Two major points come to my mind. 1st, work out the lc shape first and lets then turn to the capital in a second step. 2nd, a key question may be, on which glyphic model of the existing and conventional v- or w-glyphs the new form shall be based on. this was my initial take on this, a couple of months ago:
Those of you who fancy old commercial neon signs in the city may enjoy watching this theme galery. The majority of these advertisements have vanished, however, a few survived and have even been faithfully restored.
Hard to measure all typefaces with one rule. A brilliant text face is difficult to compare to an excellent display face. Features and range of weights are much overrated, i.m.h.o., whereas drawing and spacing are far too often underestimated by fontists. Idea and concept I would rather leave aside here because that you can’t measure objectively.
I would distinguish essential requirements from extras and individual aspects.
1. Essentials • Quality of glyph outlines (drawing) • Quality of spacing (width and sidebearings) • Quality of kerning • Character coverage
2. Extras • Font family concept (Italics, weights, widths, others) • Languages supported (apart from the usual suspects) • Figure sets and fractions • Ligatures • Variant glyphs and alternate sets • symbols and ornaments
In my opinion, a basically well crafted single font with 400 glyphs and no feature extras is worth more than a feature- and alternates-packed superfont of 2000 glyphs which are lousily drawn and poorly spaced.
The aspect of character coverage is an interesting one. It always evokes a ‘search for completeness’ but in practice this is hardly to achieve. Who is going to tell you what goes in and what does not? Nobody. Out there is no reliable common standard which tells you that. Even well-known references (e.g. the Adobe glyph sets) are not entirely reliable in that respect.