A humanist grotesque (sic!)

124»

Comments

  • Christian Thalmann
    Christian Thalmann Posts: 2,007
    edited April 24
    Before I move to the Italics, I experimented with some binocular /g/s... I prefer the open solution, especially for its agreement with /s/, but it might be a bit too eye-catching? Then again, there's the monocular version for neutrality. The closed binocular strikes me as too humanist.

    And I think the capital Eszett has gained a little more polish since last time:


  • Christian Thalmann
    Christian Thalmann Posts: 2,007
    Hm, having slept over it, I now find the closed design more fitting. Maybe I should just keep both.
  • Craig Eliason
    Craig Eliason Posts: 1,453
    I feel like the ears of the binocular forms don't feel as "clean" as the rest of the alphabet design. You also might try moving the link of the closed form leftward (as it looks like the open form has).
  • Christian Thalmann
    Christian Thalmann Posts: 2,007
    Good idea, Craig! I moved the neck outward, flattened the lower bowl to a full horizontal, gave the ear some tapering, and made the upper bowl a hair more squircular. I think it's a lot better now, and certainly superior to the open one.



  • Thomas Phinney
    Thomas Phinney Posts: 2,970
    edited April 25
    In general, I think this is starting to come together nicely!

    The “more squircular” upper bowl of the “g” seems a bit out of place, though—without other elements being similarly or nearly as squircular. Maybe back off of that, just a tad.
  • Christian Thalmann
    Christian Thalmann Posts: 2,007
    Yeah, I'm starting to think this should be the default /g/. It would help set the font off a bit from other neogrotesques.
    I thought the new squircularity was still quite comparable to that of /o/, just a bit more noticeable due to the small counter? In any case, here's what it looks like without the increased squircularity:

Categories