Hey, I've been interested in typefaces lately and decided to give it a shot.
I started using FontLab 7 and designed this typeface focused on beautiful letters with high contrast. I was struggling with the fact that it looked too "vanilla" so I decided to make the letters tall, as you can see on A, B, E, F, H, et cetera. I've just completed the letters A-Z but might develop some other glyphs in the future.
Anyhow, this is the result:

Doing these letters was a fun process, and I would like to get better at it, so any advice is welcome (not focused on letterspacing & kerning

)
Comments
You're right to defer kerning but you should be setting up your default sidebearings as you design. That establishment of default interletter space will better allow you to judge if the intraletter spaces (a.k.a. counters) are working (is /D too narrow, is /W too crowded, is /C too light, etc.).
Is taper of /V and /W thicks intended?
In /G, the swooping interior contour up to the bar feels out of character with the rest.
You need overshoot for your rounds. Look at how the bottoms of C, G, and U, and top and bottom of O, look like they are shorter than other letters.
Interestingly, not so much a problem for top of C and G as I would have expected. The particular serif treatment you have done creates a bit of a flat section, which greatly reduces, and possibly eliminates, the need for top overshoot with those letters. (Ditto bottom and perhaps top of S.)
Usual overshoot is 1–3% of the total height.
So, do focus on both black and white shapes
I think this is because it has no original design decision, no matter what proportions it has. But it is actually a good thing for the first typeface, since your goal is to learn the basics and creativity almost always interferes that. And I think you’re on a right path here as it looks pretty good overall.
You can do some improvements if you step back a little and test your letters one by one, starting from simple to more complex. Start with testing and improving rhythm and proportions of HOIHOIHO, then add an E, then F, T, L, then perhaps D, P, B and so on.
It might be useful to compare your font to other high quality fonts of the same genre and design, as you work, it helps to see mistakes and how they can be improved. Something like Font Goggles is a good tool for that.
I didn't even know the baseline points of /V/W needed overshoot, but it makes sense since they feel a bit taller. I had 10 units for the round overshoots, so maybe 15 will solve both overshoots. I was reading Practical Font Design With FontLab 5 by David Bergsland while doing this, and since he was doing a font with 10 units overshoot I just did the same without thinking. Maybe it depends on how big the grid is too.
Good suggestions! And yes, I think going with the tall /S will work better on this typeface.
I was ignoring kerning because it's a process supposed to be done in the end, but I guess I should be considering it before getting there. As you said, some details can't be fixed with kerning. When it comes to letterspacing though, it was something critical that I ignored. As a result, the counters are very inconsistent, just as Craig mentioned.
This sounds interesting, but I can't figure out how to install it. Is it macOS exclusive?
– Diagonals look thinner than vertical strokes.
– U should probably be wider.
– I'm wondering about the low connection in the P.
– The extended bottom half of the C doesn't make much sense to me, it almost looks like a glitch...
I have no idea how much “10 units” is without knowing the scale. (Although I would guess the scale is larger as the overshoot is not at all apparent. Perhaps a 2000 or 2048 units cap height.)
I think the proportions still need some work. If tall is what you're going for, I would make some of the letters (CEFGOQUV, to name a few) a little more narrow so that the proportions are more natural. Alternatively, you could get adventurous and make some letters narrow and others wide, like TypeTogether's Fino for example. The latter option is (I think) more interesting but also more difficult to pull off. Either way, you have to do it with confidence, which will come with experience
Perhaps you first need to learn 'normal' proportions before you are able to design adventurous ones...
Focus on proportions and spacing for now, and forget about kerning. In my view, you need good proportions for good spacing (although it's more of a two-way street), and you need good spacing for good kerning.
Anyway, best of luck! I like where this is going
Also, pangrams are not very useful for testing fonts, this could be a better starting point:
https://www.typography.com/blog/text-for-proofing-fonts
I apologize for portraying my concept poorly since you took the time to give me all these suggestions; The font I'm going for isn't tall. As Craig better described than me, I was trying to pull off a high-waisted font, not tall.
Supposing I was going for a tall font, something around the TypeTogether's Fino would be very interesting. I like how its rounds stand out from the other letters.
On the other hand, from the high-waisted standpoint, I feel like the proportions are natural already. I agree that the /A's crossline should be lower tho.
