Eau de Garamond — a sans distilled from the essence of Garamond

191011121315»

Comments

  • I feel like you're trying to turn Ysabeau into something different than it is. It's a low-contrast sans; in fact, it started out completely monolinear in its earliest beginnings. I do have the (very, very) long-term goal of complementing it with a contrast axis, but it's behind a lot of more interesting things on my to-do list (such as IPA support and a condensed, high-x headline cut).
    Here's what /H/ looks like with a thinner bar. It feels to frail to me, especially for the extreme end of the heavy weights. I don't think /E/ is a good indicator for how light the horizontals should be in a heavy sans; they're necessarily optically compensated for density.
    Here's /M/ and /W/ together:

    While I think they mix well overall, up close the /W/ does have lighter joints than /M/. If anthing, though, I find the /M/ more attractive and might reduce the optical compensation a bit in the /W/. It definitely needs more contrast to match the /M/.

  • Definitely better:

  • Ori Ben-DorOri Ben-Dor Posts: 359
    edited February 18
    I'm not trying to turn Ysabeau into something different, I'm just suggesting more consistent contrast. Some letters (E, M, U, new W...) demonstrate higher contrast than others (L, S, thicker-bar H...), in a way that, in my view, isn't justified by constraints, compensation needs, etc.

    To fix that inconsistency while maintaining as much of the current look and feel as possible, I'm suggesting reducing contrast in the most contrasted letters and increasing contrast in the least contrasted ones (keeping the average, if you like).

    Thin-bar H takes it too far. I'd go for something in between.
    The same with new W. I think the twin joints are now too heavy (bear in mind that they're closer to each other than in M, which means it makes sense to make the W ones a bit lighter), and you've also lost much of the positive stylistic effect of the tapering outer strokes.
  • Christian ThalmannChristian Thalmann Posts: 1,653
    edited February 19
    I tried splitting the difference on /H/ and still preferred the original.
    I did lighten the joints in /W/ a bit; good point about the joints being closer together. I don't miss the stylistic effect of the flaring, though; it always looked a bit too disco for my taste. I'd rather go in the other direction.
    As for /S/, you call for it to be thinned after I just fattened and widened it for two other commenters on the previous page. :grimace: (I just compared the current version to the slimmer one from before, and prefer the current.) I don't currently have the energy to play a game of Pleasing Everyone (whole family has a cold 🤒, including the two-year-old, who can't go to daycare because of that, and my father's in hospital for a different reason), so I'm going to save the issue for later.
  • You don't need to please me. I'm just offering my subjective view. It's perfectly okay for you to reject it. It's also perfectly okay to save it for later, of course.

    I'm not calling for S to be thinned as a whole, nor to be narrowed. I'm calling for just the thinnest parts to be thinned, in order to introduce more contrast and bring it closer to the average level of contrast. 

    As for the tapering, I think you should consider coming up with a global policy rather than addressing it on a case to case basis. All diagonals, as well as the verticals of N, should probably have a similar amount of tapering. The latest version of a whole UC set I'm seeing is from July 2018, and back then X, V, etc. had much more tapering than new M, W have now. As for the desired global amount of tapering, I understand why you don't want too much of it, but I wouldn't get rid of it completely. You've managed to keep the quality of humanistic elegancy found in Garamond thanks to such details as diagonal terminals, generous extenders, etc.; tapering diagonals have a similar effect.

    I hope the whole family gets better soon!
  • Adam JagoszAdam Jagosz Posts: 663
    edited February 19

    I hope the whole family gets better soon!
    Human family or font family? :smirk:
    I do think the H, E, L, M and all the rest need different contrast, at least in the darkest weight. My goal there would be to equalize color, not contrast in each individual letter. In some of the lighter weights though, the contrast might get unnecessarily different while no longer contributing to equal color as much as in the blackest weight. This might call for glyph masters (unless you've already got these) to actually equalize the contrast again.
  • My goal there would be to equalize color, not contrast in each individual letter.
    Yes, that's what I've been doing.
    I do have glyph-level intermediate masters (brace layers) to keep contrast from setting in too early when transiting away from the monolinear Hairline, but it mostly affects lowercase letters like /n/.
Sign In or Register to comment.