Don’t rely on theory, precedent, and “general” practice. Experiment with sample settings in the relevant languages, and see how different options affect the “colour” (smoothness) of text in your design. Then decide which you think looks best.
It’s a stylistic choice that can work either way, similar to how very light diacritics can work just fine with ultra bold letters. But if you make the bars heavy then you need to lighten the stems they cross and the counter of o needs to increase in size dramatically. It is important to keep size in mind; if the typeface is intended to work as text then your RIBBI weights need care to stay legible.
It’s a stylistic choice that can work either way, similar to how very light diacritics can work just fine with ultra bold letters.
To add to James' comments, its often impossible to have the bars a fraction lighter in low contrast typefaces featuring low stroke modulation i.e. geometrics. Doing so makes the whole glyph clog up the counter (ø) if the bar is to remain unbroken the bar of /ł will look too heavy. A good type designer will tweak these bars in each weight to ensure they remain legible in small point sizes for body copy.
When assessing typefaces I tend to look at the diacritics and the barred glyphs simultaneously to see if the designer took care in their craft. Polish characters such as the lslash provide good feedback on a typeface's quality as inexperienced designers don't understand the slash is an integral part of the letter, changing it from the usual Latin 'l' sound to a 'w' sound. It's either too light and/or too narrow to be visible.
In short, the slash should be visible in whatever point size the type is intended for, be it display or text.
I recently got the advice to make the ø look like it's just a regular o with a slash. Obviously, it can't actually be that, but it can still make that optical impression.
I recently got the advice to make the ø look like it's just a regular o with a slash. Obviously, it can't actually be that, but it can still make that optical impression.
How did you decide on perpendicular terminals for L's slash vs italic-angle terminals for l's? Just a matter of spacing?
… Polish characters such as the lslash provide good feedback on a typeface's quality …
Very true. Especially the ł character is a sensitive one, requiring the best possible attention to both detailing and spacing.
About the glyph details, Adam Twardoch’s recommendations are most valuable. To test the spacing, I assembled a few sample bits which I find helpful, of both Polish and Navajo languages:
There is some Lslash typography in which the slash doesn’t stick out on the left side, at all. In fact, in display use liberties with how accents are handled have been taken, in Poland; another instance is kreskas that “cross the line” at the top of C or O. So, despite my advice to ignore precedent—not entirely—of course it helps to have some study of the local culture, to see which designs appear to be conventional, and which are “edgy”. But you still have to make a decision on that.
So, despite my advice to ignore precedent—not entirely—of course it helps to have some study of the local culture, to see which designs appear to be conventional, and which are “edgy”. But you still have to make a decision on that.
That’s what I thought after your initial comment. No way you can make a good letter by merely “experimenting”. Studying what’s good and what’s not is a must.
No way you can make a good letter by merely “experimenting”.
I said “don’t rely” on theory, not “ignore”!
Often, when people post isolated letters at Typedrawers, or alphabets, and ask for a critique or advice, I say “look at the letters in words, and tease out what works best”, or words to that effect. Because typedrawers make fonts, not letters.
Having said that, Adam’s analysis and theory, quoted by Christian, make a lot of sense. Now I’m tempted to look for exceptions…
Comments
Ø, as far as I understand does need the crossbar in the middle and your second option is not acceptable (or at least rare even in bold weights).
Other options are either too thick or too thin to my taste.
Experiment with sample settings in the relevant languages, and see how different options affect the “colour” (smoothness) of text in your design.
Then decide which you think looks best.
When assessing typefaces I tend to look at the diacritics and the barred glyphs simultaneously to see if the designer took care in their craft. Polish characters such as the lslash provide good feedback on a typeface's quality as inexperienced designers don't understand the slash is an integral part of the letter, changing it from the usual Latin 'l' sound to a 'w' sound. It's either too light and/or too narrow to be visible.
In short, the slash should be visible in whatever point size the type is intended for, be it display or text.
So, despite my advice to ignore precedent—not entirely—of course it helps to have some study of the local culture, to see which designs appear to be conventional, and which are “edgy”. But you still have to make a decision on that.
I said “don’t rely” on theory, not “ignore”!
Often, when people post isolated letters at Typedrawers, or alphabets, and ask for a critique or advice, I say “look at the letters in words, and tease out what works best”, or words to that effect. Because typedrawers make fonts, not letters.
Having said that, Adam’s analysis and theory, quoted by Christian, make a lot of sense. Now I’m tempted to look for exceptions…