It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Thanks very much
guys, I'm really enjoying learning about all this.
Hrant H. Papazian said:
I would drop the spur on the lc form.
Bhikkhu Pesala said:
Maybe I'm being picky, but I think the join of the ogonek to the lowercase e should be smoother. These are no accents, but should look like part of the glyph, like a hook, tail, or swash.
I created these
discretionary ligatures more to distract myself from the heavy work hehehe ...
But as before they had already told me about the need for some extra
I thought that was also the case for these, so you think it's worth
working on these ligatures ???
I took a while without looking
at my typography And when I come back I create an antipathy for my
"g". I did another, closing the eye that was open and readjusting
Did you find it better ???
Do you think it suits the rest of the typography ???
Thank you for the advice.
Ori Ben-Dor said:
You've also changed the /o/, haven't you? I think I like the old one better, but I guess I can see why you've changed it. Anyhow, new /g/ does look more balanced. But you'll have to upload some text sample if you want more serious feedback.
Believed that the
"o" is a little different because of hitting issues, Since these
words were not originally of the same size.
I took that base text here from the forum to test the new g, look !!!
Christian Thalmann said:
The acute is sitting too far to the left on /a and /e, but looks fine to me on the other letters. Don't you use anchors for alignment?The tildes are much too long and off-center.
/N_T and /T_H the /U_M could not
leave congruent with the other alternatives.