New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
which of these designs is more "correct"?
Here's the deal. I'm pretty happy with A. I'm trying to design a weight lighter and I'd like some guidance on which approach works better. The main difference between B and C is that C's counterspaces are wider. Proportionally, which one of these is better? Right now, these heavy designs are for display, but I might progress to designing lighter weights with a more text-friendly approach. Backward huh?
Also, comments on specific glyphs would be greatly appreciated.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| badhesionslaught.gif | 42.69 KB |
![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \"which of these designs is more "correct"?\""){kind=small}
User login
Support our Sponsors
4 Dec 2009 — 1:56am
I think A is the best. The overlap of the letters creates a more striking visual effect than the other two.
4 Dec 2009 — 6:15am
Sorry, I could've been clearer. I meant to ask which is better between B and C. In the font family, A is the extra black, and either B or C will be the black.
4 Dec 2009 — 9:51am
B.
The counters of C are too big.
7 Dec 2009 — 3:38pm
That's what I'm thinking, but looking at the negative space in "ION" of B and C, it seems C has a better, balanced pattern. Is that important in a display face such as this?
10 Dec 2009 — 1:26am
If it were a logo, I would say "absolutely". Being a typeface, you should consider the whole of the alphabet and its combinations.
10 Dec 2009 — 6:48am
Frankly they all seem like legitimate separate members of a family. Could you just call C "extended" and move along from there?
Another thought is to mix the one-story letters of C (o,b,d,D,O) with the two-story letters of B (a,e,s,E,S). Horizontal counters in the two-story letters are the main flaw of C to my eyes.
You could also probably find a good compromise by interpolating them.