ITC Kabel

Vectoras x-height should be large enough for anybody, and there's no contrast to write home about either. I have no idea about its on-screen behaviour, though.

I'm working on something. It still needs some tweaks but might be along the lines of what you're looking for, if you can wait a few weeks-months.

I'm a bit confused about the large x-height criterion. Something like Fedra Sans has a larger x-height, it seems on first glance, than Avant Garde Gothic or Kabel. But lots of contemporary sans serif designs have comparable x-heights, and even old standbys like Helvetica don't differ that much on x-height. Cuttlefish's Californian Grotesque, I'm sorry to say, has a tiny x-height relative to all the designs mentioned.

So does Fedra Sans fit the bill? Or should we look for even larger x-heights?

Well, the plain weight x-height of CaliGrot is pretty average but the extra bold is getting up there, though it's kind of disguised by having tall ascenders too.

OK, maybe it's not what we're looking for over here

"The x-height will always be relative to the ascenders/descenders length "

Really?

Michael

That's an extreme example, Michael. Would you say it has a large or small x-height?

The other way to define x-height would be something like: measure the letters width vs height. In other words, a condensed typeface would have a really large x-height.

:)

Well, I still think my observation applies.

"In other words, a condensed typeface would have a really large x-height."

I am trying to relate this calligraphically. If I were to cut the height of a normal ascender in any given lettered face then the x-height would go up... right? Condensing a style and keeping the as/descenders the same has no effect on the xh! To me a lot has to do with the height to weight ratio and the height of the as/descenders. You are testing my understanding so thank you Frode! I am wondering about the standard definitions now.

We need to question the dictionary on a regular basis.

Michael

I don't think a narrow typeface has high x-height, I just used it as an example of how it could be understood if we didn't have the common understanding of x-height as the proportion of the whole "slug" (slug minus ascenders and descenders).

I first stated that "x-height will always be relative to the ascenders/descenders length (and cap height)".

Whoa, this thread is messing with my mind. I suddenly start envisioning a Multiple Masters kind of program, except that instead of just providing different weights, it would be able to control the x-height (by changing ascender and descender heights). Simple programming for largely vertical characters, but a lot of challenges for sloped strokes like on the y and g.

Both Fedra and Lexicon (and probably many other) have versions with different x-height, Don. No automated workflow, though:)

I wonder how Antique Olive will work on screen. Crazy, perhaps, but still...

Just digging through some MyFonts tags:

Noa
Sone
Terfens

"I am trying to relate this calligraphically"

1. If a given script is 15 pens high from ascender to decender and the xheight is 5 pens high;
2. If a given script is 15 pens high from ascender to decender and the xheight is 10 pens high;

Which script has the large xheight?

Comsider the xheight as a ratio to cap height or body height.

ChrisL

Exactly what I was trying to say above Chris but lack o' sleep got in the way. I threw the Koch face in because I consider it an anomaly.

Michael

Flama? Maybe not exactly a large x-height, but prominent? I don't know. I just love Flama.