It's not a matter of extreme importance, but since this is my first experience in type design, I would like to get some advice regarding letterforms and their mutual cohesiveness, just to have in mind for possible future projects. Also, would love some advice regarding the Greek script, since I liked the idea of doing it, but I have no clue if it's any good. I've attached a pdf so you can zoom in. There is an initial, sans-serif variety, and the ''serified'' one (I basically just glued the serifs to most letters, changing very little). I'm not sure if Greek even uses the serifs so I did not add them to it.
*No kerning has been made yet, so I used Illustrator's optical kerning.
0
Comments
Regarding your type design, I really like the overall rhythm and contrast. I wonder if also doing a display version for headlines might be an option too, maybe with a bit more character to certain glyphs or something. Maybe having a full family set can work too, say with bolder or lighter variants.
I know absolutely no Greek, so I will refrain from commenting on those
Another dilemma I have is using single-story or two-story glyphs for g and a.
I agree with Craig on the serifs; in particular, the /n-style onstrokes in the bold feel like they draw a lot of attention to themselves. Maybe make their left side more vertical?
/J can't seem to decide whether it wants to dip below the baseline or not. Do or do not, there is no try!
/G feels a bit unbalanced to me. I think its top could reach a bit more to the right and taper a bit less, and the chin could be a bit lowered to give it more grounding. I feel it tries too hard to look like /C, whereas it should have its own dedicated shape.
Lowercase spacing increases toward the end of the alphabet, will need some tightening up.
Is /S a bit heavy? Is /Z a bit unbalanced (and is its diagonal lighter than its horizontals)? Is /U a bit narrow? Is the nose of /e just a bit too pointy?
/C and /G seem to want to fall over to the right. The double-story /g is too top-heavy and the bold master seems incompatible with the Gill Sans-esque ear as opposed to the distinguished ear on the regular. The uppercase /W is slightly narrow.
Oh, just noticed there's something odd about the /k. I think it's that the upper arm seems to depart from the horizontal stroke later than the lower arm, when I would expect the opposite. It also appears top-heavy in the light weight.
Also, not entirely related to my work, but I was always curious how type designers choose to work on cyrillic К/к. Lots of typefaces have glyphs which look more calligraphic/curly/quaint than their latin counterparts while other typefaces just use the latin K and scale it down. Is it related to cyrillic calligraphic tradition?
http://leksandra.livejournal.com/115861.html
The major issue I have is the widths of лљ and нњ and similar, err, similar characters -- the wider glyphs look inordinately wider than their narrower counterparts (my internal dialog calls them ±b); is that lack of compensation normal in Cyrillics? I'm thinking of Latin /OE vs. its components as a counterexample.
Anyway, I think my favorite glyphs are the /ampersand and especially the /germandbls -- there's a really appealing blend of fluidity and geometry. You'll probably get a nice range of weights between the two masters, too.
You need to remove overlaps on export, if it's possible.
/2 gets light at the joint in the bold master.
Open the aperture of /s in both masters slightly.
I agree with Michael about the /B, I have noticed it also occurs in the derivatives (/P/R)
http://typography.guru/journal/capital-sharp-s-designs/
Might the /H also be a bit on the narrow side? And is there something a bit «droopy» about the loops of /B, /P, /Þ, etc.? Maybe their right-hand apex could be nudged upwards a bit?
And Be/б appear to tilt backward.