more fun though.
> some of the letterform structures you used
> in your GIF look very Middle Eastern
It's possible - although probably based more on my own [circumstantial] background than some actual "old-world" merit...
hhp
9.Jun.2004 6.43am
Hmmm. The text in the PDF for me doesn't solve the harmony problem well enough. It may be the width of the letters is the problem rather than the forms, though. I suspect that you need to narrow the stemless letters - doesn't Dax do this? And also the a seems too wide to me. The flag at the top of the b sticks out too much; its seems visually higher than the straight ascenders - would shortening it make it more harmonious?
You have quite a challenge getting even rhythm into your unconventional forms, but if you succeed you will have something unique. I don't think it's there yet.
9.Jun.2004 5.14pm
Please, look at Victor Gaultneys essey: "Problems of diacritic design for Latin script text faces".
www.sil.org/~gaultney/ProbsOfDiacDesignLowRes.pdf.
Look at acute in Gentium and Linotype Palatino. Palatino has acute about 27 degree, Gentium has acute about 35 degree. This is correct for Polish language.
aogonek and eogonek looks good now (may be very good).
Look at http://fonty.pl/pliki/eurofonty.pdf
Most of Polish diacritics are correct in this example. (But not all of them)
When ogonek is merged with lowercase a in order to create aogonek, should be placed near the right boundary of "a" and sometimes can exceed it.
Ogonek in eogonek should not exceed "e". Yours is OK.
9.Jun.2004 5.58pm
Robert,
Thank you very much for the links, I will study them and then make improvements. The scholarly "Problems of Diacritic Design
10.Jun.2004 6.58pm
> http://fonty.pl/pliki/eurofonty.pdf
Huh. Are these legit derivations?
And I like that Twirl on the last page!
Assuming it's also derived, does anybody know what the original font is?
hhp
19.Jun.2004 9.26pm
I am attaching another PDF witth the changes I have made so far. This time I have only included a limited character set.
I have slightly condensed the font and made numerous tinkerings.
There is also a couple of words in other weights. I actually started the face as a medium weight. Even though medium is the least usefull weight, it gives me clues about all other weights. I then did a bold and a black before starting the regular. I did not show the bolder weights before because they would not work well as a text face. I still have much work to do on them all but would like your collective feedback on what I have so far.
Thanks,
Chris
Lep-secondpdf.pdf (56.0 k)
20.Jun.2004 6.48pm
In an attempt to show my overall plan, I am posting 2 more PDFs. The first is a showing of lc alphabet and brief line of text in 2 styles and 4 weights. The first showing is "Leporello Plain" which has no entry strokes. The second is what I call "Leporello Cloaked." It is the same one I have been posting. I intend a third variation "Leporello Masqued" which will be a half serif version (I have yet to start this version). The other showings are very rough weight variations and obviously need much work. These are: Medium, Bold, and Black.
The second PDF shows a synopsis of the opera Don Giovanni used as text. It explains the opera as well as my reasoning for the naming; Plain for Leporello as himself, a servant; cloaked for Leporello partially disguised; and Masqued for him as his master.
The left column of text is in "Plain" and the right column is n "Cloaked."
ChrisL
Lepp plain and Cloaked.pdf (44.9 k)
Lep-Plain.pdf (60.4 k)
25.Jun.2004 7.54am
I think the narrower letters and the change in the serif on the b are both good improvements.
Now I see your idea of great variation in the letters in your 'cloaked' version. It think it is too much.
There is a balance between repetition and variation in any pattern to make it work aesthetically. I have heard, I forget where, that in music it is about 50-50. If the melody doesn't have some kind of repetition it doesn't come together as a melody, but just is a series of notes. Thus you have the typical establishment of the theme in four bars, the next four bars with variation of the theme, the third four a different variation, and return to the theme.
In other words with too much variation a melody just doesn't come together as a 'gestalt' that the mind can wrap itself around. On the other hand, if there is too much repetition it becomes boring and annoying, like the infernal 'Doublemint' jingle.
I think that this kind of patterning principle also holds for readability. And I think you have gone too far in the variety direction. But if you figure a way to pull back - there are a lot of ways to do it because you have so much variation - you could end up with something that is balanced and innovative.
By the way, the narrowed top of the g works now for me, where it didn't before. But I think the connecting loop to the bottom is off somehow now.
