Freitag — toying around with a geometric display sans
Comments
-
You're right, that won't work.Craig Eliason said:The underlying problem here is that the ascenders are just too high, but I don't expect I'll be able to talk you out of them.
I do realize they're on the tall side of normal, but I like my typefaces that way. In any case, I'd be worried about backward compatibility after such a big structural change.
Funny that you should mention Dunhill — I remember being quite impressed by that wordmark as a kid some 27 years ago.
It looks much less impressive now than I remember it, though. I believe that was the inspiration for the fictional lifestyle product brand «εastwood» that I made up for my fictional country back then.
0 -
Actually, isn't this a better solution?Christian Thalmann said:Meanwhile, started with the Arabic. Wow, it's even more vertically crowded than I remember.
0 -
Can we see that next to "Hkp"?
0 -
There you go:
0 -
If you're going lower than the Latin descenders (good) for the چ then do it for everything.
As for abridging the Arabic descender to make room for the dots, it's somewhat stylized, but in this context I think OK.
0 -
I only break descender depth for these dots and for those of /yeh-ar. I want to minimize damage to the glyphs in case there's clipping.0
-
Cramping Arabic's extenders does more damage than anything.0
-
Having worked a bit more on Quinoa, the very tall ascenders have caught my eyes a few times, and I'm starting to see how they could be worrisome for some users. I suppose it's too late to change the vertical metrics of the typeface now, especially since it is already in use by a number of people, but I suppose I could offer a stylistic set that lowers the ascenders with my upcoming update.Christian Thalmann said:
You're right, that won't work.Craig Eliason said:The underlying problem here is that the ascenders are just too high, but I don't expect I'll be able to talk you out of them. I do realize they're on the tall side of normal, but I like my typefaces that way. In any case, I'd be worried about backward compatibility after such a big structural change.
I don't suppose they need to be collapsed all the way down to the cap height? Would it be acceptable to have the tittle and some accents exceed the ascender height in the Black weight? Is there a fundamental problem with having ascenders that don't reach the ascender height in the meta-data?
0 -
Here's a sample of the current Quinoa, one with cap height = ascender height, and one that splits the difference in the middle.
What do you think?
Against my expectations, I don't like the split difference version much. The difference to the cap height is now small enough to look like a mistake. I can see the appeal of the equalized version, though. I'm just wondering whether this set would require its own version of all accents, or whether it would be acceptable for some lowercase accents to poke above the combined cap/ascender height?
I guess I should retract the descenders a bit as well for that last version.
Also, does anyone know the answer to this?Is there a fundamental problem with having ascenders that don't reach the ascender height in the meta-data?0 -
On the other hand, I just discovered that the descender and ascender values of Quinoa add up to 920 rather than 1000. As I recall, that can still cause some trouble in some contexts. If I'm going to have to rescale the whole typeface to desc+asc = 1000 anyway (which will probabluy require a lot of manual tweaking of the Hairline to restore consistent stroke width), I might as well use that opportunity to redefine the default ascender proportions of Quinoa. Maybe something like 80% of the current asc–cap difference would work best...?
0 -
I would have the first one as the text[y] cut and the third one –with shortened descenders, and tighter spacing– as the display cut.0
-
Really? I would expect relatively big x-height for text, and showy exaggeration for display.Hrant H. Papazian said:I would have the first one as the text[y] cut and the third one –with shortened descenders, and tighter spacing– as the display cut.
I like the middle one best and don't get the "small enough to look like a mistake" feeling from it. (The heights don't seem that close to me, and anyway close but unequal heights are common and untroubling to me.) I do think tittles and accents are too high if you go for ascender #3.1 -
Well caps at ascender height end up being showy. A text font can have a smallish x-height, it just skews the ideal point size higher.0
-
In Greek and Cyrillic, I had already set the ascenders to 675 rather than the 700 in the Latin... That would be right between the top (700) and middle (650) versions in the image above. These are now 700, 675, and 650:
Think I can pull off 675 as the default cut for the Latin too? I realize 650 is probably closest to expectations for a Latin typeface, but I would like to keep the «tall ascenders» impression a little bit. I don't want the flavor to change too dramatically for the customers I already have.
