First full sans family - A little criticism please

Hello All! 
Long time listener, first-time caller (Sorry, I couldn't resist).

A little about myself, I am a designer/art director with nearly 20 years of experience. Throughout my career, I've always loved drawing letters, typically for one-off logotypes, but I've never actually tried to finish a full typeface.

My interest in drawing letterforms has taken me to various workshops (Crafting Type) and intensives (Reading) to hone my craft WITH the added benefit of focused criticism, which brings me to post where I'm currently at with my first full family.

I know that there are so many excellent sans-serif families. This process is less about making a product for the market and more about finishing a full typeface. My idea was to create a sans-serif family that is contemporary, economical (in space) and readable.

I'm still working on some general spacing issues and some additional drawing tweaks through the spacing process.

I'd love any criticism(s) that you have to offer. An A4 PDF is attached.

Many Thanks in Advance!


  • K PeaseK Pease Posts: 180
    It's good! I especially like the form of @ you've chosen. The center of S, while well-formed, is slightly heavy (in all weights). I can't find any other faults.
  • Vasil StanevVasil Stanev Posts: 728
    edited February 2019
       Overall pretty pleasing to the eye. Some nitpicks, however:

       The B is too wide compared to adjacent letters, especially the C.
       S,s, and to a lesser extent a, e look unbalanced (some think otherwise: ), and the first two also look wider than they should be. The feet of b and d are not well enough pronounced and will get lost at smaller sizes. Same goes for the spur of m, n, p, q...     b, d, l terminate at an angle, the others do not. The top of the z seems too wide. The y is slightly wider than it should be, compared to x.

       Lighter weights seem too tightly spaced. Look at words that have a g, for example. The white space on both sides should each be the same, visually, as inside the bowl of the letter. By this rule bolder faces are tighter spaced, yet not too tight as to be unreadable.

       (Follow symbols the board does not allow me to display): Definitely work on the at, it looks like it is from a different font. The oval is too angular. The copyright symbol is OK except for the circle beeing also too angular, but the Registered should always be superscript, as tall and high as the trademark. Plenty of people get this wrong but it's how it should be. (also don't italicize them when you get to the italics. See here for this subject: , and inside this linked thread is a link to an older one for the same stuff).
       The ampersand looks promising.

       When you print proofs, always use the old trick: mirror the image, and also mirror and upside-down image. That way you will see what has eluded you in the standart view mode.
  • Nice! Is that a little bit of inverted contrast?
    The tail of /Q/ looks a bit cramped compared to the springy curves you otherwise have. I would try out something more diagonal, like the tail of /j/.
    The top right curve of /n/ (and related letters) could use a bit more work, especially in the Bold. I'd move the vertical on-curve point a bit more upwards.
    The /dollar and /ampersand/ are lopsided, especially the latter. The interior of /at/ has too many contradicting curve styles; why not use something like in /d/ for the /a/ part?
    The sample text looks like Scotch English to me. :grimace:
  • The /J looks slightly too rigid to me, especially compared with /j.
  • Adam LaddAdam Ladd Posts: 240
    edited February 2019
    Nice :) I like the semi-condensed proportions.

    A quick glance had two characters stick out to me: the /a feels like the top left of the stroke is overhanging or reaching to the left. The /m feels a little uncomfortable where the curve strokes meet in the middle. In the lighter weights, maybe the curve to stem juncture position is lowered a slight bit in those type characters (which will help the spurs be more evident as Vasil mentioned)? Or I wonder if even the overshoot is perhaps a touch too big (e.g. the /p in the bolder weights)? Maybe not, but sometimes it appears that way.
  • Thank you all @Adam Ladd @Adam Jagosz @Christian Thalmann @Vasil Stanev  
    @K Pease for taking the time, I appreciate it! Your thoughts and nitpicks are super-helpful ... 

Sign In or Register to comment.