Howdy, Stranger!

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

Christian Thalmann

About

Username
Christian Thalmann
Joined
Visits
2,930
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
366
Posts
799
  • Re: Alive Serif


    @ Christian Thalmann /ẞ retweeked. I may have overdone it though.
    To be honest, I don't see the difference from the last iteration... Currently, it's bottom-heavy; I'd move the top right part more to the right, including the joint at mid-level.
  • Re: “French” apostrophe?

    Notice that Hypatia has a longer apostrophe in the French language. I added Gentium that has no special treatment for French but has a lower apostrophe I guess to better combine with the diacritics (I found nothing in the Gentium doc about it).
    Isn't this just the fact that quotes are usually aligned with the cap height, and Gentium has a larger cap/ascender dimorphism than the other typefaces?

    I like the idea of making the French apostrophe larger, if you're going to give it more space anyway. I wonder, though — wouldn't it be better to err on the side of generous spacing anyway? Do English words suffer from «French-style» spacing?
  • Re: Granite - a more contemporary garamond ?

    This is starting to take shape nicely. In particular, the Italics have a convincing rhythm and style. I feel like the Roman has some catching up to do in that respect, but it's difficult to pin down where exactly. For instance, the «other» here, especially the «ot» part, strikes me as significantly looser than the «riz» in «characterized». As for stylistic consistency, there appear to be two different design philosophies at work in the round shapes, with some (like /b/d/o) having broken strokes almost like a Blackletter whereas others (like /n/e/s) are completely smooth. I'm wondering whether sticking to a single design philosophy here wouldn't improve the overall consistency

    Other things:
    • The Roman /y strikes me as too narrow.
    • This may just be a matter of personal taste, but the Roman /a feels a bit bottom-heavy to me. I'd recommend lowering the bowl just a bit and giving more weight to the top terminal, perhaps extend it a bit more to the left as well.
    • Is the Hairline weight deliberately made to look a bit condensed?
    • I would recommend rethinking the /Œ.
    • Your /ẞ is a valid design per se, but its tight point strikes me as too busy compared with the more matter-of-factly shapes of your other glyphs. I would recommend compressing the structures on the right side of the glyph (not the glyph as a whole) to calm it down a bit. I really like the implementation in Germany's government typeface, BundesType:

    Cheers!
  • Re: How do I set up various IJ digraphs in my typeface?

    To avoid the need for a Dutch locl, I just added ijacute and fij as Standard Ligatures (liga). I forgot about capitals, but I guess I should add those too. 
    So you're forcing an accented j even in non-Dutch languages? That's going to look really weird. One of countless examples would be the Hungarian word íj «bow» (as in archery).

    My favorite solution is to replace /i by /i.loclNLD and /iacute by /iacute.loclNLD in Dutch and then having standard ligatures for /iacute_j etc. This also automatically breaks the /f_i ligature.
  • Re: Freitag — toying around with a geometric display sans

    No, there is a medial ب between the ع  and ى that got ligated with the later (basically that raised part of the final ى is part of the other letter).

    Aha, that explains it! :grimace: Though I can't imagine how one would render that with a contextual alternate alone, since the ب got completely subsumed. Would it be acceptable to draw the medial ب in full and then add the rising ى...?

    Arabic usually have grows more vertically than horizontally, tries to squeeze it usually cramps things badly (but that does not prevent many designers from doing). Staked marks in Arabic are rather common in vocalised text, if you feel your design will not be commonly used for vocalised text you can keep tight line spacing for the default and users of vocalised text can use more bigger spacing (but make sure to have big enough Win metrics to avoid clipping in certain brain dead Windows applications).
    The problem is that I don't want to increase the typeface's vertical size just to accommodate the Arabic. For instance, I've seen Gentium take up a huge amount of vertical space in Word, and when I tried to reduce the line spacing below 1, it started clipping for no good reason.

    For now, my favorite solution would be to keep the Arabic as horizontal as possible and stay within the established vertical bounds. That probably means reducing the ي to a horizontal line... let's see if that works.  :smirk:

    I'll also have to avoid the stacking ligatures, then. What's the minimum set of ligatures/contextual alternates that a font must support to be considered functional? Someone on Twitter just said the 213 ligatures in Glyphs were the bare minimum; if so, I can just about forget it.

    Of course, I could make a dedicated Arabic spin-off of my font that does have a lot of vertical space. I suppose I should rather save that idea for another time, though...  baby steps.  :grimace: