New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Create an account
Typophile RSS | More Feeds
A mild conflict on the verge of Type War III: Which e should I go with? Top: the rotalic. Bottom: the geometric cursive.
Im not a type genius but they both look like they might fall over.
Interesting forms though. this is for a font rather than a logo right?
Yes, it’s for a font.
the one at bottom.
Bottom, but have you tried making the crossbar even steeper?
Bottom one for sure. You might even drop the left bottom join of the crossbar a bit further down and soften the upper right join a bit?
Ok, got the point. Guess the world ain’t ready for all my revolutionary ideas quite yet ;)
If you did the first one, you might end of up on a thread where people talk about fonts that are fine except for one glyph that annoys them. ;-)
I would’ve said to try a more horizontal e’s bar, but I seem to be in total minority here! ;-)
Just a curiosity: single storey a, but double storey g?
Horizontal bar: weighed and found to light. That one glyph I just can’t stand: Thanks, appreciated :) Single story a double story g: Well what do you expect when I’m braking all the rules anyway?
The world's never ready for revolutions anyway. I'm sure that taking the top off the a's stem and putting a slight downward bend in the e's bar would drive them to Rama-wail.
At first glance I said the first for sure, but the more I look at it the more I like the top one, it feel in more harmony with the rest, I'm even thinking you should try a horizontal par.
I'm not sure. And I think type designer who try to
break rules can be expressing... social responsibility. :-)
Frode, have you looked at the work of Gareth Hague? He's doing something
similar - like in the London Olympics font*, and Klute. Look at Keks too.
Frode, You asked if we liked the first or second one best and showed just 2 images. I certainly think there is a nook in the world for an italic font that has the e crossbar slanted the opposite way of what is commonly "accepted". To do this, however, it must SING and be lovable as a form. The sample you have shown does not sing or even hum well. That is not to say that you are not capable of making one that does. It just means that that sample on top does not yet do it.
As far as I am concerned, screw "the rules" and design what you want. You must do it well enough to overcome the furrowed brows of enough users to make it worth your while to release though. It is quite easy to get a full bunch of nodding heads that say "yes, fine job" if you follow the well trodden path of history and knee-jerk acceptance. The trouble is, you have just made "one more of those like the rest". If that is all you seek, just do a revival of something already beloved. If, however, you want something that you have passion for and that drifts beyond the first standard deviation, then, you must choose the path less taken but be willing to get lost, be scorned, and risk total failure. You also must be willing to work harder and longer for the slimmest chance of reward. If this sounds intriguing to you, get out your lance and look for a windmill[e] to conquer. You may or may not find Dolcim[e]a but you will have a happier journey wherever you end up ;-)
Regarding the "e", if you dare do it, then DO it;-)
And if dezcom's inspirational speech didn't convince you, you could always put the funky "e" in a stylistic set...
Personally I like the rotalic e in idea. It has turned with the angle. A rounded bowl might fit better with the other letters.
I came across Eric Sans while browsing the list of lists thread.
Yes! Peter’s stuff are all gems. Go gettem!
Yet another reason to make your italic special...
Stay tuned, Hrant. Us Norwegian are working like crazy.