Hello, i 'll give yall a short explanation.
I'm designing a typeface with an intent to publish it and be usable in a voriety of plataforms but...
Figma and Microsoft Edge (Chromium project) render them differently with chrome/chomium being extremely bad.
Just for demonstration:
On Figma at 15px
On chrome/Edge chromium at 15px


Comments
When spaced spaced It resembles univers 45 light, but my target was towards something like neue Haas, nimbus sans ou PP neue Montreal.
Regarding spacing:
Yes, it's a ttf file with autohint, i was using cubic splines but converter to quadratic ones. Tonight (at least for me) i'm going to try fix The spacing, If nota being able i Will responde here and contact you Mike
I also started to to some manual hinting in some spot that fontforge started to fail specially u.
Kerning still being performed
If you yould like to give some critics towards the shapes itself, thanks
as i said before with more spacing it resembles univers 45 light and what i found more interesting was that i never intended this visual similarity
Well, i saw this message and i got confused, it's technically hinted, autohinted, it was conveted to quadratic splines but i had to convert back to cubic because i was facing a lot of trubles trying to draw shapes. I still fixing some things but trying to perfom a "final" review on the lowercase letters.
still experimenting with gasp table but now i start to think about this message again, in certain ppi the quality of the drawing falls dramaticaly, specially at 18px p/em... i go back to font forge, clear hints, play again with gaps table and autohint again and basically nothing changes.
i'm thinking about manually hint everything but form what i found online it isn't necessary because as i said bluevalues etc... seems correct.
in font forge i clicked on "optime for cleartype" can you give me any light ?
I’d recommend taking a week away from the typeface and revisiting, it will be easier for you to see mistakes. Start with comparing and unifying things like stroke weights, widths of comparable letters (see for example c/e/o), curve tension, styling of stroke terminals (like r/f/j/t/y).
Long story short: don’t worry about hinting. Worry about the drawing.
The gasp table is specific to TrueType, and determines how the TT rasteriser interprets and applies instructions with regard to gridfitting and antialiasing. You shouldn’t need to re-autohint after adjusting the gasp table, because the whole point of gasp settings is that they are set independent of the instructions themselves and only affect how they are interpretated (and sometimes ignored) by the rasteriser.
But if i could ask you something would be for better directions, you're talking on a really high level of type design proficiency and that's certainly not my case, and many more people that come around here, so what i'm trying to say is be more clear... "the c is wrong, the curve of the b is too much oblique" or just give a reference to read, articles, an example of typeface to look and compare, errors that you committed in the past and many more.
For me as an example, i found extremely hard to drawn the bottom part of the c, U, e, both bowl of the s and S and barely touched the ?
FontForge -- An outline font editor for PostScript®, TrueType and OpenType fonts
But some considerations before:
I found an discussion online in the subject and they said basically what i've said, fontforge atomatically converts everyting but they keept insisting that it should be converted to quadratic splines and again i found it to be a really bad idea.
Also, when using cubic splines on fontforge you can autohint but can't instruct to instruct you have to convert to quadratic...
So what I understood was that all this time was autohinting again and again for no reason ? OMG
well, learning from the pain
I’m telling you about these "high-level concepts" because internal consistency across many different aspects is one of the biggest things to watch out for, and that is relatively easy to learn because it’s about checking and re-checking. Your design isn’t at a point where telling you about specific little bits being wrong would be appropriate.
Type design is about learning to see what’s wrong, and learning how to fix that. Have fun learning! Just don’t expect your first few attempts to amount to much.
after giving it some time... that's the result
the yellow underline is for letters that i didn't ajusted yet
i can see some improvements but i woud like some opinions of the professional eyes
Also another update i bought karen cheng's book but amazon didn't delivered yet
Let me know what yall think about it!
In your rounds on bcdgopq it looks like the vertical part needs to be heavier. Probably it is mathematically the same thickness as the horizontal part, but it needs to measure a tiny bit heavier to look the same. This and some other interesting issues are covered in
The same problem on the lowercase t, the crossbar LOOKS heavier than the vertical. Quite possibly they are the same, but if so, that is not what you need.
The x is done with one diagonal heavier than the other, but perhaps a bit more than you need for visual balance in an otherwise monoline typeface. Whatever you do with the x, that treatment needs to be reflected in kvwy, and currently it is not, I don’t think.
(w is a bit more complicated, there is more than one plausible scheme for distributing weight across the four stems. However, it does not yet follow any plausible scheme.)
Well linus the s has been a problematic letter to me and indeed it's leaning backwards, i'm trying to fix that but it's a work in progress, about the tail well it was intentional i think it looks cool.
since kareng cheng's book delivery has been delayed i started to work on the capitals. In the begging i tought they were not great but ok, now i see them being really rustic.
just for demonstration
and yes the letter w are 2 v's merged, on the right side it's a reworked B