Hello Type Drawers Community! What do you think of my very first typeface? It has modular elements, but I plan to modify it into more natural and plastic forms in the future. I had a hard time deciding whether the strokes and 'swashes' should be consistent with the modular nature of the font or have an organic curvature. The width of some letters is also a quest for me. Any advice would be appreciated!https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jOBdspaYg7ILPwq6YBac1HXE7xG64mjR/view?usp=sharing
For the same reason, it is not easy to give advice, because it's your choice how far you would like to go away from classic type design toward the pure concept. But to try:
The lowercase l seems that lacks mass compared to other glyphs.
I am not sure about the bowl-to-straight connection seen in d and else. Seems like a residue from classic Latin, but in the context of the general concept, the continuous stroke might work better than a joint there. It works well for r though, as I said tough decisions...but the r is in classic Latin a kind of exception...
If this is my project — in addition to this cool v1.0 — I would try to make a more legible version, keeping the basic concept but moving away from modular, as you mentioned. Rather than expanding the language/script set for now.
For example, low d and n would be more legible if the deep dives are smaller. k leg could be narrower etc. The lower bowls of 3 and 5 in set 1 look broken because of applying the modular swash. In some places "bone effect" is noticeable etc.
The same features are sometimes applied decoratively but in other places as a main glyph structure. For example, figure 2 (set 1). The upper hook could be bigger since it's the basic glyph structure.
Applying some of these might make a typeface less exotic/multi-script, and move it closer to the Latin paradigm. But I think it's a good trade in the sense of usability. Also, as always, I would work in iterations on a basic set until I am satisfied with the corrections and then expand to the rest.
In general, I want to keep some inconsistent illogical details, because when I bring all the characters to the system, coordinate their elements - everything becomes boring and does not please me. For example, I like the alternation of vertical and horizontal bold strokes in different letters - this and the curliness of such letters as 'a, b, d, e, p, q' give the typeface its zest.
Multiple character width choices are what JALT is supposed to be for, as soon as someone finally gets around to implementing it for Latin script in mainstream design software.
your straight-to-curve transitions often look like you have glued a curve onto the end of a straight line. A more gradual onset to the curve would look better and feel more organic.
Also, for your thinnest strokes, I note that the horizontals look a bit heavier than the verticals. This is an unfortunate consequence of human perception: to _look_ the same thickness, you need to have the vertical a tad thicker than the horizontal; try a 10–15% difference and see how it looks. (You can get there by adjusting either or both.)
This video of mine covers these and some other issues, might be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR-CG5eB3nQ (although the video from 2014 uses/promotes an old version of FontLab, the issues in question are independent of any particular tool)