Typeface Feedback

Thomas Phinney

The problem I see is in both cap and small S/s.

The cap:
- still feels lumpy, like it has a hint of a corner at top left and bottom right. The outside on-curve point needs to move a tad down at top left, and a tad up at bottom right
- the other oddity is that the spine is a tad thinner than the left/right. Normal construction on an S/s in most styles is to make the diagonal (spine) the heaviest part, in a relatively monoline version of the glyph. Conveniently, the same correction above will add a tiny bit of weight to the spine and take it off the verticals, which is probably what you want.

Craig Eliason

Still feels like the top half is pulling to the upper left and the bottom half pulling to the upper right. Also take care that the spine doesn't get thinner in the middle than it is at the curvier parts.

Christian Thalmann

Agree on /S/s/; lumpy and skewed along the dexter diagonal.

As for unconventional cuts: You have a mix of strokes cut perpendicularly to the stroke direction (a, c), others tilted toward the vertical (f, r), and yet others tilted to the horizontal (s). Maybe try to achieve more consistency there? I would recommend avoiding the tilt toward the horizontal; it makes characters like /s/ harder to fit into a reasonable bounding box. A tilt toward the vertical makes for much more economical shapes (cf. Gill Sans).

Eryk Kosinski

Christian Thalmann said:

Agree on /S/s/; lumpy and skewed along the dexter diagonal.

As for unconventional cuts: You have a mix of strokes cut perpendicularly to the stroke direction (a, c), others tilted toward the vertical (f, r), and yet others tilted to the horizontal (s). Maybe try to achieve more consistency there? I would recommend avoiding the tilt toward the horizontal; it makes characters like /s/ harder to fit into a reasonable bounding box. A tilt toward the vertical makes for much more economical shapes (cf. Gill Sans).

I changed lowercase s to have more weight in the spine. Strokes of r, f and t changed to perpendicular.

Thomas Phinney

The s weight distribution is much improved. However, it still feels like it is leaning backwards a bit.

I am not personally a fan of the weird terminal angles, BUT I have to say that the modernist construction of t and f makes it feel like there are other unusual elements that could “come from the same place” as I like to put it.

f could have a little more overhang, or a little less crossbar. Probably the latter.

Eryk Kosinski

Thomas Phinney said:

The s weight distribution is much improved. However, it still feels like it is leaning backwards a bit.

I am not personally a fan of the weird terminal angles, BUT I have to say that the modernist construction of t and f makes it feel like there are other unusual elements that could “come from the same place” as I like to put it.

f could have a little more overhang, or a little less crossbar. Probably the latter.

I moved the left upper lobe of s to the right. f  got shorter crossbar. S finished.

Eryk Kosinski

3 main masters have been mostly finished. I hope there is not much adjustment needed to be made. Feedback appreciated.

Eryk Kosinski

I did my 1st test printing with the typeface. 

Parentheses, brackets and braces still need uppercase and small caps versions. What option is used to change regular ones to capitals or small caps?

Are there any glyphs that need change?

Thomas Phinney

Generally parens/brackets/braces are simply shifted to align better with all-caps. For small caps you could either just shift, or potentially make them not as long.

The interestingly-angled terminal cuts are still giving you a lot of trouble. Something like that is quite challenging to pull off, especially in one of one’s earlier typefaces. You might consider allowing their angles to vary a bit more between light and heavy weight, going with a less extreme angle in the heavier weights where it is more of a visual problem. Just a small adjustment in c-g-y for this could help a lot.

The lower-case j terminal on the other hand could be slightly _more_ angled in the regular, to fit in with your other terminals. The angle in the bold is just about perfect (given what you are trying to do, if you reduce angles on some other terminals).

Lowercase and cap eszett need to be completely redone. They look too much like two separate pieces glued together. There are some great threads right here on TypeDrawers about this, see the more recent ones here: https://www.google.com/search?q=eszett+typedrawers

S is still leaning backwards, especially in the bold. You need to move the whole top section a bit to the right. After that, also move just the apex point a tiny bit more to the right... try 10 units if you are on a 1000 upm grid.

Lowercase eth (ð), the right side is a bit droopy. The current design is a bit too much taking a round piece and adding onto it. The top terminal needs to go further left. The outer extreme on the right could move upwards, although the further you move the top terminal to the left and change the curve, the less this needs to happen.

Arm of the “r” could be longer. The unusual cut angle is making the whole arm feel a bit insubstantial.

Andreas Stötzner

you need to develop a feeling of how an S looks like, first.

Nick Cooke

The S is still off. Shear it up on the right from the centre point by degrees until it looks right.