Since I'm on vacation at the moment, I found some time to look at Eau Italics again. I've made some first steps with the lowercase, which I find very tricky to get right. How does this look for starters? Too scripty?
@Samuil Simonov: I see what you mean. I also prefer the visuals of the version with on-/offstrokes, but then again I'm worried that those might clash with the clean simplicity of the upright. Do you know of any true sans that has on-/offstrokes in the italics?
Jasper: It's already significantly less slanted than Garamond... I figure a certain impression of «wow, that's a lot of slant» is necessary to preserve the Garamond Italics feeling.
I made a few more letters to get a better feeling for the tailless Italics. Think I can get away with the inward-curled /h of Garamond...? BTW, Typografie.info seems to prefer the scripty version with on- and offstrokes. I'm starting to think I'll have to offer both...
I think monoline makes that /h/ structure really hard to read as an h. In the modulated original the little flick at the end is clearly just a little flick, but with your modulated letter it appears to be a more meaningful bend of the stroke. If it's going to work I think it might have to be more subtle. I wonder if having it dip a little below the baseline would make the flick seem less integral to the letter.
Craig, I see what you mean. I tried to make the bend a bit more localized now. Dipping below the baseline looked unnatural, though. I figure I'll offer an /n-shaped /h in SS02 at any rate.
I've made some «sans squiggle», «semi squiggle» and «squiggle» versions of a few italic letters for comparison in context:
Unlike my first attempt (that I didn't show), this version of «semi squiggle» (as @Kent Lew suggested) seems to work rather well. The «sans squiggle» feels a bit harsh to my eyes, which the outstrokes of the semi alleviate. The full squiggle, then, feels a bit messy compared to the semi, but it doesn't work half bad either, IMHO.
The same goes for small sizes, though perhaps I find the full squiggle more harmonious here than at large sizes:
Dunno, should it? I rather like symmetric tittles in a typeface that aims at a monolinear feel.
Lightened /r and tittle; added more slant to /c and a bit less so to /o. There's also the new /h with a more pronounced vertical trend in the right stem, as was suggested on T.info. Less pretty than the previous curl, but I guess more legible.
I'm a bit wary to thin the terminal too much, since the stroke direction is taking it past the thin diagonal and back into thickening territory (which is why it gets a drop terminal in Garamond). But I guess I could give it a try.
Jasper, I tried a diagonal curl before and didn't like it; it broke the consistency of the baseline...
I'm not too fond of that current /h, though, it's awfully boxy. Maybe thinning the terminal would help against that.
Alright, after more prodding, I've finally worked on a diagonal terminal for /h long enough to make it sort of work. Looking back at the hook-footed /h I had before, it looks rather weird to me, so I guess it's the right direction forward.
What are your proportions based off? The x-height looks quite short compared to the caps. Re: Syntax: I definitely prefer your version of this experiment, particularly the lowercase a.
Elizabeth: Glad you like it! As for proportions, I believe I started with those of Cormorant (which in turn strives for the Garamond essence as well) and then toned down the ascender height a bit. The x-height looks small compared to typical sans expectations, yes, but it is an essential part of the Garamond look. (I consider ITC Garamond a travesty...)
/g/ ear may be a bit too skinny. I still think tittles are too big and round. Bowl shapes are all excellent. Some tougher letters coming up, looking forward to seeing them!
Comments
Meanwhile, I've reduced the contrast following feedback from Typografie.info:
@Kent Lew: Tried that, hated it.
@Kayley Hill: Yes, it's called typography.guru .
I made a few more letters to get a better feeling for the tailless Italics. Think I can get away with the inward-curled /h of Garamond...?
BTW, Typografie.info seems to prefer the scripty version with on- and offstrokes. I'm starting to think I'll have to offer both...
If it's going to work I think it might have to be more subtle.
I wonder if having it dip a little below the baseline would make the flick seem less integral to the letter.
I've made some «sans squiggle», «semi squiggle» and «squiggle» versions of a few italic letters for comparison in context:
Unlike my first attempt (that I didn't show), this version of «semi squiggle» (as @Kent Lew suggested) seems to work rather well. The «sans squiggle» feels a bit harsh to my eyes, which the outstrokes of the semi alleviate. The full squiggle, then, feels a bit messy compared to the semi, but it doesn't work half bad either, IMHO.
The same goes for small sizes, though perhaps I find the full squiggle more harmonious here than at large sizes:
(That in itself helps make the /h/ work (in addition to your helpful tweaking).)
For some reason I thought there was another site. Was Typografie.info the type forum that was down for ages?
EDIT: I just realised I was thinking of Typophile... My mind was muddled.
Dunno, should it? I rather like symmetric tittles in a typeface that aims at a monolinear feel.
Lightened /r and tittle; added more slant to /c and a bit less so to /o. There's also the new /h with a more pronounced vertical trend in the right stem, as was suggested on T.info. Less pretty than the previous curl, but I guess more legible.
Jasper, I tried a diagonal curl before and didn't like it; it broke the consistency of the baseline...
I'm not too fond of that current /h, though, it's awfully boxy. Maybe thinning the terminal would help against that.
Jasper: I'll give it a try, thanks.
Meanwhile, more letters, including the /h.ss02: