A humanist grotesque (sic!)

124»

Comments

  • Christian Thalmann
    Christian Thalmann Posts: 2,013
    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: 2,013
    Hm, having slept over it, I now find the closed design more fitting. Maybe I should just keep both.
  • Craig Eliason
    Craig Eliason Posts: 1,455
    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: 2,013
    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: 2,978
    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: 2,013
    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:

  • Christian Thalmann
    Christian Thalmann Posts: 2,013
    Or just a bit wider? The above feels a bit too slender next to the other letters.


    (Before & after...  I prefer the shape of before, but isn't the second /gyp/ more harmonious?)
  • Christian Thalmann
    Christian Thalmann Posts: 2,013
    edited April 26
    Or how about wider, but the upper counter is still narrow, with the width having gone into the ear there?

    Best of both worlds?
  • Christian Thalmann
    Christian Thalmann Posts: 2,013
    edited April 30
    Meanwhile, I've started on the Italic. I'd like to have a true Italic in that some of the Roman shapes are replaced, but then I don't want to overdo it so as not to break the typeface's style. Currently I have infant /a/ and /g/ but rational and untailed /l/ and /y/.
    Not quite sure about the /f/; should it descend, and if so, should the tail curl? I don't like what the straight tail does to texture, so it's pretty much between tailless and curled. I could also curl the tail of /ß/ to match, but I'd probably keep /l/ and /y/ untailed, at least in the default cut. The curly /f/ might feel a bit lonely then?

  • Craig Eliason
    Craig Eliason Posts: 1,455
    Both descending /f's look really out of place to me.
  • Thomas Phinney
    Thomas Phinney Posts: 2,978
    edited May 2
    If doing a descending f here, perhaps a straight bottom ending, rather than a hook.

    OR, tame the hook to just a slight curve away from the vertical, and switch to a horizontally-cut terminal.

    But perhaps not descending is better. The descending f terminal seems like a more humanist feature, in a sans.
  • Christian Thalmann
    Christian Thalmann Posts: 2,013
    OK, makes sense. I do think descenderless looks the most natural for this typeface.
  • Christian Thalmann
    Christian Thalmann Posts: 2,013
    edited May 4
    Oof, I had forgotten to manually adjust the /e/ after slanting. It looked overslanted in the sample above... fixed now. And I think I improved the /n/-type arches just a bit? New version on the right.


Categories