Hi all!
I'd love some feedback on this typeface I've been tinkering with for the past few months; I think I'm at the point where it seems fairly good to me, but I'm not sure, since I'm still learning and I've been staring at it for a while. Any feedback welcome — please let me know if you can see anything weird that I can't! Spacing & kerning isn't final either. Thanks everyone!
Comments
1. The proportions are sometimes a little bit off, I think. The e, k, D, G, and K are quite narrow, EFLT are wide, and overall descenders are very low (although that could be conscious choice).
2. The glyphic-ness of some of the glyphs is inconsistent. C is pretty smooth for example, whereas S has those calligraphic cuts.
3. Caps look a bit light, especially in their horizontal strokes.
4. Some specifics. The tail of Q is a bit shy. I would expect a double-story g in this design. The j is (too?) daring. The top of Y is a bit small. The cap Z has very different width from the lowercase z.
5. What about a bold or italics? You will find that they can also help inform decisions in the regular.
Good luck!
I would give the “j” a hook at the bottom—this kind of Futura-ish (?) letter is too unorthodox for an otherwise very proper design—at least, from an international perspective.
Also, before you go any further with this weight, I would suggest developing the range, from Thin to Black, and italics. That is, if you intend to make a family.
As a result, BEFS are all wider, and CDGO are narrower, compared to an old style typeface.
I agree with @Nick Shinn in that the Futura-style /J/ feels a bit out of place. Though it's still good to challenge things, I would keep it as a stylistic alternative and use a conventional /J/ instead.
Also for i-dots, j-dots, and punctuation, you could try a diamond shaped mark, as a point of difference. e.g, here's a sample from Goudy Old Style: