Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Best Of

  • Re: Type Network

    Congratulations, Mark.
    I have recently applied for membership and wait for response.
  • Re: Using emoji cuts my post off

    It affects any character outside BMP not just emoji. Actually thanks to emoji many software now has better Unicode support as software developers can’t dismiss requests to support characters outside BMP as being exotic anymore.
  • MyFonts and families

    Have any of you with families on myFonts noticed a drastic reduction in sales since Monotype started pushing their subscription service? Before they took over my family sales were pretty healthy, now it's mainly singles with the occasional family. Anybody else noticed the same?
  • Re: TrueType-based fonts and post table version 3.0

    Here’s a comparison as animated gif. The x-height and cap height alignments don’t work with post table version 3.



    The effect is not visible in all sizes (shown is 16 px).
  • Re: TrueType-based fonts and post table version 3.0

    Here is another case, a bit different, because it is an OT-CFF font, but with wrong glyph names: the small caps glyphs have been encoded as lowercase letters, but their glyph names kept the UC base name and .sc suffix.



    When the glyphs are renamed to their proper names, the screen display improves. Again, differences appear only up to 18 px font size.


  • Re: Start Grotesque

    Third Swiss in this thread, hi!

    As the others said, you have mostly decently drawn curves. I think the concept right now is too intellectual, and not enough visual for a successful typeface. The impact of your intellectual concept on most of the letters is very unclear to me. You mention the curves hitting the stems straight-on, which function relatively well. And of course the very visible ü, long s, hyphen. But those three are quite specific characters, and your solutions for them are extreme. 

    I’d be interested to see your base concept put to use across the typeface’s base characters a bit more visually, more directly. Because right now, it pretty much just looks like a grotesque with hard curve/stem connections. I think your main problem with bringing in more blackletter aspects is that your typeface isn’t very calligraphic, and thus more calligraphic aspects will quickly look out of place, non-organically added on top of an existing design.

    I hope you two don’t misunderstand my feedback as too harsh, I don’t mean to be discouraging. Refining and sthe concept of a typeface is hard. Good luck with your design! 
  • Re: Start Grotesque

    Welcome to the world of type design!

    This makes for a great learning exercise, but to me it's too conventional to bother taking all the way to a finished product. As a beginner it's tempting to throw in novelty to escape conformity, but it paradoxically takes experience to know what works... Case in point: I think in this context the "e" diaeresis is just jarring.

    Your curve quality is pretty good (except in the "a" and "s" – two difficult characters) but I noticed the following vertical alignment issues: your "g", "j" and "y" seem to be descending to different depths; the caps are as tall as the ascenders, which makes acronyms stand out too much. Also, the "u" is too wide.

    Keep it up!
  • Re: Sailboat – a grotesque

    The /u generally needs to be a bit narrower than the /n to look the same width. Visually speaking, whitespace that’s open to the top looks larger to us than whitespace that’s open to the bottom.
  • Re: Berthold bullies competing font producers – report here when you’re hit by them

  • Re: Weird Windows 10 font issue: installs fine, previews fine, defaults to Arial in Word

    Hmm, but font validator checks ulCodePageRange, about bits set and missing glyphs and also bits clear but glyphs present. Did the warnings not happen?