27.Jun.2004 1.46pm
>... I think you have gone too far in the variety direction. But if you figure a way to pull back - there are a lot of ways to do it because you have so much variation - you could end up with something that is balanced and innovative. <
Thank you William. I will keep working on it. I have started work on the italic, perhaps I will find some clues in that process that I can bring back to the roman.
I will try to bring it back far enough to more approach the 4 chord progression. Perhaps I was going too close to Sch
6.Jul.2004 7.43pm
Here is yet another tinkering. Besides many small adjustments throughout, I have mostly abandoned the 2-version concept since the difference between Plain and Cloaked was so small it made no sense to keep both. I went back to just "Regular" and made the entry strokes more normal and predictable at least for now.
I also added, just for fun, a few dingbats that were in keeping with the libretto of the opera. I added a mask, swords (pointing left and right and dueling) and even a "Leporello folder"
I also changed the Pilcrow to resemble a sword broken in two (even though Hrant liked the earlier one.
I still have no kerning but am working on the diacritics now and flirting with an italic.
Hrant-I never liked the stepped "k", it always lookedlike a broken chair to me. I tried the ear on the "g" and the "a" but it looked silly and out of place with the rest.
Please have a look at the PDF and let me know what you all think.
ChrisL
Leporello7-6-04.pdf (56.7 k)
7.Jul.2004 4.26pm
>And I think you have gone too far in the variety direction. But if you figure a way to pull back - there are a lot of ways to do it because you have so much variation <
I think I have "pulled back" enough this time.
I fixed the ligs so that they were not too heavy like my previous post. I have putzed with the sidebearings more and am ready to do more work on kerning now. I finished the complete character set and added text in Italian, Polish, Czech, and German. I read Victor Gaultneys essay: "Problems of diacritic design for Latin script text faces" (thanks Robert) and Adam Twordoch's article as well so I hope I got it right this time.
I have attached a 2-page pdf file which I hope will get some comments (he says, speaking but to himself). The character set and language texts are on page 2.
ChrisL
Leporello7-7-04b.pdf (82.2 k)
8.Jul.2004 6.55am
I'm just working on my first typeface, so be forewarned you are not getting the voice of experience here.
The thing I like most about this now are your serifs at the top of the ascenders.
My suspicion is that if the n, h, and o were slightly narrower it would make for a better rhythm in the text.
I wonder whether it would be better with the l with the serif on the ascender. The bl combination is a little jarring in the text. Having the d with no serif is more 'natural' looking as the serif on the d in a serif face is sometimes different than all the other ascenders.
The bottom serif on the l - should the terminal be more similar to the ascender serifs?
The i serif. I think this needs to relate more to the ascender serif also - maybe just being shorter would work. Now, with the serif bending down, it think it should overshoot like the o; it looks short now. Also you could consider putting a stem on the r. As the Underware fellows explain here the r usually has more of a notch than the m,n. And that helps keep the rn from looking like an m. If you are going to have as serif on the i you might consider doing something on the j and r also.
I don't know what can work here, but I do think that the serifs on the ascenders are a success, and working the face to make it harmonize and work best with these is the way to go.
10.Jul.2004 8.32am
I am posting another updated PDF with adjusted metrics (started more kerning) and fixed the f ligs so that their joins do not look so heavy. I also narrowed the o, O, c, C, G, Q, and D.
William, I see you are a neighboring northern Virginian.
Thanks for taking the time to look at my font. Now I don't feel as much like I am talking to myself here online :-)
>The bottom serif on the l - should the terminal be more similar to the ascender serifs?<
I was going by my old caligraphy days where an entrance stroke from a flat pen had a different character than it did at pen lift but that is just a minor historical rationalization. The truth is, I like it that way. It is a mix of caligraphy and character reognition fonts of late where the "l, I, 1" are differentiated. It just feels right to my eyes. I have tried it your way and several others and have gone back to this.
The "i" does overshoot but not quite as much as the "o" because it is MUCH flatter.
ChrisL
Leporello4.pdf (82.3 k)
11.Jul.2004 10.46pm
I am posting a final broadside speciman of Leporello regular. Thank you to those who have commented.
ChrisL
Leporello Broadside.pdf (547.3 k)
12.Jul.2004 7.31pm
It seems I posted the wrong file last night. Attached is the correct one.
Sorry, late night brain farts.
Chris
Leporello BroadsideLozos.pdf (558.7 k)
17.Jul.2004 1.21pm
Chris, you're not speaking to yourself - on my end I was saving the best for last.
