I'm designing a NEW FONT - which g & y combination looks best?

djnippa's picture

I need your help.

I’m designing a NEW FONT called NCD Octangle.
I've tried to make it readable and usable at most sizes whilst still retaining an edge.
It also comes in several weights. This is the lightest weight.

Q1. Which g & y do you think works best 1,2,3,4 or 5?
Q2. Which one do you prefer 1,2,3,4 or 5?

What you must have in mind that it must work at a small size.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

satya's picture


This seems a display face, I don't think it will work in text sizes.

Cristobal Henestrosa's picture

Q1: /g/ in 1 and 5 looks very similar to /q/. And the double story /g/ in 2 and 3 doesn’t look so good in the small sample. So I’d go for number 4.

Q2: 4. Second place: 3.

djnippa's picture

@ Sataya.
That may be so with this weight, but that's the case with most thin fonts.
The regular and above all work very well at 5pt.

@ Cristobal.
Great answer. Thanks.

djnippa's picture

POSTED by FRANK SMITH from another thread.

4 is esthetically superior; I like its g better but I guess it’s a bit less legible than the other gees. The name “Octangle” is a winner!

peggo's picture

In 1 "q" and "g" can be so similar in small text and its differences aren't enough.

Although "y" in 2 it's fine, leave closer and better in 4

And 5 absolutelly not, cuz your "g" its so similar to "q"

Then I prefer 3 but 4 is more simple and clear to read.

better wishes for your works..!!!

riccard0's picture

y: number 5.
g: number 6 (which is a cross between 1 and 4). Unless, of course, you’re working on old style numerals! ;-)

anhng's picture

I agree that line 3, y and g is the most legible at smaller size, because y and g is more define and more friendly. and I can recognize the letter faster than other at smaller size.

Another thing, I think this should be a display typeface in bigger size, because it has a lot of interesting little elements, like little finial extended out, little cut, little angle, if it sets at smaller size, you'll loose all of that goodies. Beside, it's very thin to set at smaller size.

djnippa's picture

Sorry for the late reply, I've been traveling.
Thanks for all the comments, everything was taken on board, and in the end I went for 4 with the second option of the double story g as an alternative by pressing the '§' key.

Covers all bases, and keeps the best options available.

Cristobal Henestrosa's picture

> with the second option of the double story g as an alternative by pressing the ’§’ key

Not so sure about this if someone else is going to use this font. If I press ‘§’, I expect to get ‘§’, not an alternate ‘g’.

But that’s another (double) story… ;-)

Good luck.

djnippa's picture

@ Cristobal.
Thanks for your comments, but in the 22 years I've been a qualified designer I've never used the "§" key on any job.
I think having the double g is a much better option, it makes the font far more flexible, and in the end, improves its usability.

Cristobal Henestrosa's picture

Of course, and probably this font is not meant to be used for the kind of work who would need a § sign.

I am just saying that it implies an additional bit of care. You can write ti§er and actually get tiger. Fine. But, if at some moment you decide to substitute the font, you will get plain ti§er. No problem if it’s just a word, but if it is a paragraph, or some words here and there, you may not notice the change until too late.

So I’d rather go for an alternate font called NCD Octangle Alt or something that includes this double story g in the g slot. Or OT stylistic alternates (a related problem here, though).

djnippa's picture

Ah, that makes things a lot clearer, and point most definitely taken on board.

You're right, there's no point trying to cram it all into one font.
When there's more money to be made, with two versions to buy.

This is the thinnest in the family.
So NCD Octagonal 10 Alts will be drafted,
although there are 8 different weights in the whole Family going up to 80.
So 8 new 'ALTS' versions in total.

You've just changed my whole set-up in the way I perceive alternative glyphs.
For the better I might add.

many thanks

J-Gray's picture

I would go with #2 if it were up to me.

Syndicate content Syndicate content