What's wrong with my kerning?

Daniel Meščaněnko

My font appears "jumpy", I can't figure out what's wrong with it. Working on kerning definitely improved the looks though I don't know what to do next (other than start from scratch). No one else sees the issue there so maybe I'm going crazy?
I made three different designs for 't' already but none of them were perfect

To cover the basics: bold heading/sub-heading font for displays
Pardon the cheesiness and big thanks for any feedback


I cringe looking at these
Hey this one is... 2% better? 

James Puckett

The problem isn’t the kerning. It’s that the letterforms are sloppy. You haven’t compensated for weight in complex letters like a and e. s is much too light in the middle, W is too wide, h is too narrow, r is too light, etc. Revise all of your work repeatedly until it looks even without kerning.

Mark Simonson

The space character is too wide, too. This is a common mistake for inexperienced type designers.

Daniel Meščaněnko

Thank you! I immediately went to fix the most glaring issues


Still, I've decided to turn this into a variable font so gotta start from scratch anyway hah 😅

Thomas Phinney

Also, your round shapes are lacking overshoots in general.

You might also benefit from these tutorials:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR-CG5eB3nQ
- https://frerejones.com/blog/typeface-mechanics-001/

Dyana Weissman

Negative space is as important as positive space. Consider the rhythm in between your letters, both inside and out, before you start kerning. 

James Puckett

On a related note, if you need someone to start with critiquing your own work, start with my font proofs: https://github.com/DunwichType/DTF_Proofs

Andreas Stötzner

– DON’T TOUCH –
Leave everything as it is now. Don’t fix anything – and you’ll keep the peculiar charme of a naïve design which otherwise will vanish almost certainly.

Ramiro Espinoza

@Andreas Stötzner I think this position is way too romantic. Correcting what is wrong in a font is a way of learning how to do it better.

Andreas Stötzner

Ramiro Espinoza said:

… Correcting what is wrong in a font is a way of learning how to do it better.

Yes of course, but in this case I would rather recommend to thoroughly study Helvetica or Akzidenz Grotest first, before turning to design a font himself. Strictly spoken this fonts has every flaw you could ever make – and yet it works as a font by it’s own merits. In a way it is actually better than all the ‘serious' Helveticas out there, because there is life in it (strange life, but still: life).
That is not romantic, that is remarkable.

Vasil Stanev

The current type scene is completely and utterly saturated with groesque fonts. This can hardly be sold, but it is invaluable as a stepping stone towards better designs. I can't recommend Phinney's videotut enough. Grind!

Christian Thalmann

Andreas Stötzner said:

Yes of course, but in this case I would rather recommend to thoroughly study Helvetica or Akzidenz Grotest first, before turning to design a font himself.

Learning type design by studying popular fonts is like learning to ride a bike by watching professional cyclists.

IMHO, you'll learn the most of you make mistakes, learn to see them, and learn to correct/avoid them. (Clearly, using references is helpful for comparison and as a source of solution strategies, though.)

Christian Thalmann

Andreas Stötzner said:

Strictly spoken this fonts has every flaw you could ever make – and yet it works as a font by it’s own merits.

Beginner mistakes do not make a font interesting or original. In fact, Dafont is full of beginner fonts full of the same beginner mistakes.

The world might not need another sterile grotesque, but even less does it need another beginner grotesque.

Learning the basics of type design is an objectively good thing for a budding type designer.