Few people can appreciate what you're doing - it's way out there - it requires a dedication to the dark depths of reading - something very rarely promoted.
Know that most type designers who see this will think it's garbage (and most of them won't have the balls to tell you). Some people will think it's "cute". My advice is this: filter feedback based on context: learn to ignore certain specific kinds of advice from people who might be great conventional font designers but have no real idea of the dark currents sweeping to and fro in the recesses of the human brain. Or: Don't ask a poodle trainer to handle an anaconda.
--
It's a good time to back up.
What I think you should go for (and you might already be doing this) is a font that creates a texture (at reading point sizes) the layman won't reject, but diverge the forms as much as possible nonetheless. I think you're actually being slightly conservative! But it will make for a great test case. You will have to publish a booklet (not related to typography) that uses it, and ask laymen (NOT other designers) what they think - and ask them in the most indirect -even devious- ways - to see what's really going on.
Some specifics:
-Why are the caps and numerals so conventional?
-I'd make the eye of the "e" smaller.
-I'd make the "s" narrower and the "y" wider.
-I think your accents are generally smallish.
-Try making the blank space a hair bigger.
--
> There is a balance between repetition and
> variation in any pattern to make it work
> aesthetically.
But there's a critical difference here between display and text, between deliberative and immersive reading. The threshold of harmony/discord depends on how deep into the subconscious you're aiming.
What is seen as discord by our finicky -and subjective- conscious aesthetic appreciation is used by the subconscious to read more efficiently.
> the infernal 'Doublemint' jingle.
Tellingly in fact, a study has shown the more obnoxious a jingle the more memorable it is! What we think we like isn't necessarily what we really like.
> I never liked the stepped "k"
But it's less of an "x".
hhp
18.Jul.2004 5.53pm
Hrant,
Thanks for your input. I needed your push to tilt me back to heresy and away from dogma :-)
I was never one who liked to adhere to fixed absolutes.
>>-Why are the caps and numerals so conventional?
Because I figured caps rarely appear in text and didn't seem to be an issue--However, I have some ideas for the caps too and will try them out.
>-I'd make the eye of the "e" smaller.
I just did, it is better now. You will see when I post the next PDF.
>-I'd make the "s" narrower and the "y" wider.
I see your point with the "s" but I will have to be careful not to make it too dark; tinkering is 90% of this work.
The "y" has always bothered me, maybe it is something as simple as the width. I kept thinking I needed to curve the right fork back.
>-I think your accents are generally smallish.
I just enlarged them. (god, I sound like those awful SPAM emails)
>-Try making the blank space a hair bigger. . . .
I have this dilemma with the word space. It seems to need more, as you say, at text sizes but a bit less when used larger. I guess I should trust the user to track the larger sizes tighter.
>But it's less of an "x". <<
Yes it is but I am working on a somewhat different solution involving curves but not stepped. I will post it when it is more resolved.
I have been trying to push a solution (probably too quickly) just to have something for TypeGallery so I went conservative. After I step back for a couple of weeks, I will have a more distant vision and be able "see" better. Right now I am too close to the forest. All of my less-than-typical attempts at this point look completely normal to me. I don't see anything at all radical in what I have done. Perhaps it comes of being too immersed.
I hope you will review my next PDF as well, I need someone to keep me off the straight and narrow :-)
ChrisL
18.Jul.2004 6.13pm
Chris,
Yes I'm a neighbor not so far away. I do think your narrowing the o helped a lot. I don't quite know how to react to the typeface as it stands. It has polish, and a much more lively texture than most san serifs, which is all to the good. But to me it also looks excentric to a point that is a bit distracting.
It may be that Hrants view is right that the way to go is just all the way with the concept, and just make it as good looking as possible with its varied shape, or maybe even more varied shapes.
Emigre has done a lot of to me excentric stuff that has found a place in the type world, so maybe that is a model.
18.Jul.2004 6.38pm
Actually I think this (or at least what I'm talking about) is a world apart from the Emigre school, because the "eccentricity" is not [purely] for aesthetic effect - it's not a form of artistic expression. In fact more than eccentricity you could call it "realism": referring to the reality that laymen don't care about formal aesthetics the way [most] type designers do - they're essentially concerned with accessing the content instead. Crazy laymen.
hhp
2.Oct.2004 3.06pm
I have made numerous adjustmentsto the Regular and have since drawn an Italic version as well. Here is a GIF to see as well as a 3-page PDF which shows alphabets and some large text in Regular, Italic, and mixed together.
