I'm a graphic design student getting into type design, I was looking to get some general critique on the typeface I've been working for the past couple of months. What started as a generic geo sans to the learn the basics of type design developed into a (still pretty generic) neo-grotesque of sorts, mainly taking inspiration from workhorse sans such as Univers. I really like the idea of a fairly flexible and neutral sans I can use in a range of applications. Currently I've got a regular weight with the basic alphabet and some test glyphs of bold, condensed and extended versions.
Main issues I've been having:
- I've had alot of trouble with the /a, something about it just doesn't feel right with how it fits in the design as a whole, perhaps it needs to be a bit wider?
- I'm unsure if the alternative glyphs (on page 3) should be the default glyphs (particularly the G and R) or should be there at all
- I noticed it's common for single-storey g's in to have the bowl sitting higher than normal, which I assume is to increase the white space in the tail, but I'm not sure if this is something I should try implement.
- I've got some basic metrics spaced for text size (no kerning yet), but I feel as though it might be a bit too loose
Some things that have already flagged since putting together this PDF:
- I need to make the capitals smaller than the ascenders
- The capitals are slightly too dark
- The /x and /X need reworking, the "overlap" is a bit of a mess
- The condensed version is too dark, needs optical compensation
Any comments are appreciated!