New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
New sans serif critique
Posted by rosaiani in
20 Nov 2004 — 11:37am
20 Nov 2004 — 11:37am
Hi everyone,
It'd be awesome to hear your comments and opinions on this sans serif. 
Thanks
Rodrigo
User login
Support our Sponsors
21 Nov 2004 — 1:45am
I like it. Bold and playful - bold in the non-fonty sense, that is.
The strokes on the e seem a little thin on the sides.
21 Nov 2004 — 4:07am
I think the top bowl of the g is a mite too small, especially in comparison to the lower bowl. It's also a bit skewed, not really upright; tutn it a degree or so clockwise...
The e is a bit flat on the left side. Should be more like o.
You also should normalise the bits where bowls meet verticals (eg b is too much unlike a and u -- I mean the lower parts).
All in all I think this is a very mature effort. Wish I could have done this!
21 Nov 2004 — 9:23am
Thanks guys I'll be posting the changes soon
Keep 'em coming!
24 Nov 2004 — 8:26am
Here are some changes and new characters in the typeface.
24 Nov 2004 — 8:42am
At first I didn't like this, but now it seems to be clicking for me. That "g" is quite nice for one thing. Speaking of which though, the descender depth for it is much greater than the rest - even greater than the ascenders.
I guess the main thing about this design is that the stroke contrast is funny - it looks like it was mechanically squished in Illustrator or something. But I guess you want that as a feature, and that could very well be an interesting angle. Just know that when a type designer sees it in actual use he'll probably blame the setter and think: "Another case of squishing, yuk!" :-)
BTW, it seems to me that the "s" doesn't have enough of that effect.
hhp
24 Nov 2004 — 8:55am
Hi Hrant,
you're right I have to rethink the contrast. I definitely don't want it to look "artificially" compressed. I was making the strokes mathematically the same weight instead of optically, but it d
24 Nov 2004 — 9:18am
On the g, I think the top can be small as in the first posting. Charlotte Sans has a small eye, and looks very good. Also it will give you more space to develop the loop, so it doesn't have to descend so much. The way you join the arches to the stems of hmn is interesting, but I would need to see a text setting to see how the letters work together.
24 Nov 2004 — 10:05am
Let me clarify:
I think the funky contrast is the main thing this design has going for it. See the work of Excoffon and Bloemsma. All the glyphs you show except the "s" have the effect.
hhp
24 Nov 2004 — 9:09pm
Here's a test where the type gets wider. I also modified the g so the descender matches the other descenders.
5 Dec 2004 — 2:07am
Just "finished" drawing lowercase, this is a pdf showing big to small and in text setting. I chose to go with the old version. refinements are still needed though.
first_sheet.pdf (11.3 k)
5 Dec 2004 — 11:44am
Irony is a great name for this!
The outer top-left and bottom-left curves of the "a" need to come out a little bit more.
Why get mushy on the ear of the "g"?
I still don't get the descender depth variance.
The join of the "k" is too thick.
The "s" is: leaning back; top-heavy; and needs a curvier spine.
hhp
5 Dec 2004 — 11:47am
I think this typeface has some good things going for it. One thing that I noticed (this may be intended, not sure) is that the bowls look like they are about to fall off of the vertical strokes on the d, p, b, q etc. You may want to consider optically strengthening the connection by letting the counter cut into the vertical stroke. I hope this makes sense to you.
5 Dec 2004 — 11:56am
I think you might indeed strengthen the connections (maybe) just as long as you don't go against -what I see as- the essence of this design, which revolves around a funky modulation.
hhp
5 Dec 2004 — 10:19pm
Good points Hrant the , glad you like the name too!
On the p, b, q, d I really had trouble making it work... it makes sense to cut across the vertical stroke, I'll try to make that and still keep the main features
Hrant, by mushy g ear you mean that the curves are too soft, maybe that the connections should be corner-like?
Also, do ya'll agree that the y is looking thinner than the rest of the glyphs?
Thanks!
6 Dec 2004 — 11:01am
The ear of the "g": the two connection points should be abrupt I think.
hhp
6 Dec 2004 — 5:00pm
I agree about not understanding irregularity of descender length.
As for the y, do the different strokes need to be such different weights. Maybe this is why it's reading weaker/thinner to you. I think the weight of the right stroke relates more to the other characters.
The s is the character that feels like least at home to me. Perhaps you could flatten the angle of the diagonal a little, and that would open up the transition into the curves.
The e also feels a little rounded out in comparison to the o,b,c,d,p,q.
since we are speaking about the ear of the g, i feel the angle of it's end should relate better to the angle of r, a, c. Maybe not; maybe the ear exists more in the world of the cross of the f and t and t, and the end cut should remain vertical.