ChrisL
test Leporeloe & Ital.pdf (37.3 k)
2.Oct.2004 5.56pm
Wow! I quite like the direction this is going, but a few things bother me.
1) The difference in dots for i and j, while I appreciate it, doesn't work for me.
2) The roman feels slightly as if it's leaning left, especially at smaller sizes.
3) And speaking of left, the italic K needs to bulk up on its left side.
4) The italic p looks too `pinched' to me; maybe bring the join down just a hair.
Overall, though, I could see using this for a couple of projects I have. Keep up the good work!
2.Oct.2004 6.53pm
Hi Steve. Thanks for your comments. One question regarding the dots on the i and j italics--they are the same, just a copy and paste. Did I perhaps misunderstand you?
BTW, the "K" bothered me too but I think the solution is in thinning the right half. I will give it a shot both ways.
ChrisL
2.Oct.2004 7.10pm
Chris, FYI you might want to look at Beret by Eduardo Omine, one of our typophiles here. He recently did a sans with a 'bent' ascender, now published by Linotype.
3.Oct.2004 1.02am
they are the same, just a copy and paste
I think the dots must have been on my eyes! I swear they looked different the first time I checked out the PDF, but now that I go back, they do indeed look the same. Hmmm.
3.Oct.2004 7.12am
William,
Thanks for the link. I just looked at Eduardo's "Beret". It is quite a strong family. He should be proud of his excellent work.
Steve,
The "eye of the beholder"? :-) Maybe you just needed one of Starbuck"s famous "Red-eyes" :-)
3.Oct.2004 11.52am
Here is a corrected version of the italic. I fixed the K and p, smoothed the flatness on the bottom of the s, worked on the punctuation to make it more italic like, fixed the tail of the option-R, and included some 10 pt text at the bottom.
ChrisL
Leporel Ital.pdf (34.0 k)
3.Oct.2004 6.39pm
The K and p look much better. The whole thing works well at text sizes, which pleases me greatly.
FWIW, I looked at this on my iBook, and the dot issue I saw before seems to be from the screen on it (both Preview and the Shubert plug-in). So, I'm not crazy (or at least this isn't confirmation).
4.Oct.2004 6.22pm
>So, I'm not crazy (or at least this isn't confirmation).<
But Steve, we had confirmation years ago :-)
BTW, I am toying with the idea of diamond dots for the italic instead of round, Would that be too calligraphic?
ChrisL
5.Oct.2004 12.38am
I don't think it would be too calligraphic, given the rest of the traits of the font. Just keep the diamonds the same size ;-) (and don't make them too pointy).
5.Oct.2004 2.16pm
I tried the diamonds but they are not forever--perhaps it was the setting. I went back to round dots.
ChrisL
6.Oct.2004 11.53am
Diamonds are but lumps of coal.
Have you had a chance to look at the slant issue I brought up earlier? I've recently been playing with Syntax, and its ever-so-slight forward slant is very pleasing.
6.Oct.2004 2.11pm
>Have you had a chance to look at the slant issue I brought up earlier?<
Maybe it is me but I don't feel the backslant you mentioned. I showed it to a few friends and none of them saw it either. Were you on your iBook again?
ChrisL
6.Oct.2004 5.57pm
No, it definitely isn't an iBook thing. I even printed out the PDF to make sure. My wife's comment was "It looks like it's going to fall over." Give it a 1 degree forward slant and see if it doesn't feel more dynamic.
6.Oct.2004 6.03pm
By the way, some of the discussion over in the serif forum is I think relevant, even if serifs aren't the cause of what I see here.
http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/29/50587.html?1097103444
26.Oct.2004 5.12pm
I am posting a new version of Leporello Regular with a 1 degree slant to test Steve's concept.
I have also completed a "Light" version (not slanted) for reviw as well.
ChrisL
Leporello RegSmSlant.pdf (41.6 k)
Leporello liteSm.pdf (34.2 k)
26.Oct.2004 6.05pm
I like it!
I think the slant gives it vibrancy and removes the feeling I had before that it was tipping backwards.
27.Oct.2004 3.17pm
Thanks Peter. Any comment on the light version?
I guess it is time to revisit the bold weights.
27.Oct.2004 7.04pm
Chris, have you tried 1/2 degree? 'Syntax' has that,and it might work for you. Hrant, in the thread that Steve linked, argued that in some range, and it may include the 1 degree, there was an ambiguity that we switch in interpreting as leaning or not. With Syntax you don't notice the lean, but just feel some dynamism.
