
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?
Comments
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).
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.)
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).
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.
That beak on the /f needs a lot more weight—at least as much as the top serif of /b /d /h. (I would also see what it looks like with a tad more, but probably similar is close enough.
If you have this Linotype-style short /f, you don’t really need f-ligatures so much. The ff looks a bit odd with that beak, in fact. At least, to my eye.
The join on /n and /u seems thinner than almost any other thins, perhaps a bit too much so. The foot of the /t is also a tad light.
Maybe /a is a bit too narrow?
In the italic, the ascender has a much more rounded cornering treatment than the baseline. I am looking at (for example) the el and thinking the direction change looks much better at the baseline than at the top of the ascender. Same for letters such as /n /u, the x-height serif seems less successful to my eye.
When I see /a/ next to /n/ or /m/ it's very apparent that the latter letters carry far more weight into their shoulders than /a/. I would darken the top of /a/ (start by having the outside stem contour stay straight for longer before tapering over. (It may also be that /m/ and /n/ are too heavy through their humps.)
/g/ seems way too lyrical and smooth to fit in with the other letters.
Straight vertical part of /G/ should be full stem width.
Crossbar of /A/ might be a bit too heavy (relative to the diagonal thin) and maybe a bit too high.
Tittles are too large, and I'm not sure their shape is working (roman and italic).
Closer attention to sidebearings will make assessing letter design easier.
Keep rethinking the italic lowercase serifs. Top arms of italic /E/ and /F/ feel stunted. Top right of italic /K/ and /Y/ should bear more relationship to each other.
Letter proportions overall are very solid and most glyphs are very well drawn.
Yep, I know what you mean. I was trying to go for something simpler than the previous “lyrical” /g, but kinda went overboard in the other direction. Ah well; back to the drawing… err, tablet!
I think the regular roman and regular italic are ready for testing. If nobody complains too much about the design, I’ll probably be working on a bold weight and axis next. Or maybe an optical size instead, since that interests me far more than weight. (And extending the character set; I want a full Latin plus IPA!)