the serif looks good to me overall, but the transition from stem to arch is still a bit unnatural. Check out the /U/ for reference. done!
Sans is much better, but most versions are still a bit potbellied (upper Regular seems fine). For the others, tuck the lower curve in to align it visually with the top corner («vertical stacking»), but without narrowing the bottom gap. instead of moving the bowl inwards, i moved out the diagonal a bit to match with its alternative. I have also taken the curve from U.
Additionally, the Sans Bold is much too wide. done. at the expense of the gap though.
it's very irritating that your answers are hidden in the block quote, it always takes some detective work to find it.
Serif is done, as far as I'm concerned.
In the Sans Regular, the second Dresden is perfect. I would ditch the first Dresden; it's just worse than the second one, and the second one plays well with both /S/ designs.
In the Sans Bold, the second Dresden is also better than the first, but it's still a bit... brutal? I would calm down the right-hand structure further, open the gap, and narrow the whole thing. I think part of the problem is that it's too black in the right-hand structure; some optical compensation might help.
The Bold Frankfurt is much too busy and wide IMHO; try compressing the right-hand structure into half its current horizontal space.
(For comparison: My «triumphant Frankfurt» example from the infographic above.
sorry for my text edit, i am not that familiar with using this interface. i intended to answer point by point but can't place the cursor outside the box once i started typing.
great, thanks, i like the antiqua, too.
light sans (leipzig): yes, both variations became nearly identical and i now agree in using the lower bowl terminal for both styles. i hung on the idea it should relate to the S.
bold sans: i shortened the bowl terminal. both is addressed, slicker right structure and wider gap. further i adjusted the diagonal. by moving the top right corner very slightly inwards but mainly shifted the middle part outwards. it matches the light now (same angle) and got calmer. the bowl is two units slimmer, but the straight parts are notably corrected.
grotesk (frankfurt): is based on my sans drawings, with optical corrections (mainly shifting the diagonal inwards). further compressing the right-hand structure does not appeal me that much. blunt? as you may have seen, my intention for alternative design found its way into the "grotesk" scheme now, having orangeville :-)
The only thing that stands out to me now is the optical illusion in the Orangevilles that makes the roof appear to slope up into a spike on the right edge. It’s really hard to avoid, to the point where I recommend a domed Dresden with an extremely high upper right corner as an alternative. (Cf my solution for Ysabeau.)
The only thing that stands out to me now is the optical illusion in the Orangevilles that makes the roof appear to slope up into a spike on the right edge. It’s really hard to avoid, to the point where I recommend a domed Dresden with an extremely high upper right corner as an alternative. (Cf my solution for Ysabeau.)
i figure if one aspires orangeville, the flat roof on cap height is a must. seeking for optical correction by lowering the top right corner calls for a curve (with overshot) which leads back to a (very shallow) dresden model, as you say it. (the middle one).
I've started to write up a manifesto webpage on how to properly draw a capital eszett, so I have something more to point to than my old infographic...
I've been unsure about the term triumphant that I previously proposed for the particular set of proportions that delineate Zehlendorf within Leipzig and Zürich within Dresden. I'm thinking of changing it to heroic. Does anyone have any better suggestions?
Christian, it’s your preference. You can’t claim it’s the victor any more than one can claim that single-bowl a and g have triumphed over the double-bowls.
In my experience, I’m never sure which variant will be best for a particular typeface, until I experiment with the options, in the style of that face, in real word settings.
I thought ‘triumphant’ was in reference to triumphal arches, i.e. to Roman inscriptional proportions? Hence my suggestion ‘monumental’ as a better term.
Clearly the word “triumphant” was just meant to suggest the style, rather than suggest this is the particular style that has emerged victorious over all others. Hence why Christian was suggesting “heroic” as another possible name.
I wasn't so much referring to the inscriptions on the arches as the arches themselves, i.e., an inverted U as the underlying shape, and a structurally sound, load-bearing right-hand side as opposed to wild and haphazard zigzagging.
I'll also be collecting a few typical pitfalls in Eszett design... such as the Sad Friar (too pointy a dome that doesn't support the cap height), the Potbelly, the Slippery Slope (a prominent downward trend in the curves and diagonals), the Clipped Fingernail (too deep a cut that almost clips off the dome part of the counter, the B Movie (to narrow and closed so as to look like a B ), and the Quasimodo/Skiing Accident (diagonals pointing this way and that, feeling like a disjointed jumble).
Top is from Schelter & Giesecke. Bottom is a contemporary example from PampaType.
You could say they are related from both sharing a straight stem with a curved joint branching off, although one stem is descending. But the right parts relate to different proposed models. Do you group them as alternative forms of those models (do you compare them on the basis of the straight stem, or the curving top?), or assign them new models? If we're trying to categorize and name styles, then it becomes difficult the more granular you get.
There's certainly room for another article, but are you aware of this extensive one about the history and shape of ß/ẞ?
Yes, thanks, it's a good one... but mine will not so much be about the history and more about how to get it right. Something to point people to when they post ugly Eszetts for critique. My previous infographic is a bit too single-note for that.
If we're trying to categorize and name styles, then it becomes difficult the more granular you get.
Both are well done, in my opinion.
For my upcoming guide, which is aimed at text typefaces, I intend to present the basic parameter space (sigmoid vs zetoid, rectangular vs half-dome vs dome) with the caveat that if you venture beyond its limits, you'd better know what you're doing.
(For instance, I don't think descenders are appropriate for most text typefaces, but pretty much mandatory for handwriting, since all the usual distinguishing features vs B tend to get eroded away by the sloppiness of the medium. The calligraphic/glyphic example above can certainly get away with it.)
I've been referring to «the right-hand structure» when distinguishing, e.g., Dresdens from Leipzigs, but that's awfully clunky. How about calling it the bite instead?
Comments
😛
sorry for my text edit, i am not that familiar with using this interface. i intended to answer point by point but can't place the cursor outside the box once i started typing.
great, thanks, i like the antiqua, too.
light sans (leipzig): yes, both variations became nearly identical and i now agree in using the lower bowl terminal for both styles. i hung on the idea it should relate to the S.
bold sans: i shortened the bowl terminal. both is addressed, slicker right structure and wider gap. further i adjusted the diagonal. by moving the top right corner very slightly inwards but mainly shifted the middle part outwards. it matches the light now (same angle) and got calmer. the bowl is two units slimmer, but the straight parts are notably corrected.
grotesk (frankfurt): is based on my sans drawings, with optical corrections (mainly shifting the diagonal inwards). further compressing the right-hand structure does not appeal me that much. blunt?
as you may have seen, my intention for alternative design found its way into the "grotesk" scheme now, having orangeville :-)
thank you!!
The only thing that stands out to me now is the optical illusion in the Orangevilles that makes the roof appear to slope up into a spike on the right edge. It’s really hard to avoid, to the point where I recommend a domed Dresden with an extremely high upper right corner as an alternative. (Cf my solution for Ysabeau.)
thank you for your support, christian!
In my experience, I’m never sure which variant will be best for a particular typeface, until I experiment with the options, in the style of that face, in real word settings.