27.Oct.2004 8.01pm
I think the light version is very elegant. Sans with a touch of engraving. Of course, I think it too would benefit from a slight slant. The only characters that didn't quite look right are the (double) quotation marks. However, I'm at a loss to describe what I would do differently, or even what exactly the problem is.
28.Oct.2004 3.00pm
William,
I will try the 1/2 degree. I think the 1 degree is too much--especially at larger sizes. I am still not sold on any slant yet. I am just letting it simmer in my eye for now. I didn't see the back-lean that Steve saw so it is hard for me to judge. I am the kind of person who relies heavily on my eye rather than any kind of set of standards. This makes it hard for me to correct a problem that I don't readily see. I am open to my human failings though and will give it a try.
Steve,
The quotes may be just an issue of spacing. It might make it look a bit dark as I have it. I think I will try to nudge them a tad further apart.
Thanks for your help,
ChrisL
29.Oct.2004 3.45pm
I am posting PDFs of Leporello Regular and Light slanted 1/2 degree.
Also--Steve, I spaced the double quotes a tad.
ChrisL
Leporellolite10-29.pdf (36.3 k)
Leporello Slanted.5.pdf (40.1 k)
30.Oct.2004 3.33am
Please refer to
http://studweb.euv-frankfurt-o.de/twardoch/f/en/typo/ogonek/stroke.html
and try to change the stroke ends of Lshash to vertical.
30.Oct.2004 11.41am
Thanks Robert, I appreciate your help.
ChrisL
30.Oct.2004 11.48am
I think 1/2 a degree is much more likely to give the effect you want.
One degree is probably in the barfogenic zone*, so to speak.
* A term borrrowed from computer animation, where frame rates that are high enough (above ~1/15) are percieved as motion, those low enough (below ~1/8) are percieved as individual images, and anything in between actually makes you physically nauseous.
hhp
30.Oct.2004 10.29pm
>...One degree is probably in the barfogenic zone*<
LOL!!! I agree and like the term as well.
ChrisL
8.Nov.2004 1.59pm
I have finally completed the "bold" version complete with diacritics and am attaching a PDF for comment.
(sigh of relief)
ChrisL
Leporello bold.pdf (36.5 k)
8.Nov.2004 2.50pm
Again, nice job. The letterspacing looks a bit cramped for my tastes, though.
8.Nov.2004 3.02pm
I think it's actually working better in Bold!
Just the join of the "k" is too much - maybe mimic the UC form.
hhp
12.Nov.2004 10.26pm
In a few days fury, I have completed the "Leporello Black" weight and am posting a PDF here for comment. One of these days I am going to have to start thinking about how to release it and what foundries might be interested.
ChrisL
Leporello Black.pdf (37.2 k)
12.Nov.2004 10.33pm
Hey, the darker this thing gets the better it looks!
Those caps especially are mighty juicy.
hhp
13.Nov.2004 7.39am
Thanks Hrant. I am still going to tey tinkering with the lc "k".
ChrisL
13.Nov.2004 8.02am
Chris, as I said early in the thread, I found this alphabet as having too much variation in it. Your black version has changed the bent stems effectively into serifs, which for me work much more harmoniously. My guess would be that if you worked backwards and did the lighter weights with a similar treatment, you would have a result that would be more harmonious, and have more use. Two things still stick out to me as awkward. The 'k' having the serif go the opposite way from the b and h I don't see the visual logic in. Also the arm on the r seems too heavy or droopy or something.
A lot of successful faces, I have read, have started out very 'far out', and then the designers have pulled back into a more conventional direction, until they had a more conventional alphabet, but with a distinctive flavor.
Because type design is in my view by nature a very conservative field (unlike science), I think this is the wiser way to go. But of course I am just one pair of eyes, and not professional ones at that.
14.Nov.2004 6.11pm
William,
Thanks for your thoughts. I actually started the lighter weights that way and found the serifs too heavy. I will give it some more thought now that some time has gone by and I am starting to get a better understanding of FontLab. I still think the k and h fit my earlier stated design philosophy. It may take some getting used to for many type-savvy people. I have gotten so used to it now that it looks quite normal. When I show it to laymen, they don't even notice even when I point it out to them.
I really do appreciate your continued willingness to share your insights. You, Hrant, Steve, and a few others here, have been a very supportive group of sounding boards who are always kind enough to take their time to critique my work. This helps me either focus harder on the pros and cons or shows me possible errors of my ways. Thanks to all my colleagues here online.
