Codename "Gouda" (1920's pastiche, more or less)

Kind of a mix of Goudy and Dwiggins shapes in the roman in some ways, fairly narrow and spindly. Looks much less so now than it used to, but I can’t think of a better codename. It seems to work well enough on tablet.

I’m still unhappy with the roman /f; any pointers? Darkening it made it look unbalanced next to /l.

Is the roman /Z a bit dark?

I think I prefer the alternate italic shapes of /C/G/S; they match the lc (not just their lc counterparts) much better. I also think I prefer the basic shape of alternate /S over that of normal S, which is strictly a sloped roman.

Smallcaps forms:

I used sloped forms of /G and /Q in the italic to match the roman SC as opposed to the italic caps; is this correct?


  • There's quite a difference in serif weight throughout (compare the /E and /T to the /S and /Z, for example).  Is this intentional?  
  • There's quite a difference in serif weight throughout (compare the /E and /T to the /S and /Z, for example).  Is this intentional?  
    Nope, just an oversight. (Maybe “lack of sight”?) I knew there was something wrong, but just couldn’t point to it. Thanks!

  • Looking at this again, I'd expect the angled stems of letters such as /i, /j, /m, /n & /u to overshoot the x height a little.  Look, for example, at the /uv pair; to my eye, the /u appears too short in comparison.

    Also, I agree with you that the /z seems a bit dark, as does the /4 in your old style figures.  By contrast, both the /W and /w seem light.  Take a look how light the /w appears in the word 'wisi' in your PDF (this word also highlights the need to look again at the relative heights, since the /w seems taller than the /i).  
  • 2018-10-28, last night’s version.

    Did a lot of little things to increase consistency, especially overshoot. Alignment zones and bluevalues mean that you have to sacrifice beauty (ha!) of proportion for consistency in low-pixel/ppem environments, but that’s the game.

    I changed strategies on /W and /w; overlapping vees produced either too dark a color (if I didn’t lighten the vees) or too light (I had to make each vee obnoxiously light to make its overall average color/density consistent with everything else). /W is too wide, but it has the same kerning as /V, so that it’ll work with /A on either side (pet peeve of mine).

    I have two sets of superiors and inferiors; the normal create fractions a hyphen wide (also the width of each numeral). Is this acceptable? The larger look much better in chemical formulae (and could use some kerning!), but the smaller fractions look nicely discrete — much nicer, in fact:

    Enh, what’s the superscript equivalent of sinf? (I’ve been faking it by using .supr and .subs features, but that’s incorrect.)

  • There is only one superscript feature (unless you also count numr).

    The two subscript features only exist because in the original discussions, some people wanted a subscript that went below the baseline, but somebody else thought a distinct subscript that sat on the baseline was important to have.

    I don’t know of any need for that (other than as a denominator, but we have that feature as well).
  • 2018-11-03. Minor touch-ups all over, but redid /y. Added a rather vast number of dotaccent and other such modded ASCII glyphs, and Latin-2 seems covered. I’ll either complete the IPA set, add a Greek, or add bold versions (maybe smallcaps) next.

    This was never meant to be a large project; it was just a toy experiment (hence the bare-bones structures) that just gathered its own momentum. Not a bad fruition for a bunch of fugly, unruly, disproportionate glyphs.

  • John SavardJohn Savard Posts: 487
    edited November 2018
    I like Goudy and Dwiggins, and I like your typeface. The revised version improves the lowercase f, but in my opinion the problem with it is that the crossbar on the f should be raised to match the x-height; right now, the top of the letter looks too big.

    I don't have the kind of knowledge of type design required to advise you instead how to turn what was presumably an intentional experiment to flout convention with the f into a successful one, and thus the only recommendation I can make is the timid one to scurry back to what is most common.

    Looking at the pdf sample of the third version, though, with an extended text specimen, I can see other issues. The crossbar on the t, also lower than the x-height, is distracting. Letters like g and o and e have an optical correction bringing them above the x-height... but it's excessive, so the letters look too large, breaking the x-height line.
Sign In or Register to comment.