#### Howdy, Stranger!

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

# Quador – a squarish serif

• Posts: 1,402
edited June 2017
Maybe the /б looks so tall because of the high x-height, but I think it's better now?

I assume the first thing is a /six? Can you show the /be-cy in context? The shape itself looks good to me.

I wouldn't worry too much about the mathematical comparisons between serifs of Latin and Cyrillic; it should look consistent to the eye instead.

One of the problems might be that the serifs carry significantly more weight than the horizontals, e.g. in /н, which strikes me as unusual. That might be something to look into in general.
• Posts: 66
I assume the first thing is a /six?
Yes, a/six.
And here is the new version with lighter serifs:

• Posts: 66

One of the problems might be that the serifs carry significantly more weight than the horizontals, e.g. in /н, which strikes me as unusual. That might be something to look into in general.
Right Christian, I understand the problem (in general), and it is maybe unusual, but not unique. There are other typefaces existing with this kind of contrast between horizontals and serifs.
• Posts: 280

In the sample above I replaced the teardrops with rectangled terminals to go further with the idea of a squarish serif. What do you think?

I like the rectangled /a/, its bowl has character. I would use that bowl.
• Posts: 66

I’m now starting with the ExtraBold. Does that work for you?

• Posts: 904
/g/ and /Q/'s tail jump out as misfits. Thins of /s/ are too light. There's something ungainly about the bowls of /bdpq/. I do think the premise of the shapes and details of the typeface fit this bold weight better.
• Posts: 1,402
edited June 2017
The Cyrillic still has something disharmonic about it, as if it were a monospaced font. The /ш/щ are certainly the worst offenders, but I'm also getting the general feeling that the round characters are from a different typeface than the angular ones. The irregular spacing might also be contributing to the impression (e.g., рвн in the first row).

Weight problems with /y/Л/л tails seem unchanged (or imperceptibly changed).

I like the ExtraBold. The serifs on /C/G/S/T strike me as too light here.
• Posts: 904
The Cyrillic ... I'm also getting the general feeling that the round characters are from a different typeface than the angular ones.
That there's way too much overshoot on the rounds (at least in the rasterization above) surely contributes to that.
• Posts: 76
edited June 2017
About the extra bold - overall it's looking tight but I personally would like to see a fraction more contrast in the strokes. Particularly on the thin arms of the N/V/W/v/w variety of shapes. Also does the /A have an intentionally tilted peak? I'd either emphasise it or flatten it out.
• Posts: 66
Cyrillic: I made some corrections and yes – the raterization was much too sharp. What do you think, it's better now?

• Posts: 1,402
Much better!

Now some color imbalances are becoming more evident. The /д and /ц stand out as particularly light compared to their surroundings, for example. Maybe it's also /и and /м that are too dark? There are also some contrast issues. The /x looks almost monolinear, for example, whereas the thins in /д/л are visibly thinner than anything else in the font.

Some old issues that are still relevant: The /ш/щ are still way too compressed; think of them as /m-like characters. Arm and serif of /г looks very brittle. The /т is narrow. The lack of interior serifs on /к looks really weird. Foot/tail of /У/у needs more meat.

• Posts: 66
/g/ and /Q/'s tail jump out as misfits.
I agree with the /g's tail and especially in bolder weights is a collision with /f, /n, /h …
Is it very unusual to use a /g with a different tail on the top only in this case? I wouldn't like to change the tail in general, because if the /g is followed by e.g. an /o it looks good to me.

• Posts: 1,402
That's a good use of a contextual alternate.
• Posts: 904
/g/ and /Q/'s tail jump out as misfits.
I agree with the /g's tail and especially in bolder weights is a collision with /f, /n, /h …
Is it very unusual to use a /g with a different tail on the top only in this case? I wouldn't like to change the tail in general, because if the /g is followed by e.g. an /o it looks good to me.

Note that the part you're referring to would usually be called the *ear* of the /g/.
And I meant the /g/ overall is a misfit, because it looks lighter weight.
• Posts: 66
I'm very sorry, Craig. (Tail and ear is the same in german, so normally easy to understand
• Posts: 66

I’m toying around with an ultrabold display-version. I like to carry the contrast between round and rectangular shapes to extremes. On the other side I’m not sure about it. Do you think it’s worth to try or is it just a waste of time?

• Posts: 76
edited June 2017
I love the ultrabold display. It's probably because of my preference towards contrasty bold faces though. I'd keep pursuing it!

I wonder what it would look like if the right angled edges of the serifs were rounded just a touch, for that extra phatness?
• Posts: 243
Should the right-side of the middle stem of the /m be curved or straight? I find it's current curviness a little distracting and would have expected it to be more straight on both sides like the left stem.
• Posts: 1,402
edited June 2017
Should the right-side of the middle stem of the /m be curved or straight? I find it's current curviness a little distracting and would have expected it to be more straight on both sides like the left stem.
Huh, that's probably my favorite part of this sample. Full of bouncy energy.
• Posts: 243
Huh, that's probably my favorite part of this sample. Full of bouncy energy.
I didn't say it was *bad* or *unacceptable*, just that it seems out of place, compared to the general design, but I guess it's just my taste. It's looking great, either way.
• Posts: 66

Thank you all for your input, it’s motivating! But before I keep going, I would like to show you the draft for the light version.

• Posts: 1,402
Not bad overall. Weight and contrast do seem to fluctuate from one glyph to the next, though. For instance, /c's strokes are heavier than /a's, and its thins look fatter than the tapering ones in /n etc. Meanwhile, /U seems very light and almost monoline compared to /O. The left downstroke in /W feels heavier than the right one. I find the razorthin tapers in /P/R irritating compared to the solid middle of /B etc.

I appreciate that you added contrast to the /Q's tail, but it goes against pen logic as is. /G's top reaches too far right.

I liked the apex of /a better in your other weights. Looks like the top right corner is more emphasized here.

Apart from the weight issue, I'm also getting the impression that /c and /e have somewhat weird weight distribution; especially /c is very top-heavy.
• Posts: 904
EFLT also seem too narrow.
• Posts: 66
That's a good use of a contextual alternate.
But "calt" only works if contextual alternates in InDesign is activated, right? Is there another possibility?
• Posts: 66
Ok, here is an update. Christian: Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean with the /a ?

• Posts: 243
Christian: Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean with the /a ?
I can't speak for Christian, but I think what he's seeing is this:

where that feeling of angularity gets more apparent as the strokes get thinner.

• Posts: 243
Or another way of looking at it:

The red dashed line (where the apex is relative to the body of the glyph) is closer to the middle in the Heavy weight, but gradually moves to the right side as the strokes get thinner. Maybe try to keep them all more central like the Heavy design?
• Posts: 1,402
Exactly!

While we're at it, it's curious how the terminal starts away from the left boundary, moves in to touch it in the demibold, and then retreats again.
• Posts: 66
I see, thank you! I did also corrected the weights, Bold and ExtraBold was to heavy and anyway UltraBold is extra. I think it works better. What's about the tail of /Q?

• Posts: 66
… and I would like to show you the light-version in the correct weight. I didn't´t realize, that it was extrapolated before and had bad interpolation values. That's why it was so inconsistent.