ChrisL
22.Nov.2004 8.46pm
I have just completed Greek and Cyrillic character sets as well as Latin Small Caps for Leporello Black.
I am familiar with Greek letterforms. My family came to the U.S. from Greece and I spoke Greek as a childbut not much in over 40 years.
I know almost nothing about Russian and just took a blind shot at Cyrillic based on my Roman and Greek glyphs so I really need help in Russian arena.
Small Caps in a very heavy weight are not the best use but I thought if I could make the Black work, going back to the lighter weights would be easier.
Attached is a 2-page PDF with glyph sets and some 10pt text.
ChrisL
Russian SC Greek.pdf (38.0 k)
23.Nov.2004 2.38am
Chris,
I'm looking at your Cyrillic. Well, it's a beginning, but you have to do a *lot* of work on it. I recommend that you take a look at ParaType's typefaces. Since your font is black, I'd recommend taking a look at:
http://www.myfonts.com/url?f55ca8b86e1a8e60af8495bfc7b5dcd8
and
http://www.myfonts.com/url?7492efd8ae9cb7d464a951168297962d
http://www.myfonts.com/url?ccb28769dd0f8d2a65527e8cfe0ddaa4
The FreeSet shows you what you can do in a Cyrillic be to compensate the overly blackness (reduce the bowl). Currently, your be looks rather weak. Your Cyrillic i is far too deeply cut-in, looks as if it will fall apart. Connect the slanted element more firmly with the stems. Remember that a Cyrillic I is nothing like a reversed Latin N. Compare:
http://www.myfonts.com/url?410beb03e5667abdc04b7075b0000d28
http://www.myfonts.com/url?706f3090cb966e757739c1314953a1d7
Your Cyrillic ka and zhe are nice, although, since your typeface includes these strange curves like on the top of the Latin k, you might try to make the Cyrillic ka and zhe more curvy, as in the Black Grotesk or Bell Gothic examples:
http://www.myfonts.com/url?e352c081f46e0ea7510a8a5cdbd4f6b7
http://www.myfonts.com/url?c8bc472ba1152c4d8956565982c4b237
Fine-tune your Cyrillic el and de -- the left stem of the de should really be slightly slanted. Your lowercase Cyrillic ef is too light, and you're not showing your uppercase ef, so it's hard do say. But you definitely should do some work on that.
The curvy teeth on ce and shcha work well, but they look awfully in the de -- you need to think of something better there. Remember that the teeth in de should *never* point outwards, this makes the letter look like an unskilled skater. The teeth should be either parallel, or they may point inwards -- you sure need some more solid work, and ideally an expert's advice on that.
For a start, your Cyrillic is adequate though. You managed to avoid the most horrific atrocities often found in first-timers' Cyrillics.
You may want to simplify the dcaron, tcaron, lcaron -- refer to the diacritics article in http://www.magtypo.cz/download/TYPO_2004_10.pdf
The lslash in the Black cut as shown in http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/29/Leporello_Black-53536.pdf is good but the Lslash is not. The slanted element in Lslash should be flatter (i.e. slightly more towards horizontal) and the right arm should be a bit longer. But principally, the Black is very handsome.
The junction of ogonek with the basic letter in the Bold cut is too thin, but in the Black, it's very good. In other words, in the Bold, it looks as if the ogonek is disconnected from the letter in a uglyish way.
As Robert already pointed out, the slanted element in the Light cut as shown in http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/29/Leporellolite10-29-52377.pdf is just too thin. Also, it lslash, the slanted element is too wide, especially to the left. On the other hand, in Lslash, the slanted element is too short to the right, and too much pointing upwards (should be flatter). Also, in the Light, it really looks as if the ogonek were not connected to the letter, which gives a strange effect. Rotate your "p" by 90 degree to the right and look at the connection between the bowl and the stem: it's much "stronger" than your connection between ogonek and "a". I do appreciate your attempt to make a sort of an ink trap there, but it's just too much of an in-cut.
Finally, the figures: somehow they look like a plain rip off from Akzidenz Grotesk. They don't seem to follow the style of the letters. They're just too plain and too round
Best regards,
Adam
23.Nov.2004 10.54am
As usual, Adam comes down hard with a ton of invaluable insight!
