I started designing type 2 years ago, and have yet to release a typeface to any foundry or distributor, I want this typeface to become well used and distributed so before I submit to a foundry or distributor I want everything to look perfect. While this is my first typeface design I have attempted and experimented with several other designs before I created Dawson Grotesque. I could talk all day about my typeface but I want you guys/gals to express your opinions to help me perfect my designs. The typeface comes in 3 versions the: Dawson Grotesque, which has a few alternatives, and is intended to be a safe neo-grotesque sans serif with some German influence and American tones, it has several key elements like the 2 story g with the bottom loop that does not reconnect to the link, the lowercase e bar that is on an angle, the c and s have both nearly horizontal and angled ends, this is to name a few. Dawson Grotesque Alternative features several alternative letters along with semi-serifs, cut away ink traps, corrections to the angle on the e, a single story a & g, and other features which goes hand-in-hand with the standard Dawson Grotesque. Dawson Grotesque Advertising is intended for packaging and all advertisement needs, it has a nearly horizontal ends to the S and C & other letterforms along with changes to other letters to be used at larger sizes, a flipped ear on the g, the punctuation forms are sized smaller and squared to become stricter and better at large sizes, the typeface breaks from the guidelines set out from Dawson Grotesque to make the letterforms more organic and creative, you can see this more obviously in the ends of most vertical stems, the angles at the end of a lot of letterforms, and nothing really matches up in terms of one handle to the other, the x height is much higher, and the ascender and descender lines are shortened.
That basically sums up the features, and again I could talk all day — but please help me determine what needs improvements !
Simon.
0
Comments
The “o” is a bit squarish, more than most anything else, so it feels a bit out of place.
The e looks like you started by clipping a circle, so it has an underbite.
The terminal of the e has a flaring, but I don't see that reflected in other letters (top of the a, bottom loop of the g, or in the s).
The inconsistent angling of the cuts on the terminals of the s isn't working for you. Probably you should angle the top—that's more consistent with the rest of the typeface.
The n feels a tad narrow, and the v rather wide.
Some strange things happen as you add weight. In most cases the bolder weights feel more condensed, often much more so. Look at some really pro sans serifs from top designers and see how the weight progresses, and how it gets added on the outside as well as on the inside of letterforms (and how the ratios of where it is added may vary somewhat depending on the letter).
The bottom of the t feels unlike the rest of the typeface (and that loose/open curve shape is very difficult to pull off successfully, hardly ever done well). Probably it could be pretty similar to the top of the f.
I am attaching an image that illustrate our point. There is so much to be fixed in the core design that it is pointless to have such a large glyph set. Highlighted in yellow the overlapped comments from Thomas.
/H: Looks tight if you think of the generous proportions of the lowercase letters.
/a: I quite like it. The left shoulder of the bowl could be refined to increase tension (pull up). Tail could be heavier.
/n: Check the relationship of the connections. It's very thin here whereas heavier in /a. I agree with Thomas, that it could be wider.
/d: Again, the connections seem to be off.
/g: I would think about closing the bottom tail. It draws too much attention. You could play with this feature in the more display cuts. Ear looks weak and I'd refine the curve inside the hook to make it monolinear.
/l: Cut on the top seems out of context. Inside curve of tail looks mechanical when compared to letter /a tail.
/o: Agree with Thomas here, looks squarish and comparing to /e you have two different routes.
/v: look very wide and the diagonals are heavy.
/e: very geometric, I'd harmonise it with /o and stick to one route. Mid bar does not look parallel.
/s: Bottom stroke is quite heavy compared to the top one. counter in the top could be refined.
Figures: The cuts don't fit to this design. And top counter of number 8 is very small, I'd balance the two counters better and also think of changing it for a more grotesque design. Spine of /two and diagonal stroke of /four don't look parallel.
I'm not even looking at the other letters. Looking at the small characters it's possible to notice that there is a lot to be fixed ir regard to proportions, shapes, etc.
Good luck, don't rush and enjoy the experience.
R
On a basic level, I cannot see any reasoning for nearly all of the things you did. Some letters have barely any contrast, others are full of it. Some letters are traditional grotesque designs, others try to be different seemingly just for the sake of being different – the g and e are such examples.
In all honesty, I would put this away and start on something new. Everything you’ve learned with this design will be a bigger help for a new design than trying to fix everything that’s wrong with this current one. Try to focus on a single good idea, and execute that across a limited character set (a-Z, basic punctuation, numerals). Draw and refine. Refine. Refine. Make sure your idea is worthwhile and clearly executed in all the details across the character set. Then show it again
Type design can be tough, I know. But I think mincing words would just make you spend more time on a design that is fundamentally flawed because there’s no central concept that drives the design – it tries to do 20 things at once, just because you seem to like those details. A good design does one thing and does it well. Good luck!
