New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
This is my first attempt at designing a (very rudimentary) typeface.
I've used a simple system where each letter is based on the letter "o" – although I'm aware that such a rigid approach is problematic to say the least. (I've tweaked only a few letters so far.)
All feedback on further alterations I need to consider, etc, would be much appreciated, thanks.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| type-A-Z-new-black.jpg | 657 KB |
26 Apr 2011 — 1:55pm
This is a classic approach. See, as reference:
http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/cheapprofonts/geometry-soft-pro/
http://www.bowfinprintworks.com/BauhausFaces1.html
What could be interesting in your take is the varying width of the stroke.
26 Apr 2011 — 2:31pm
riccard0, thanks for your reply.
As you say I think that the varying width is the potentially interesting aspect here.
Any comments on specific alterations to individual glyphs / the overall typeface would be appreciated.
26 Apr 2011 — 3:18pm
It all depends on how much you want to stick to the purely geometric construction. Otherwise, optically, s is too narrow/unbalanced, u and k are too wide, etc.
27 Apr 2011 — 3:06am
Thanks again for the feedback: this is exactly the sort of help I was hoping for. I don't really understand how one makes decisions about glyph width, etc, etc. Are there specific rules? Is it done purely by eye?
I'd be happy to sacrifice the rigidity of the geometric system in an attempt to create a much more subtle typeface, although I don't want to lose the overall geometric feel. I will try making some alterations and upload the results soon.
27 Apr 2011 — 3:47am
You could start here:
http://typographica.org/2010/on-typography/making-geometric-type-work/
3 May 2011 — 6:45am
Varying the widths will give you much more flexibility. The lowercase k in particular would benefit from being more narrow