I myself would offer this important alert:
When a font is structurally "pushy" (not mainstream) like your Latin most certainly is, you have to be very careful about how you cast non-Latin extensions. Since a font is something useful and -hopefully- not just a formal exercise, the various script components of the family have to be useful in the same way for a user to be able to combine the components with a controllable effect. The non-Latin instances of Leporello should be equally pushy, and in the context of users of each script. This is very hard to do for a non-native...
So for example when Adam writes "since your typeface includes these strange curves like on the top of the Latin k, you might try to ...." I immediately think: it's not just about the shape, it's more about what the shapes are supposed to be doing.
hhp
23.Nov.2004 6.06pm
Adam,
Thank you for taking so much of your valuable time to help me with Cyrillic and CE. I will take some time now and digest your many very helpful comments and make corrections to my fonts. It is a good feeling to know how helpful the world-wide Typophile community is and willing to share their expertise.
I didn't realize that the numbers were so AG-like, it was not intended--Good heavens, dare I stir the wrath of Chicago? I'll quickly unAG them :-)
Hrant,
Forgive my lack of confidence in pushing the non-latin letterforms. I am the kind of designer who depends on my eyes to see forms digested from my intelect. Since, as you said, I am a non-native and perhaps too cautious in my first venture into Cyrillic (not much had been digested in that arena). I will have another go at it and try not to be so timid. I know I can depend on my colleagues here online to tell me when I have "overpushed" in my attempts :-) Thanks again for your continuing feedback.
ChrisL
24.Nov.2004 6.00pm
Adam,
I have worked on the CE glyphs in my Leporello Bold. I also redid the figures as you suggested. I have not worked on the Cyrillic or any of the other weights yet.
Attached is a 3-page PDF with character set and some CE text following it.
Please let me know if I am getting closer especially with the CE.
Thanks,
ChrisL
Leporello Bold CE 11-24.pdf (35.8 k)
25.Nov.2004 1.54am
Chris,
Very good changes. The ogonek in eogonek could be a bit more to the left (some 7-10% of the glyph's width), now its placement is somewhat not harmonous with the other *ogonek glyphs. Good work on the tcaron/dcaron/lcaron. I think your macrons are too weak and a bit too narrow. The slanted element in lslash is now a bit too bold, make it just as bold as the middle element of the lowercase "a". But the boldness in the uppercase Lslash is OK. Actually, in this particular typeface, you could add a little curliness to your slanted element in Lslash/lslash, just like in Martin Majoor's Seria:
http://cgm.cs.mcgill.ca/%7Eluc/atypi2004-prague/516-medium.jpg
or in the 1928 Polish Poltawski typeface:
http://www.twardoch.com/tmp/poltawskilslash.jpg
This would mean that you'd have to make the endings of the lslash slanted element not completely vertical, but having a slight slant to the left (just as much as in the lower part of the t or l). The curliness wouldn't have to be much, too, but it would add some nice native flair. However, making the slanted element straight as you made it is also fine and looks good. The figures look more comfy now.
Also, something's wrong with your "y".
Best,
Adam
25.Nov.2004 8.04am
Adam,
Thank you for your swift reply. I will make the corrections.
I like your idea: "you could add a little curliness to your slanted element in Lslash/lslash".
Also, the TYPO link is quite helpful. Filip did quite a good job with his article. That is an exellent publication that every type designer should subscribe to.
ChrisL
26.Nov.2004 10.23pm
Adam,
In the Bold, I made the L and l slash more curly as you suggested. I also fixed the macrons and eogonek.
In the Black, I worked more on the Cyrillic and attempted (in my naive way) to correct the errors you noticed. I also tried to bring more harmonious elements from the Latin glyphs into the Cyrillic.
Please review the 2 PDFs attached.
Thank you,
ChrisL
Leporello CE Bold 11-27.pdf (36.0 k)
Russian Greek 11-27.pdf (33.7 k)
27.Nov.2004 3.48pm
Nice numerals Chris.
27.Nov.2004 4.56pm
Thanks Robert--maybe I won't now be getting a visit from Chicago lawyers :-)
Chris
28.Nov.2004 1.41pm
I noticed a few problems in the Black Greek and Cyrillic which I fixed (be, i, ve, and a few other tinkerings). See attachrd PDF.
ChrisL
Russian Greek 11-28.pdf (33.7 k)
17.Dec.2004 7.57pm
I have designed the Greek and Cyrillic glyphs for the light version of Leporello and added oldstyle figures to the weight as well. I also made further corrections on the Black.
Attached are 2 PDFs, one Light and one Black.
