text serif a, u, d

Does anyone have strong opinions on whether the bottom right serif on /d/ and /u/ should or shouldn't match the one on /a/ ?


Comments

  • The approach in the upper sample is not common. The lower sample shows a more conventional construction of /d/ and /u/.

    The upper sample is thus a more unusual and playful take on an otherwise conventional serifed typeface.
  • It doesn't have to match, but it shouldn't be the only deviation in the whole.

    BTW this is what I'VE got to say about the "d"...
  • It is a non-typical, but possible variation, which could even be extended to the l. (el)
    On the other hand one sees a strait serif and upper terminal on the a, sometimes.
  • It looks out of character here. Alegreya pulls it off very nicely, though.
  • There are no true rules. It depends from the balance you would obtain between the horizontal continuity of the reading, the texture you would give to text area, the kind and level of harmonization you would have between your letters, and several other considerations.
    But if you like the impact of some typeface (ancient or modern), ask you which details play for the most in what you like.
  • Nick ShinnNick Shinn Posts: 2,131
    Bernhard Modern and Koch Antiqua have the curly foot serif. It always strikes me as a playful, historicist, ductus-savvy feature.
  • Thanks everyone. For the sake of inclusion I tried the a with a foot serif. It really works better with the curl. I don't like the curl on d but I'm undecided which I prefer on u. I think I'm going to be boring and go with the 2nd line.

  • To me #4 is the most interesting, but #1 is nice too.
  • I'm not really going for "interesting". I think #2 default, and u with curl as alternate. I don't think the curly d or footed a are working.
  • In #2, are there other glyphs that might keep the "a" company?
    If you don't want interesting, #1 is solid.
  • Have a look at Unger's Paradox. 'Curly' bottom serifs of d and u are working quite nice there.

    Afbeeldingsresultaat voor dtl paradox
  • Adam JagoszAdam Jagosz Posts: 689
    edited January 2019
    For #1 to work (better) you'd have to shorten the serif on /a or give it more spacing. But I'm not sure it would work very well either.
    I think the reason the curly terminal doesn't work in /d/u is that their structure is less petite than that of /a. When a curly terminal is found there, it is normally expected to be larger.
  • k.l.k.l. Posts: 106
    Have a look at Unger's Paradox. 'Curly' bottom serifs of d and u are working quite nice there.
    With an emphasis on ‹there›. It works in Paradox because of a trick – visual ambiguity. It is somewhere between curly and flat (like a serif). Whether it is considered as a curl or as a serif is left to the viewer.
  • With an emphasis on ‹there›. It works in Paradox because of a trick – visual ambiguity. It is somewhere between curly and flat (like a serif). Whether it is considered as a curl or as a serif is left to the viewer.
    Absolutely correct. It's also why I placed curly between quotation marks. The point is that it is possible to have rather informal bottom serifs on d and u.
  • karstenluecke said:
    Whether it is considered as a curl or as a serif is left to the viewer.
    Except the viewer of a text face only does such conscious things as an exception.
  • @Maxim Zhukov I wonder what the rationale was behind the /k. Whenever I see people go wild with either /k or /z I get this vibe that they, as English speakers, don't care about these letters and their frequency in other languages, especially Slavic.
  • Maxim ZhukovMaxim Zhukov Posts: 74
    edited January 2019

    @Maxim Zhukov I wonder what the rationale was behind the /k. Whenever I see people go wild with either /k or /z I get this vibe that they, as English speakers, don't care about these letters and their frequency in other languages, especially Slavic.
    Would these forms feel more appropriate?


  • Adam JagoszAdam Jagosz Posts: 689
    edited January 2019
    @Maxim Zhukov Oh, I just meant making the serifs different. While the top serif on /d is justified by the empty space above the bowl, the one in /k stands out from /b/h/l far more than b/h/l differ between one another. To add insult to injury, the bottom serif is trying to become a swash descender.
    Of course Monticello is a revival, and the above arguments might only make sense for a new design targeted internationally. With my initial comment I meant that English speakers occasionally make /k/z weirder than usual. I mean, the creators of Monticello clearly wanted to diversify the typeface by introducing idiosyncrasies into a few select glyphs, and /k seemed convenient because it's a relatively rare letter in English.
    About the forms of /K/k you show, you could say they might be more suitable for Slavic languages (they help avoid disrupting the stem pattern with strictly diagonal strokes), but I'd say they're a bit unusual for most readers. This trend didn't catch on, at least not in Poland.
    Regarding /Z/z, I don't know what I'm comparing to, but they seem normal.
  • Kent Lew said:
    It may have been the limits of his ability to maintain consistency.
    Really? You mean mental ability? Manual? :smile:
  • Kent LewKent Lew Posts: 905
    Manual. Punch cutters were certainly capable of amazing precision and craftsmanship. I’m just not sure how much experience Binny would have when he and Ronaldson decided to start their foundry. Also, the metal they had to work with may have been less than optimal. (Binny & Ronaldson had a hard time getting their hands on antimony in the States at that time.) And the incentive to cut the k more than once would have been minimal, so maybe he just looked at it and said, “good enough.”
    All idle speculation on my part. ;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.