Or to go another way, you could take 1/4 of the letterforms from this and tweak them and build a new character set around them. Any of several quarters actually, as the typefaces is pushing in several different and arguably contradictory directions.
I think it would help if you decided what you were going for. Is it grotesque? Neo-grotesque? Humanist? Have a clear vision of what the overall "feel" is supposed to be that you can express in a sentence. Or even just decide what the one or two letters are that you think are most important and most perfect as is, that define the look and feel of the font—and then adjust others to fit that vision.
The best advice I received about my first design was to put it away for six months to a year and try a bunch of other designs first. I still really like the idea but looking back with the benefit of more experience I see all kinds of things that are long with it that I couldn't see back then. I hope one day to be able to come back to it and improve it but I don't think I'm good enough to do it justice yet. If you really want this design to work, I would suggest letting it sit for a little while and coming back to it with fresh eyes after you have played with a few more ideas.
The second best advice I received was to get feedback early. It's fun to build out fonts and draw characters, but the real hard work is getting a coherent design that works. Draw a key word and show it to people first. That's the most concentrated way to learn what works and what doesn't, and it also saves you time by fixing up problems before they spread across a huge range of glyphs. It's much better to draw five glyphs really well than bang out characters that don't hang together.
This is a good start and you should definitely come back to it - but after you've have fun with some other stuff first!
The real challenge is to have an harmonious set of letters, not to make it different – that's quite counter-intuitive, I know the first thing people ask when you say you're making type is "how is it different from other fonts?".
But the process of crafting typeface will yield something distinctive. And with fonts, the devil is in the details; the texture of the whole and paragraph-level variables (like width, spacing) are much more significant than construction details of a single letter.
Type design is about craftsmanship, but it’s also about concept, about editing yourself and your ideas, about finding balance. As Adrien said, the paragraph-level look of a typeface, it’s rhythm, it’s color, are in many ways much more important than any letter-level detail you might care about at the moment. The width-relationship of letters to each other (o to n, n to a, etc.) are so important, and hard to figure out at first.
That’s why everyone here was telling you it’s probably best to start over with just a few letters (or from scratch) and figure out all those things at first. Looking at existing typefaces that are successful in their design is a good idea when starting out – all those things are standards for a very good reason. Breaking those paradigms can be extremely successful, but not necessarily very instructive for a beginner.
Seriously: try drawing a normal, boring, but perfectly pathed typeface. You’ll learn so much more from it, and gain expertise that you can then use to break the rules in the right places.
I’m following the "follow the heart" path myself, and it’s definitely resulting in a lot of lost time just because I never wanted to draw the boring stuff.
Besides the fact that perfection does not exist, this is only good advice if you want to end up with a normal, boring presence in the field. If you mostly want to make money at type, do go ahead and mimic the cash cows. But if you mostly want to actually make a cultural contribution, instead find what you're doing differently than the herd, and refine it.
When you get specific advice from a professional, filter it by looking at their œuvre; see if you would be culturally proud of having made their typefaces. If you can't tell their fonts apart from those of dozens of other foundries, taking their advice will probably result in the same problem with your own products.
I believe that designing a boring typeface as a starting point is also valid, as valid as a young painter who start learning from still life compositions or copying the masters. Personal style and innovation will show up naturally. My questions is, what is the point of trying to find a style and express yourself if you do not master the tools you need to progress?
Do what works for you. If I had started my type design career trying to make a boring but perfect typeface, I would have quit a long time ago and never looked back.
Disregarding your educational background, the "practice leads to perfection" thingy is always applicable. The old fellows spent their entire lifes doing type and it is for sure they developed a personal style. Nowadays we are in a rush to achieve something and forget about the path itself. I strongly believe that personal style is a subproduct of well established craftsmanship.
Considering one’s reputation, it might be best to release, as one’s first publication, a work that is unabashedly rough around the edges, clearly the exuberant work of a neophyte, without pretense. As type designers usually, over the years, tackle many genres, why not start with one in which polish is counter-productive? For instance distressed, casual script, reductive orthogonal monoline, etc. My first digital release was Fontesque, a bounced style in which it didn’t matter I had no idea what an alignment zone was; worked for me.
My perspective is limited but what I would advise for somebody in your position is to work in general graphic design to pay the bills, and develop your type design alongside. Eventually you could switch to the latter full-time, or have enough of portfolio to join an existing foundry as a partner, where originality would be valued.
In the case of Simon's design there are things that can save it from that zombie fate. Specifically I would advise tightening up that "g" (BTW closing its bottom is about the worst advice possible) and then using it to inspire the "a" and "s".
Normally a text font starts with foundational shapes like the "n" and "o", but avoiding a "me too" result changes that around in my mind.
Updates ! Thanks fro the feedback guys !