Looking for feedback on my very first typeface.

ok_locksmith_8414

I am working on my first typeface. I am new to type design with zero experience. After learning and still learning many things about type, the design process, and many sketches later, I would like to get some feedback, get opinions and make sure I am on the right track. Everything I am showing you is what I have so far. This will be the medium weight. One day a very long time from now there will be 9 weights with an oblique, contextual alternates, tabular figures, greek letters, fractions, and accents. I am trying to design a font that can be used as display and text.
The kerning is off because I havent started on that yet. 

Craig Eliason

Good start for a first go!
Terminals of C/c and related terminal of G might need rethinking. They seem to fit neither with the closed, DIN like shape of /O nor the quirky flatness you have in /a/e/g/six/nine. Especially with /c they are also creating a counterspace that is far too large compared to other letters. 
Top of /f and bottom of /t (and probably /l) seem slight. 
/X and /x feel like they are pulling apart. 
If the "upside-downness" of /eight and /B is going to stay, perhaps more letters need to share in that "low-waisted" quality. 
I'm torn about the terminals with one corner and one curve. On some letters I like it but I don't think it looks good on the /H for example. This by the way is the kind of superficial feature that when I was a beginner I would think of as a signature key for the design, but the truth is that a typeface's character doesn't really come from those tiny bits. Frankly I think you could un-round those curves (or round them all) and it wouldn't make a huge difference in how this reads. If you are committed to the asymmetry I might also suggest making the curve mimic the direction of unidirectional serifs rather than always curving on the outside (so that e.g. all of the lowercase ascenders "come in" from the left). As is those decisions, while mechanically consistent, feel optically arbitrary. 

Yves Michel

I'm not an expert like Craig but he expresses exactly my impression when looking at your work. I can not add anything apart wishes that you make progress by following some of his remarks. Good work and good luck!

Igor Petrovic

Welcome, nice start! I also agree with Craig. I would add that the width of the glyphs is a bit inconsistent here and there making an uneven rhythm. In the word "OVER" for example — V seems too wide, O too narrow. L and J are too wide, D could be a bit wider probably, etc. 

But on the other side, it is not easy to learn to really "see" those things. Type designers with years of experience also can't nail it in the first go, but rather first set H, O, n, o and then check other letters between them. Going back and forth in numerous iterations.

As you might know, setting the string HHHOHHHOOOHOOnnnonnnooonoo to look good is crucial. And I would say that O has to look slightly wider than H to get an even rhythm (in the case of modern proportions, not old-style proportions where O is circle-like and deliberately wider than H). It's better to be slightly wider than slightly narrower, which is a usual mistake.

As per thickness inconsistencies, compare the too thin arm of /r with the too dark bottom joints of /w for example. Also /v has a wider vertex and lighter joint than /w.

Also stability issues here and there (in case they are not intentional). The top terminal of /a goes too left. Top terminal of /s and /6 go too right, compared to the base. It might be a style feature but then it should be rendered consistently and probably more deliberately through the whole set.

Curved strokes in the place of diagonals on /K and /R are (somewhat surprisingly) not present in /X. Those three diagonals are related and establish a stylistic subset.

It's good that you started with your own authentic design. Keep up the good work!