Howdy, Stranger!

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



Last Active
  • Re: How to convert square corner to rounded corner in FL 5

    I think you must have used the “Make outline version …” setting (as the screen shots suggest) instead of the “Change weight …” one.
  • Re: Which g?

    It's all rather loose.
    Especially the "display" style. I think it's perfect for the "text" style, though. The problem I see is that the serifs on the "display" style are causing the loose spacing, in combinations such as /in/, /fr/, etc. Maybe they could be shortened in that style?

    I think the eye on the /e could be opened up a bit more on the "text" style since it will tend to vanish at smaller sizes with the weight you've added.
  • Re: Quador – a squarish serif

    I think it looks very nice, but I'm not sure it's heavy enough to be called ExtraBold, at least compared to the original weight. Feels more like just Bold to me.
  • Re: Fractions without fraction glyph

    this fashion is usual for depicting measure numbers.
    I think you mean time signatures.
  • Re: New Open Source Font by Production Type: Spectral

    Especially given that I don't think TD is frequented by the designers, anything posted here is just going to amount to a glorified sub-tweet. Especially because the initial post was made without offering any take in itself, the optics of this is just trolling for negative hot takes.
    I certainly did not have the intention of trolling for negative comments, but genuine analysis and discussion, given so many experts here. I wish I could say I'm in the expert category, but I'm not and am mostly following a lot of the discussions that happen here. Folks like you, Jack, might see things about the typeface family that I wouldn't simply because my eye hasn't been trained to (yet). There's a lot for me to learn from you all.

    And you are right (again), I should have offered my own take, which I will now do. As a whole, I find the shapes a bit distracting. I'm not sure if it's the general letter spacing or my taste for more inky, organic and smooth contours found in many classical serif families. I can see how the design works well for on-screen rendering, but unless the text is very small, the very wedge-shaped serifs and terminals really jump out at me. I guess I would have expected to see more of a slab-serif design, but instead I feel like I'm seeing too many edges and not enough words and letters. I would expect to see such bulky features only in a design that was intended for smaller optical sizes where the eye notices them less, but where they provide geometric clarity and substance.

    Of the weights, I think the Regular and Bold designs work together the best and can imagine those will be used the most. The various stroke thicknesses in the Extra Thin weight seems inconsistent across the glyphs.

    Those are my non-expert thoughts. I'd very much be interested to hear yours.