Moxic

Vasil StanevVasil Stanev Posts: 274
edited February 7 in Type Design Critiques
Hello,
a generic grotesk going up to 11 (file attached below). Will have italcs. Family name is open for debate. :)

Comments

  • Adam LaddAdam Ladd Posts: 100
    edited February 7
    The Blot weight is interesting. Though, have spacing and kerning been worked out yet? That sticks out to me as needing refined more. Along with balancing some weight/contrast inconsistencies between characters (e.g. /k feels very dense compared to /c or /o in the bolder weights). In only some of the intermediate weights the stems have tapered/angled terminals where the curve joins (e.g. /r /g) while others are straight (e.g. /n).
  • K PeaseK Pease Posts: 13
    Definitely raise the tittles, put at least some space under them. Ideally, center them on the same height across weights (Of course Blot can be an exception).

    To start to tackle the inconsistencies you'll have to decide whether this is meant to be a grotesk of visually equal strokes, as prevails in the capitals, or of noticeable vertical stroke contrast, as in most of the lowercase. The clotting of diagonal joins in the heavier weights will need to be addressed with cutting the negative space deeper to make subtly flared strokes, and/or, if the latter, token diagonal contrast.
  • Vasil StanevVasil Stanev Posts: 274
    edited February 9
    K Pease said:
    ...
     You mean that the each lc is overall visually lighter than its UC? :)

  • Thomas PhinneyThomas Phinney Posts: 1,227
    The spacing is also going to need some work. The Light and especially the Thin need to be loosened up a bit. The Extrabold and Black need to be tighter, especially the Black. The spacing in the Regular is just a bit inconsistent: "gu" shouldn’t be obviously tighter than "ul," and "ar" seems tighter than the other straight-to-straight combinations. And it seems like the left side of the "a" is super crazy tight.
  • K PeaseK Pease Posts: 13
    You mean that the each lc is overall visually lighter than its UC? :)

    Not exactly that, though it is a symptom. I meant that in much (but not all) of the lowercase, the difference between horizontal and vertical widths as exemplified in "o" goes a little beyond optical compensation and starts to resemble what we would call the "stroke contrast" or "stress" more often typical in serif faces. The capitals give the impression of a consistent weight. These two approaches are both valid, but they do not match each other, and as you're having more success with the capitals I would suggest you go that way.
  • Vasil StanevVasil Stanev Posts: 274
    edited February 9
    Yes, I have to agree on both contrast and spacing remarks, thanks.
    ______
    Anyone notice any width inconsistencies? 
  • Thomas PhinneyThomas Phinney Posts: 1,227
    In "Medium" the lowercase m and cap M seem narrow compared to the "u".

    T and M seem a bit narrow; L and E a bit wide.


  • AbiRasheedAbiRasheed Posts: 170
    edited February 10
    In the black version, k seems super heavy and 'a,c' look very light. UC for B and E seem a tad a too thick? There's also something about the 'a' all across the board, like it needs more negative space and wider.
Sign In or Register to comment.