Hi! This is a geometric display typeface I'm currently working on. It's intended for bold headlines and is meant to give a "techy" feel, while trying to remain suited for editorial use. Before I go any further with the design, I'd be very happy to get feedback on the typeface this far.
The typeface is inspired by the logo for Techna, which is a student magazine for science and technology students. I initially started with the uppercase letters, but later added a lowercase, intending to make it more usable.

Here's a picture with some sample text. I've also attached a proof as a PDF. There is currently no kerning. I've also noticed that the caps are a bit too light compared to the lowercase, so that needs to be fixed (perhaps by changing the spacing).
Comments
The H seems narrower than the A, which is very odd proportions.
The left side of the C and G seem a bit thin compared to top and bottom; usually to appear monoline they would need to be heavier.
I am guessing that the baseline stroke of L and E might be the same weight as the vertical, which makes them look lighter. Again, slight optical correction might be needed on the horizontals.
I agree that a couple of alt glyphs would help, so I'll plan on adding those.
The text could indeed benefit from tweaking the proportions a bit more. I'll look into making optical corrections on the horizontals.
Attached a new PDF with text outlines.
You've greatly improved on the logo that inspired your typeface. For that matter, you've greatly surpassed it, but...
Your A is a bit unusual, you have a wide-open C, the bottom bar of the E is a bit long, and the crossbars on your H and A draw attention to themselves. You've done a good job integrating these design features into your font, but these particular glyphs, to one degree or another, are just a bit different from the rest. Not so coincidentally, of course, is that these are the very letters from the logo that inspired you. It's as though, you started out with an idea — which you greatly improved upon — but you feel obliged to remain true to that original idea.
I'm not saying you should omit these quirks. I'm just saying they seem to have gotten a little bit left behind as you moved past them. I do think it would help, however, if you took K Pease's advice and created alternate positions for the glyphs with the extended crossbars. Personally, I'd be inclined to make the extended crossbar glyphs the alternates because, if you don't, these quirks will end up disproportionately defining your entire typeface.
Finally, I don't mean to come across as too critical — you've designed a very nice typeface.
I agree. Revising the A/H/E would probably be a step in the right direction.
(“Design size” refers to the idea that given a perfectly spaced typeface, it has a specific size that its spacing is ideal for, and needs tracking when used at a significantly larger or smaller size.)
I've decided to go with fairly tight spacing by default, intending to "market" it as a display typeface. You can of course increase the spacing, and then it should work pretty well even in smaller sizes.
Images taken from the GitHub repo.
Thanks for the feedback!
I think one aspect of this that is actually important is that the triangular letters (AV) be ~ like equilateral triangles, so there is a geometric aspect missed, there. Both the cut off point and the overall proportion are part of this.
Most geometric sans use oldstyle proportions. This goes all the way back to Futura. Not required, but certainly helps ring that bell for the user. But the triangular letters part might be important.
What I like about Carl‘s design is precisely that, while keeping the proportions of the uppercase "modern", as Thomas insightfully noticed, it mantains some of this beautiful tension by keeping the horizontal proportions of the capitals varied.
By using a more triangular form for /A and /V it would end up being similar to other attempts in successfully merging the "modern" and classic rythm. I believe as it is it quite successfully achieves a balance between the two, and the result is remarkably original. Square dots and punctuation also make it more "industrial" than a neoclassic take on geometric/humanistic sans with classic proportions.