Chris
Greek Cyrilic lite.pdf (51.9 k)
Greek Cyrilic Black.pdf (52.5 k)
5.Jan.2005 5.47pm
I really like how this family has developed! If it's not too expensive, I'll buy a copy of the finished product. I can definitely find uses for it.
The Cyrillic clearly needs more work; my feeling is that it lacks much of the personality of the Latin glyphs that you worked so hard to create. Here are a few specific suggestions:
6.Jan.2005 6.34am
Forrest,
I very much appreciate your comments on the Cyrillic! Thank you for your well thought out suggestions. Since I am not a Russian speaker, I was most cautious about my drawing of the Cyrillic. I felt uneasy departing too far from what was in my limited exposure to slavic languages. I really wanted this font to be as open to language difference as possible so I felt Cyrillic was a requirement--and still do. I do want to push the Cyrillic more as you suggest. I would like to take you up on your generous offer to send scans of Pushkin and whatever handwriting and calligraphy you can spare. Also, if you know of any other good sources in print or online, please let me know. My Google search didn
7.Jan.2005 12.39am
I've got a better idea: here's a monoline script that uses the Russian cursive forms:
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/paratype/propisi/
I'll keep my eyes peeled for some high-quality calligraphy to pass your way.
7.Jan.2005 1.23pm
A comment on Cyrillic: The only thing that truly influences the readability negatively is that 'de' and 'el' have too much empty space in the upper-left corner. Look at the text and you'll see that every time 'de' or 'el' appears inside the word, it creates a huge gap with the previous symbol.
Second: usually Russian 'e reversed' and Ukrainian 'ye' are created by taking 'es'=c and putting a dash inside to create a mirrored bottom part of e. They should not be left so open.
All the rest looks quite well.
7.Jan.2005 5.54pm
Andrey,
Thank you very much! I will try your suggestions and post changes.
ChrisL
3.Aug.2005 12.20pm
Testing to see what happens if I post to this crit and see where it surfaces under Typophile 2.
ChrisL
3.Aug.2005 12.39pm
Chris, start a new thread when you do ... this one is a little hinky.
3.Aug.2005 2.56pm
“hinky”? OK Tiff, I know I am an old geezer but what does that mean?
If I start a new thread, will I be able to post images that show? I know, my first GIF is too Jagounda (that is old guy speak for “way too big”).
ChrisL
3.Aug.2005 3.01pm
Dunno really. Rich Kegler used it once to describe some font outlines and I thought it was a good word. :^/
Images. Hmm. I have just been told that the masses are having difficulty seeing attachments. As I’m not a technical person and only a loud-mouth (mouth piece) here I wasn’t aware of this problem. So, I’m not sure others will see your images. :^(
3.Aug.2005 3.06pm
Tiff,
I met you, you are no loud mouth. You are actually much more soft spoken than I thought—even shy!
ChrisL
3.Aug.2005 3.29pm
Chris, I found Mathew Carter’s critique of your typeface really interesting—it helped me too. He said of some feature—one of the bent ascenders I think—that you don’t really notice it text size, and if you don’t see it, then you should cut that variation. The idea I carried away that when you do some design feature, it should be done with confidence, and to make a difference. That idea of being very intentional about making a difference with a design feature gave me a better concept myself.
Following this up, I wonder what Leporello ’Straight’ would look like. You is so polished and extensive, and that variant might be more quickly welcomed and have strong merits of its own, along with the ’bent’ versions.
Just a thought.
3.Aug.2005 4.29pm
William,
I tried that last year. If you scroll back up to my June 20, 2004 post you will see:
“The second PDF shows a synopsis of the opera Don Giovanni used as text. It explains the opera as well as my reasoning for the naming; Plain for Leporello as himself, a servant; cloaked for Leporello partially disguised; and Masqued for him as his master.
The left column of text is in “Plain” and the right column is n “Cloaked.” “
ChrisL
19.Nov.2005 4.53am
How Leporello goes by now?
Overall I really like it. Only one comment: take a closer look at the bottom bowl of your æ glyph compare to the a. The join between two letters seems not smooth enough.
Good work and keep going this very nice face.
19.Nov.2005 12.43pm
“take a closer look at the bottom bowl of your glyph compare to the a. “
André,
Did you leave something out of your post? Perhaps which glyph you mean?
ChrisL
PS: Thanks for your kind comments!
19.Nov.2005 5.37pm
The glyph I was talking is the æ