Here are the three versions in running text:
The latter two are not very different, if you ask me. I admit the 700 version is a bit much.
2 -
I also plan to redo the accents to match the new quotes, which should help deal with the smaller available space:
4 -
Alright, I've adopted the 675 ascender, rescaled the whole thing to 1000 UPM, and am now in the tedious process of ironing out all those cases where the stroke width in the Hairline became inconsistent (11 units before, either 12 or 13 now...).
At least the new accents are refreshingly superior to the old ones!
2 -
Hm, now I'm hoping that I can avoid the rescaling after all. I'll just have to migrate the new changes to the pre-rescaled version. (Thread here.)
In any case, I'm wondering whether it's an imposition on the existing users of Quinoa to change the vertical metrics. Should I offer a legacy version with the old ascenders for those who've already baked the first release of Quinoa into their projects? Or release the update as «Quinoa Pro»? I don't want to increase the bloat of font files, though.
0 -
Quinoa Neue
1 -
One other issue is that what I previously called «Regular» is now very light indeed compared to the full spectrum. I suppose it doesn't matter to the sophisticated user, but to someone who wants to use MS Office and its «Bold» functionality, it might...
But I suppose the update is too identical to the original version to be released under a separate family name, and license owners for Quinoa Regular won't appreciate a surprise weight change.
0 -
I find that the round solution for /k and /x that's been present in all styles so far is more conspicuous in running text than I would find comfortable for extended reading. Thus, I've made a series of true diagonals after all, which are available under SS11 and which I'm exporting as «Quinoa Text».
3 -
Actually, could the Text cut use a two-storey /a...?
2 -
Yes.2
-
I made a two-storey /g as well, but I think I'm going to leave the single-story version in the text cut by default. I figure a single-storey /g is not less legible than the two-storey one, especially if there is no single-story /a to confound it with.
0 -
Is your x height the same across weights?0
-
No, it gets a bit bigger in the Bold to compensate the perceived downward shift of the x-high strokes.Craig Eliason said:Is your x height the same across weights?
BTW, I replaced the image above; the /g in the middle weight needed some more optical adjustment.
0 -
> I figure a single-storey /g is not less legible than the two-storey one
The monocular "g" contributes less to readability than the binocular one.
> especially if there is no single-story /a to confound it with.
I've never heard of that happening.1 -
Makes sense.Hrant H. Papazian said:> I figure a single-storey /g is not less legible than the two-storey one
The monocular "g" contributes less to readability than the binocular one.> especially if there is no single-story /a to confound it with.
I've never heard of that happening.
I would have expected elements identically shared among different letters to reduce readability. There's still /d that shares the body of monocular /g, but at least the tail is unambiguous now that /y is diagonal in the Text cut.
I generally prefer binocular /g in text fonts, but in this case I think monocular /g fits the flavor of Quinoa better without sacrificing readability. I'll definitely offer the binocular version in SS13, though.
BTW, I moved all the /f_ and /longs_ ligatures to DLIG in the text cut. I like the loopy signature ligatures of Quinoa in display, but they're distracting in text. I've kept the contextual alternates that manage /f, /f.medium, and /f.long for now.
1 -
I think the "g" breaking the x-region pretty much kills any "a" conflict; in fact I like making the bottom of the (binocular) "g" look like an "s", for harmony.
> I think monocular /g fits the flavor of Quinoa better without sacrificing readability.
I think it does reduce readability... but could still be the better compromise.0 -
Comparison of text cuts with monocular and binocular /g designs:
0 -
The "Q" is disrupting the texture from afar.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 43 Introductions
- 3.7K Typeface Design
- 803 Font Technology
- 1K Technique and Theory
- 622 Type Business
- 444 Type Design Critiques
- 542 Type Design Software
- 30 Punchcutting
- 136 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 83 Technique and Theory
- 53 Lettering Critiques
- 485 Typography
- 303 History of Typography
- 114 Education
- 68 Resources
- 499 Announcements
- 80 Events
- 105 Job Postings
- 148 Type Releases
- 165 Miscellaneous News
- 270 About TypeDrawers
- 53 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 116 Suggestions and Bug Reports