Advice on 'j's

Matt Khinda

Hello!

I'm drawing a condensed grotesque and am having some trouble with the lowecase j, so I figured I'd ask you all for your advice and/or opinion. 

Below I have 3 possible directions:
1. 'half-curl' (currently my favorite, but I'm not sure if this contradicts the design of the /y)
2. 'full curl' to match the descender on the /y
3. 'no curl' to match the straightness of the /t



Everything is still very much in-progress so forgive any spacing/kerning issues. 

Thanks 

Igor Freiberger

I also prefer option 1. If you g matches the y, I see no problem.

Thomas Phinney

(3) does not fit the general look of the typeface. It is the sort of thing you see in radical geometric sans, not a classic grotesque like this.

Both (1) and (2) are viable options. I prefer (2), as I feel it fits better with the architecture of many other letters. Not only /y, but also /e /a /c to some degree.

Johannes Neumeier

You could have version 2 and make a contextual substitution for /j with deeper descender for glyphs where the tail collides. Or simply drop the hook of the /j a little further to be a bit closer to reaching to the same depth as your /y and avoid collisions like that. Either way, version 2 fits nicer with /r and /a in my view.

Adam Jagosz

Johannes Neumeier said:

/j with deeper descender

Really? I would see a /j with the half-curl contextually (after q, ą), but deeper descender?

Mark Simonson

I would tend to go with the first one, even if it seems inconsistent with the /y. A tail on a /j that sticks out too much to the left will not only have some bad collisions, it will jump out at the beginning of a line on the left side of a paragraph, and may even be cut off at the edge of the text box, depending on the app. True, you can use contextual tricks, but I think it is usually better to keep things simple.

Nick Shinn

Mark said:

… it will jump out at the beginning of a line on the left side of a paragraph…

The typographer’s (font user’s) primary consideration.
Even more problematic in italic.

Adam Jagosz

The timid variant could be made the default, and one with the more generous descender could be substituted contextually, or maybe as a contextual stylistic alternate. In case you want to keep things "unsimple".

<div>feature ss01 {<br></div><div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; lookup outrageous_j {<br></div><div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ignore sub [j g q y] j';&nbsp; # just an example<br></div><div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; sub j' by j.alt;</div><br><div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; } outrageous_j;</div><br>} ss01;

Vasil Stanev

I lean towards more conservative variants like the first one. (2) would feel out of place if, for some reason, a two story g is added later on.

Christian Thalmann

The curl on (2) is too tight for comfort. I recommend (1).

Claudio Piccinini

I prefer (1), also for the reasons stated by Mark and agreed upon by Nick, but it also depends on the forms of the other letters as a whole.
I would not bother using (3) if you like it, but it depends on how much you want the typeface distinguished. I am using the (3) form in a typeface I am designing and still undecided, as it’s meant primarily as a text face, and if there aren’t many corresponding traits in the other letters to match it, it surely feels pretty radical, but I always liked the Futura lowercase solution for /j.

Claudio Piccinini

Also, how is /f ? That is important to know, as you could base your decision on how you decide to treat /f. I tend to prefer the analog form of (1) for /f, so I would rule out (2) for this additional reason, if you take this route.

Jasper de Waard

I think the y also looks a bit awkward as is, and might profit from a top-j-like approach. Also, the middle diagonal of 'a' could go thinner? Especially when compared to e.

Matt Khinda

Thanks for all of the feedback! 
Super informative and helpful to hear your perspectives. 

As of now I'm planning to make option 1 the default, with option 2 being a stylistic alternate.

I have a double storey /g and an /f with a full curl (shown below) but am considering redrawing the /f to match the more conservative /j. 



For additional context, the typeface is (loosely) based on Grotesque No. 9 from Stephenson Blake & Co. which has a lovely double storey /g — but an /f and /j I really don't like (hence my search for a different design solution). 



Any other comments and feedback welcome. Still in the process of drawing the full character set. 

Adam Ladd

The /t is sticking out to me as too plain and feels like it needs the half (or full) curl also. Also, the aperture of the /e feels a little too tight.

Craig Eliason

I recognize you said it's intended to be only loosely based on that model, but you've really ironed flat the bowls of the original, and in so doing lost a lot of its charm and made something quite generic. I would consider putting back some of the bow to the outer contour sides of letters like b/p/d/e.

John Savard

I'm not sure if I find the original charming, and I suspect many others wouldn't either. The decision not to go with pot-hook f's and j's is also sound. I prefer the look of the j in the first line, but the one in the second harmonizes better with other letters. My inclination would be to suggest a j somewhere between those two - and, also, to redesign the y a little. Not to make it match the j, as a lower-case y like this one does need to curl up fully - but, no, there's probably no way to improve the typeface by going in that direction, and just going with the first line is likely the best option.

Thomas Phinney

I find the asymmetrical downwards bulge of the original a bit disturbing (and Hobo-esque), but its other quirks seem quite charming to me, and I would be more interested to see them, than not.

That said, I think ironing out the quirks is a legitimate design choice. In today’s world of a million sans serifs, it will be less differentiated, but more versatile. 🤷‍♂️

John Savard

Thomas Phinney said:

That said, I think ironing out the quirks is a legitimate design choice.

Yes: this is what I agree with. The typeface designer should create a typeface that is unique and original... in some way. In which way? In the ways important to him.

And so I concede a freedom to pick and choose among the idiosyncracies of the typeface that is one's inspiration; even some feature I may like may not fit into the vision the designer has. (I'd complain if the best part were left out of a revival, but this isn't that.)

Claudio Piccinini

I absolutely love the original, so now it’s difficult to comment. :-)
Aside from this, if you keep the more sober /j, do the /f in the same vein.