Very interesting, funny subtitle. Ty for linking this
I'd try a high-waisted-but-not-that-much P before settling on the original low-waisted one. Yes, the white space is indeed a problem, but it's not a huge one, given that it's a high-contrast display type.
Also, as the design is overall pointy and sharp, so I'd make the connection in the K thinner. That's going to be tricky, since the combination of high and thin connection would mean a very long leg, but still.
I'm attaching a pdf to the post once more, but this time with a long string of text, so you can see how the font behaves. I probably ended up missing something, so any feedback is always welcome.
Proportions still need some work. A K M N W X and Y are a bit narrow.
S might be a bit wide (and top-heavy). L is usually a little narrower than E.
The J looks like it descends a bit too much.
The middle joint on B and R could maybe be made a little lighter
The leg of R looks a bit feeble. I would get rid of the upward curl and end it horizontally. Also the curves on the leg could be a bit stronger.
Same for the tail of Q.
V and W could use more overshoot
The bowl on P is falling downward
The S looks out of balance. Compare its terminals to C for example. I think it would benefit from more horizontal terminals (so, don't make them curve in so much, but keep closer to the baseline/capheight)
Many of the curve-to-straight connections look a bit off, not very smooth. For example the top of D and P.
Some characters look okay, but would space better with some changes. For example, it would help if the top-left of N alights with the bottom-left. Once you got this, spend some time on spacing, and spacing alone (yes, that means removing all of the kern pairs you already made). Try different things, make printouts, see what works. Only once you've absolutely nailed everything else should you do a final kerning round.
Also, maybe time for some numbers, punctuation, language support?
For letters with diagonal strokes, such as A V W etc, there’s a spacing benefit in making outer serifs shorter to allow the letters getting closer.
I think the S can get stronger if you make the spine more curved, which would make the negative spaces more rounded and stable.
Try heavier bottom serif on N?
Agree about the R, try making that leg without the points in the middle.
Feels like the descenders can be a little shorter to avoid line spacing problems.
Also, highly subjective, but I think the high waist here is one of those cases when you keep peeing against the wind just because “that’s the idea” which “makes it different”. Let it go and it’ll go smoother. Or make both versions and see which you and people like more.
I started this typeface to learn solid basics that I can use in the future, so training my eyes to good proportions is a must.
I understand that while I was learning this, my creativity got in the way. I did not want to do something that already exists. I decided to do a high-waisted typeface for that reason, but I am willing to give it up if that helps me improve.
As Jasper de Waard said:
I'd definitely make S & Z narrow like they used to be in the 2nd version. I'd make E, F & L similarly narrow as well. You want width variability, it compliments your design. Sure, it shouldn't be random, but you weren't very far from getting it right. You can always look at Roman capitals (e.g. Trajan) for reference.
There are still inconsistencies in the weight department. For instance, the vertical leg of the Y looks thicker than the thick stroke of the X. And the K looks too dark (it has two thick strokes close to each other, so you need to compensate by making them a bit thinner, especially the vertical one). The thick stroke of the Z looks thinner than any other thick stroke. The left stroke of the V looks thinner than that of the W (where if anything it should look thicker, as V doesn't have a second thick stroke you should compensate for).
Also, you've lost some of the dynamic nature of the 2nd version by adding so much mass to the serifs of the thin strokes. Yes, the more pronounced serifs bring balance, but if it's supposed to be a display type—which I think is the case—then you need to be careful not to cross the border between balanced and boring.
Why do E & F have a rounded inner corner on top while D, P, etc. don't? That's not necessarily a mistake, but make sure you're aware of this inconsistency and happy with it.
One feature I love about your design, is how a lot of the serifs touch each other, creating these nice little arches in between letters. And coupled with the high-waisted look, it has this lovely 70's dry-transfer vibe that's honestly hard to faithfully replicate. So well done on that!
If you do have to make adjustments, ask yourself why - what problem is this solving? If there isn't a good answer, let it go.
Just one technical thing I want to raise though - Perhaps the top and bottom of the bowl in /D is a touch too flat? If that's part of the identity, no worries. But my 'why?' rationale for this change would be that the /G and /O have smoother stroke transitions, and the /D could benefit from that too.
I noticed that in some typefaces, the /4 has a similar top to the /A. After all, they share that triangle look. I thought that detail would be interesting in this typeface and decided to do the same. Any tips?