Designing slash glyphs in heavy weights

Tural Alisoy

Hi. Please help me. What do you think? Which is true? In general, as the letters thicken, what should be the thickness of such letters slash or bar?

Alex Visi

Just have a look at well designed typefaces. For sure, thinner than letters, but not too thin either.

Ø, as far as I understand does need the crossbar in the middle and your second option is not acceptable (or at least rare even in bold weights).

Other options are either too thick or too thin to my taste.

Nick Shinn

Don’t rely on theory, precedent, and “general” practice.
Experiment with sample settings in the relevant languages, and see how different options affect the “colour” (smoothness) of text in your design.
Then decide which you think looks best.

James Puckett

It’s a stylistic choice that can work either way, similar to how very light diacritics can work just fine with ultra bold letters. But if you make the bars heavy then you need to lighten the stems they cross and the counter of o needs to increase in size dramatically. It is important to keep size in mind; if the typeface is intended to work as text then your RIBBI weights need care to stay legible. 

Paul Hanslow

James Puckett said:

It’s a stylistic choice that can work either way, similar to how very light diacritics can work just fine with ultra bold letters. 

To add to James' comments, its often impossible to have the bars a fraction lighter in low contrast typefaces featuring low stroke modulation i.e. geometrics. Doing so makes the whole glyph clog up the counter (ø) if the bar is to remain unbroken the bar of /ł will look too heavy. A good type designer will tweak these bars in each weight to ensure they remain legible in small point sizes for body copy.

When assessing typefaces I tend to look at the diacritics and the barred glyphs simultaneously to see if the designer took care in their craft. Polish characters such as the lslash provide good feedback on a typeface's quality as inexperienced designers don't understand the slash is an integral part of the letter, changing it from the usual Latin 'l' sound to a 'w' sound. It's either too light and/or too narrow to be visible. 

In short, the slash should be visible in whatever point size the type is intended for, be it display or text.

  

Christian Thalmann

I recently got the advice to make the ø look like it's just a regular o with a slash. Obviously, it can't actually be that, but it can still make that optical impression.

Craig Eliason

Christian Thalmann said:

I recently got the advice to make the ø look like it's just a regular o with a slash. Obviously, it can't actually be that, but it can still make that optical impression.

How did you decide on perpendicular terminals for L's slash vs italic-angle terminals for l's? Just a matter of spacing? 

Andreas Stötzner

Paul Hanslow said:

… Polish characters such as the lslash provide good feedback on a typeface's quality …

Very true. Especially the ł character is a sensitive one, requiring the best possible attention to both detailing and spacing.

About the glyph details, Adam Twardoch’s recommendations are most valuable. To test the spacing, I assembled a few sample bits which I find helpful, of both Polish and Navajo languages:

Batłtykiem, odwołuje. wzmógł półfinale współdziałanie

bł cłčł eł głf oł pł tłt yły włw łłz łż łź

aʼatłʼoʼii ałʼąą ndeiłkaahí ádeiłʼínígíí yádaałtiʼ

Nick Shinn

There is some Lslash typography in which the slash doesn’t stick out on the left side, at all. In fact, in display use liberties with how accents are handled have been taken, in Poland; another instance is kreskas that “cross the line” at the top of C or O.
So, despite my advice to ignore precedent—not entirely—of course it helps to have some study of the local culture, to see which designs appear to be conventional, and which are “edgy”. But you still have to make a decision on that.

Alex Visi

Nick Shinn said:

So, despite my advice to ignore precedent—not entirely—of course it helps to have some study of the local culture, to see which designs appear to be conventional, and which are “edgy”. But you still have to make a decision on that.

That’s what I thought after your initial comment. No way you can make a good letter by merely “experimenting”. Studying what’s good and what’s not is a must.

Christian Thalmann

Craig Eliason said:

How did you decide on perpendicular terminals for L's slash vs italic-angle terminals for l's? Just a matter of spacing? 

Presumably. I thought I had followed someone's advice on ł, but I can't find it anymore.

EDIT: Oh wait, it's probably Adam Twardoch's «How to?» website:

Nick Shinn

No way you can make a good letter by merely “experimenting”.

I said “don’t rely” on theory, not “ignore”!

Often, when people post isolated letters at Typedrawers, or alphabets, and ask for a critique or advice, I say “look at the letters in words, and tease out what works best”, or words to that effect. Because typedrawers make fonts, not letters.

Having said that, Adam’s analysis and theory, quoted by Christian, make a lot of sense. Now I’m tempted to look for exceptions…

Dave Crossland

Here's how Font Bureau did it in Roboto Flex

Tural Alisoy

Thank you very much guys. You have helped me a lot in this regard.