Hello, Type Drawers,
I am a graphic designer by profession but I tried my hand at typeface design as part of my MA in Graphic Design 3 years ago at Portsmouth Uni. With the global pandemic happening, I’ve finally found the time to slow down and take another look at my MA project, and it reignited my obsession with type.
The plan was to design a Behance project to display the typeface and tell its story, but I'm now wondering if I should start a new one or keep developing this one and create multiple weights. Heres the Bechance project for anyone that's interested: https://www.behance.net/gallery/98851607/Humanity-sans-typeface-design
The typeface is called Humanity sans, it was made in an attempt to create a ‘true’ humanist sans serif that worked for continuous reading. Because it was part of my MA it needed a certain level of theoretical grounding.
Looking at fonts such as Gill sans, that held some humanist forms and quirks but was also very geometric. I wanted to create a humanist sans with minimal geometric construction, that sticks as closely as possible to the humanist serif fonts from the 1400s. (Jenson, Centaur, and Doves were my main reference points).
In short attempting to answer this question: “How can the humanistic warmth of renaissance type benefit the form of a modern-day sans serif?”
Bear in mind this was my first type design. I know it's pretty rough around the edges but I’d love some honest and constructive feedback from you avid type designers, so I can keep learning and developing my skills.
Thank you for taking the time to read my post!
Comments
Period and comma/quote shapes feel like they're from another font.
"x-height" of oldstyle figures is too small and/or figure extenders are too long.
Some weight consistency issues: bowls of /b/d/p/q/ feel heavier than /c/e/o/ for example.
The amount of appropriate compensatory thickening depends on factors including the x-height, the font's weight, and even to some extent the stylistic genre. There's no formula. Designers have to eye it, for which tests comparing side-by-side text settings in lowercase, Mixed Case, and ALL CAPS should be used.
---
To the topic starter: I used to make the vertiacals of the lc just as thick as the horizontals of the uc, but this technique has flaws. For me, the idea is to have both registers in a harmonious proportion. Set a text and play with the boldening option of your preferred font editor. Compare the different versions and you will teach your eye to see it. Be sure to print every specimen out, the screen is not enough for most people.
Also, as a bonus, print a mirrored version of the specimen, look at it from all 4 sides and use lots of red ink to correct. I think this is the best way. Come back after that.
And beef up the <one>, it’s too slight.
- You could try and make the middle crossbar of /B a tad lighter, currently it looks thinner than on /E and /F.
- The tittle of the /i does not correspond properly with the one on /j (size and position).
- To me, the upper crossbar of J seems too narrow. Maybe it could be optically the same width as the descender.
- The characteristic juction on /N feels too timid. You could try and take it a few units higher.
- The upper arm on /k is significantly thinner than the lower one. That does not seem to match with the typeface, since you seem to go for a monolinear appearance.
- You could revisit the weight distribution in /S: The whole letter feels too heavy, although just looking at /S itself, the spine seems too light.
- The lower junction on /P is not horizontal, but this characteristic is barely noticeable. I would suggest bringing it out a little further and see how that looks. If it doesnt feel right, I would just opt for the regular horizontal junction, or continue the curve on the lower part and thus make the junction go upwards (not sure how to phrase that).
- I dislike the design/shape of /? all-around, but I cannot give exact directions on how to improve upon it, maybe just try out different options.
- I agree with Nick on the descender of the /y. Although you could maybe keep the straight descender if you shortened the descenders in general.
All in all, I like the quirks and features, which make the typeface stand out. I loathe those super timid designs... just looking at the sheer amount of new-generation geometric sans serifs with barely any differences makes me puke a little inside. So yeah, keep it up!
I love the playfulness of it, especially the /e which seems to be laughing - but the /c is not quite as happy, and I'm not sure why not.
And something about this just strikes me as a bit off: