Howdy, Stranger!

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

AbrahamLee

About

Username
AbrahamLee
Joined
Visits
1,239
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
34
Posts
79
  • 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.
  • Re: Quador – a squarish serif

    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?
  • Re: Quador – a squarish serif

    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.

  • Re: Units per em

    The problem you can run into drawing is that the vector angles are also constrained by the unit density.  This can cause undue distortion on details in the drawing.  This may not be a problem for the average font in a situation but when you approach extremes of weight and detail, things can get ugly. Choose UPM on the targeted function of the face.
    That's precisely why I wondered if a higher density is more advantageous, particularly in the case of MM interpolation because the distortion (at least when the resultant points are rounded to the nearest integer location) would be lessened.