Arrowwood

2»

Comments

  • Christian ThalmannChristian Thalmann Posts: 1,489
    edited August 2019
    I believe non-descending /J/, simple /Q/, symmetrical /U/, and sigmoid /R/ work best.  (Or make contrasted /U/ wider?)
  • Defaults are definitely preferable thought the alt /U/ is kind of intriguing. I'd toss out the others.
  • Bebas vs my font:



    I don't think they're particularly look alike—not more than any two grotesques about this narrow and heavy, anyhow—or give a similar feeling.

    I'm satisfied with the oval-on-the-outside-straight-on-the-inside motif, I'm not going to drop it.
  • Ori Ben-DorOri Ben-Dor Posts: 286
    edited August 2019
    I believe non-descending /J/, simple /Q/, symmetrical /U/, and sigmoid /R/ work best.
    Yeah, that's why they're the default ones :)

    (Or make contrasted /U/ wider?)
    You mean the inner white space or the thin, right stroke?

    Edit:

    Something like this?



    Defaults are definitely preferable thought the alt /U/ is kind of intriguing. I'd toss out the others.
    I'm not sure about J, R & U, but I kind of like alternative Q, I think I can imagine it being used in some contexts.

    --

    Thanks for this feedback!
  • Kent LewKent Lew Posts: 903
    I like the distinctive tail of the alternate Q, but not the distracting enclosed circle in the counter. Can the one be divorced from the other and still work for you?
  • @Kent Lew



    What do you think?
    To me it doesn't look very balanced.



    This one looks more balanced, but I still don't see why anyone would prefer this to the straight tail.
  • Kent LewKent Lew Posts: 903
    edited August 2019
    I agree the second is more balanced. Personally, I like this better, as it echoes this R, as well as the terminations S, C, et al.
    I would be inclined to pair the straight tail Q with the straight leg R.
    But that’s just me. Both approaches are fine, and it’s your to decide in the end.
  • Pairing straight-tail Q with sigmoid-leg R works for me, but I get your point. It's not like I'm going to release it anytime soon, but if I ever do, I'll revisit this issue.

  • Looking good! My eye wants the top of the closed counter of /A to be nudged a little rightward. Top arms of /E and /F and bottom arm of /E could maybe get a touch darker?
  • Looking good! My eye wants the top of the closed counter of /A to be nudged a little rightward.
    But then the thin (tapering) stroke of /A/ looks heavier than that of /V/. I think that bothers me. Does it bother you?

    This comment made me question whether /AMVW/ sat upright. I played with them and possibly changed them a tiny bit (kind of lost track...). I'm mostly not sure about /M/. How does it feel to you?



    1st line: /A/ with counter nudged a littler rightward. After the period: /AMVW/ (old /A/)
    2nd: /AMVW/ in a more natural context
    3rd: /EFLZ/ with darker top and bottom arms
    4th: alternative /M/, with vertical left- and rightmost outlines
    5th: alternative /2/, /69/ with larger counters (10 minutes ago I was sure these larger counters are better, not I'm not sure anymore... Maybe /6/ benefits from this larger counter, but /9/ doesn't?)
  • Hmm, for the /1, have you tried having it’s curve taper lower, perhaps even to where /2 or /3 terminate. At least to me it feels too abrupt next to the other characters.

  • I think I'll settle for something between top (=original) and middle:


  • Have you tried out a simple sloped top for /one/?
  • Have you tried out a simple sloped top for /one/?
    Do you mean a straight segment instead of the curved one? I haven’t. What I have considered is a beak-like form (like Helvetica’s), but I like the current form, I think it’s cool and adds character. Does it bother you?
  • It's interesting. Probably needs to overshoot the flat top (more if it is doing so already).
  • I'm not too fond of it, especially given the lack of any comparable structure anywhere else in the font. But don't let that stop you!
  • FWIW, I like the 1 as is.
  • It already is overshooting, but maybe not enough. I will print some samples at smaller sizes to decide on the exact amount. Thanks.
  • I do like the second revision (between original and middle) more than the original and the first revisions, but at the same time wonder how to refine it more. Captain it as you feel best serves it. However, one more experiment is—and this is probably a stretch, maybe a step backward—now that there’s some length to the taper you could try a curve as seen in the bowl of /9.

  • Some alternatives:



    From top to bottom:

    (default)
    J
    Q
    R
    U
    J+Q+U
    I'm all for the /J and /U from the last line. I’d leave the /Q clean, though. Very lovely, with these slight alterations (/J and /U) it constitutes a fresher interpretation of the models.
  • @Jacob Casal
    I don't understand what you mean by "a curve as seen in the bowl of /9." Could you please explain?
  • Sure, I was referring to a shorter, flatter taper that then becomes quickly vertical for /1, similar to the curve I highlighted with a red box on the /9. Now that I think about it more though, I don’t think that would be an improvement as it doesn’t work too well, but here is a rough idea of what I meant:

    A simpler way to have said it would be to experiment with different curves for the taper.
Sign In or Register to comment.