I think the S is definitely improved, but it's not quite there for me. The middle of the spine is an almost straight line, with sharpish curves up on the left and down on the right. I know you want a slight squarishness to the curves, but maybe you've got just a whisker too much squarishness at the turns? The letter doesn't flow yet, at least not to my eye. And I still think the more vertical segments of the curve are a bit thin compared to the the more horizontal ones.
One other thing: I find it really difficult to assess some of these forms onscreen, simply because you have a lot of very, very flat curves here, and the rasterizer chews them up; they get jaggy and wobbly. They might look fine on a Retina display, but for now, this seems like a print typeface; some of the subtleties of the drawing don't seem to come thru on my monitor.
Greetings, everyone. Thanks again for your immense help so far.
I've been working on some of the refinements suggested, particularly the X and S.
For the X, I employed some trickery so that the angle of the arms was less steep (which seems to work better with the angled terminals) while keeping the character within a reasonable width. It's an approach I've seen before, albeit in faces with a lot more contrast. Maybe it works here?
The newest version of the S is no less square, but the spine is steeper and I'm happier with the overall impression.
It was suggested in other quarters that a way to avoid the dark spot created by the sharp angles of the Z would be to add a subtle curve.
I added a bit more air between the tail of the Q and bowl, too.
(I'm not ignoring the comments about inconsistent weights, honest. Just eager to get the basic glyph shapes nailed down, and then plan to do a fine-tooth examination of the whole thing.)
I like the new Z, but I don't think it matches the V, X, W, or Y.
S is strongest it's been, I think. But that dead-straight section in the middle of the spine still bothers me. And it's still just a shade corner-y for my taste. Maybe it's just me.
Thanks, Ray (and James and Max, as always). I've made a few more changes (reverting to a pointy Z among them) and will post soon.
It's interesting that you mention spacing, because I've spent some time on that recently, too. I'm considering starting a separate discussion on a Glyphs-specific strategy for tackling spacing and kerning.
You could use a little optical compensation (thinning the joining stroke) at the joins in the B, R and 8. Maybe the 6 and 9 as well, though not nearly as much.
Ray, Thomas, Alex -- thanks for your feedback! I had to put aside development on this for a few weeks, but will be back to it soon, and look forward to implementing your suggestions.
Comments
One other thing: I find it really difficult to assess some of these forms onscreen, simply because you have a lot of very, very flat curves here, and the rasterizer chews them up; they get jaggy and wobbly. They might look fine on a Retina display, but for now, this seems like a print typeface; some of the subtleties of the drawing don't seem to come thru on my monitor.
It's looking very handsome overall, though.
I've been working on some of the refinements suggested, particularly the X and S.
For the X, I employed some trickery so that the angle of the arms was less steep (which seems to work better with the angled terminals) while keeping the character within a reasonable width. It's an approach I've seen before, albeit in faces with a lot more contrast. Maybe it works here?
The newest version of the S is no less square, but the spine is steeper and I'm happier with the overall impression.
It was suggested in other quarters that a way to avoid the dark spot created by the sharp angles of the Z would be to add a subtle curve.
I added a bit more air between the tail of the Q and bowl, too.
(I'm not ignoring the comments about inconsistent weights, honest. Just eager to get the basic glyph shapes nailed down, and then plan to do a fine-tooth examination of the whole thing.)
Here's the PDF: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gpo673v0u4novsm/specimen_091512.pdf
S is strongest it's been, I think. But that dead-straight section in the middle of the spine still bothers me. And it's still just a shade corner-y for my taste. Maybe it's just me.
Half way through reading I also felt that angled terminals on V, X, W and Y would work well. How would they fair on the A too?
I feel that the Z is perhaps less convincing with the curved approach.
Interested in seeing how you tackle the kerning and maybe lowercase?
It's interesting that you mention spacing, because I've spent some time on that recently, too. I'm considering starting a separate discussion on a Glyphs-specific strategy for tackling spacing and kerning.
What you have looks stunted. I prefer to repeat shapes for overall design consistency.