Hm, still too funky. Maybe I should just try to darken the contact corner of /K/ a bit, perhaps with a straight linking segment, and leave it at that. After all, Bree gets away with straight capitals as well.
I rolled all humanist caps back to the default except for the spurless /G/, slightly stronger-jointed /K/, and round-topped /Germandbls/. I think it works this way. The original design concept was a humanist-flavored neogrotesque, so it should remain a neogrotesque first and foremost.
I suppose I could adopt the new /K/ as the default (and only) /K/, given that the thinning in the original /K is somewhat eyecatching. Then the /G/ would be the only change.
There's some pressure in the German forum to promote the round /G/ to default and use the spurred /G/ as an alternate, but I still think the spur adds to the neogrotesque-ness and the round shape matches the increased roundness of the humanist lowercase...
I've finally found enough contiguous minutes of leisure time to look at this again. I'm currently struggling with the /five/ — the /S/ was easy in comparison!
And I've revisited the /Germandbls/, going back to my beloved Dresden/Zürich. The flat-topped previous version just irritated me with its «ski-jump ramp» optical illusion and the clipped corner.
I think the five can have a little more angle on the vertical stroke, and the horizontal stroke at the top can come in a little bit at the right. the joint between the vertical stroke and the bowl can be more pronounced, with the vertical stroke going down lower before making the loop, I think - maybe it’s just me but the way you’ve minimized the overlap there makes it appear more DIN-like to me. but, you could also lean into that aesthetic even more and go in the other direction..
I noticed both Helvetica and Arial have a surprisingly strongly sloped stem — wouldn't have thought! Univers is more vertical and closed, but frankly all of them are pretty ugly up close. I rather like the overall shape I came up with, but the joint is a bit unhappy. It's just that things turn worse as soon as I try to simplify or angle it...
Horizontal of /two reads as too light to me, like it might break under the weight of the rather heavy looking spine. /seven horizontal might be too skinny by a hair too.
Given the construction of the 3, 5 and S (and 6 and 9), the bottom-center terminal of the cap Eszett seems like it should not have an angled cut. Kind of feels like it ought to be cut vertically.
Alternatively, change the 3 and 5 to match the Eszett, making the whole thing a bit more humanist.
Thomas, I tried a vertical cut first and got an unpleasant flaring illusion from it... now that I've tried again, I no longer see the illusion, so this is definitely the right way to go. Thanks!
I have used gaps in currency like that at micro sizes, same form as your ruble. the designer reviewing the cyrillic pointed it out as something that felt odd... I think you can get away with it, if you really want, but because it isn't necessarily solving a problem at your intended optical size (I'm making an assumption there), it may stand out as unexpected. would it not make more sense if other glyphs in the typeface did something similar?
I don't think the Indian rupee symbol works. Look at how it relates to Devanagari letter र (ra). To avoid congestion in the = part, you can make the bowl taller than the official design.
The pound and hryvnia are perhaps a bit too reductionist?
Hi Christian!
Pay attention to one thing. As a norm, the Hryvnia sign is integral, without division. The division was invented by designers; it is used as a forced solution for bold styles.
If you make Euro, Yena and Ruble without division, the Hryvnia should also be whole.
The Euro design was asking for trouble, and we were happy to oblige. Such transgression is in danger of affecting the other monetary glyphs in this otherwise conventional type design.
I first made these kind of gaps in currency symbols in Proza, and liked them enough to then also apply them in Ricardo (below). At the time, I thought I was the only one who did it, but I've seen more typefaces do it, although I can't recall which ones.
I don't really see the problem to be honest. A currency symbol is not a letter that needs to be read, it's a symbol. It allows much more creative freedom, because it stands out anyway, in fact I'd argue it is probably designed to stand out. As long as it is easily recognizable and fits the style, it works.
If you make Euro, Yena and Ruble without division, the Hryvnia should also be whole
Wouldn't that make the glyph horribly crowded? Already my gapped version is more crowded than I like.
Do you consider the simplified geometry with half-circle top and bottom legible?
I am guided by the fact that you made divided alternatives for the Euro, Yen and Ruble while maintaining their solid form, adhering to the official guides for these signs. That’s why I gave the official drawing of the Hryvnia sign – it’s a solid structure. As they say, if you don’t like the law, it is still a law that must be followed :-)
And besides....
You stick to the official Euro design by making slanted horizontal lines. In this caseб the Rupee sign should also have similar horizontal lines.
I first made these kind of gaps in currency symbols in Proza, and liked them enough to then also apply them in Ricardo (below). At the time, I thought I was the only one who did it, but I've seen more typefaces do it, although I can't recall which ones.
In your case, the situation is different - all the currency signs with two horizontal lines (Euro, Yen) are made separated. This matches the overall style.
Regarding the official guidelines for currency symbols, such as the Euro, it's often observed that while committees set the parameters, the real ingenuity lies in how typeface designers interpret and adapt these guidelines. In practice, vernacular usage provides valuable insights into how these designs are recontextualized in the real world. Standard currency symbols often don't account for extreme weights or handwriting styles. Take, for instance, the dollar sign, where its official double stroke becomes impractical in anything but the lightest typeface weights. Similarly, the typical chalkboard rendition of the yen symbol frequently employs single stroke variations in real-world use.
This flexibility in design is crucial. If typeface designers strictly adhered to the original designs of currency symbols, we would still be using a clunky 'U' superimposed with an 'S' for the dollar sign, a design virtually untenable in heavier weights. I personally lean towards single-stroke currency symbol variants over gap-based solutions, as they more closely mirror these vernacular, chalkboard-style adaptations. Examples like the Won and Philippine Peso demonstrate how the double stroke versions become impractical in heavy weights, with single stroke versions often seen in everyday use.
When designing currency symbols, I recommend observing real-world applications such as grocer's signs, café chalkboards, and other vernacular mediums. These instances often reveal practical and innovative solutions that are more informative than any official currency symbol specifications.
The official version says that a simple person drew this hryvnia sign, accidentally met a big boss and gave it to him. And the big boss liked it so much that he approved it... After all, it’s so easy to draw - a small handwritten letter -г-, crossed out with two lines, as is customary in currencies.
Those. specialists were not involved in the development in any way... And this is now a headache for designers.
I'm using the single-stroke, non-crossing design for /dollar, and nobody's been complaining about it... so for consistency, I should probably also use a single-stroke hryvnia...?
I'll make sure to separate the gapped and ungapped solutions into separate stylistic sets, at any rate.
Comments
Alternatively, change the 3 and 5 to match the Eszett, making the whole thing a bit more humanist.
Such transgression is in danger of affecting the other monetary glyphs in this otherwise conventional type design.
I don't really see the problem to be honest. A currency symbol is not a letter that needs to be read, it's a symbol. It allows much more creative freedom, because it stands out anyway, in fact I'd argue it is probably designed to stand out. As long as it is easily recognizable and fits the style, it works.
Regarding the official guidelines for currency symbols, such as the Euro, it's often observed that while committees set the parameters, the real ingenuity lies in how typeface designers interpret and adapt these guidelines. In practice, vernacular usage provides valuable insights into how these designs are recontextualized in the real world. Standard currency symbols often don't account for extreme weights or handwriting styles. Take, for instance, the dollar sign, where its official double stroke becomes impractical in anything but the lightest typeface weights. Similarly, the typical chalkboard rendition of the yen symbol frequently employs single stroke variations in real-world use.
This flexibility in design is crucial. If typeface designers strictly adhered to the original designs of currency symbols, we would still be using a clunky 'U' superimposed with an 'S' for the dollar sign, a design virtually untenable in heavier weights. I personally lean towards single-stroke currency symbol variants over gap-based solutions, as they more closely mirror these vernacular, chalkboard-style adaptations. Examples like the Won and Philippine Peso demonstrate how the double stroke versions become impractical in heavy weights, with single stroke versions often seen in everyday use.
When designing currency symbols, I recommend observing real-world applications such as grocer's signs, café chalkboards, and other vernacular mediums. These instances often reveal practical and innovative solutions that are more informative than any official currency symbol specifications.