Pretty funky - in a good way.

g: some imbalance.
j: descender too strong!
r: very very nice.
t: too shy.

The color is a little bit dark, which means it would be good for setting smaller text (like ~8pt), but in that case I'd shorten the descenders a little bit, and make sure the spacing is a little loose.

And thanks for the generosity!

hhp

Cool. I agree with what hhp said (though I'm wondering what exactly about the "r" you like, Hrant). I'd add the following:

q: should the serif be wider inside the letter?
a: the top portion seems slightly heavy or imbalanced
x: a hair too wide?
b & p: I like how the bowls "lift up" on the right

Cheers.

The "r"? I like how the beak is strong, and how goddamlong the right half of the foot serif is.

hhp

Aaaah. Thanks. At first I thought "goddamlong" was Norwegian. Which makes me an idiot. But for what idiots' comments are worth, that goddamlong foot serif is nice.

The terminal on the c, a, etc resembles Ruse by G. Noordzij.

http://www.teff.nl/fonts/ruse/ruse.html

Great friendly serif face. I am agree with the other sugestions, the image is not too clear on details, please upload a pdf with your stuff.

Your fonts are very funky, thats nice to build a kind of style.

mh.

Might give you some ideas: Dolly by Underware.

http://www.underware.nl/site2/index.php3?id1=dolly&id2=roman

--Jacques

Chilland!

This is a detail of "chucara".

thanks for your comments, in this moments i

This is a detail of "chucara".

thanks for your comments, in this moments i

Hello.

This is hip! I like it. A few thoughts:
-The terminals on the g, j, and y all look like a cut-and-paste job. It belongs on the g. The others need there own terminals.
- The g is top heavy (should be a little less than the o) and leaning right (because of the tail where the modulation is wrong ... more in the horizontal less in the curve)
- v & w: you are right to make them extend below the baseline, but a little less than they are now. They are very wide at the bottom (not points) so they don't need that much overshoot.

Cheers,
Randy

The asymetrical serifs are throwing me off,
but maybe that's a good thing. I'm not sure.

It's certainly different. I agree that it
seems a bit dark. Again, though, perhaps
that's the intention.

Hmm, I think you have some incoherencies between characters here.
Most of your lowercase "round" characters are very nice, but the "diagonal" ones (vwxyz) are not following the style.
And your uppercase letters are too "conservative" (see, for example, your "E", "F" and "T"). Try applying the asymmetrical serif to the uppercase too, and making them wider.

It's a good start anyway.
Good luck! :-)

It will be fascinating to watch this face evolve. Please keep posting.

I'd love to see this in a unicase.

The asymetrical serif idea is rather interesting - I have
recently been working with Eplica and that has some
(seemingly) extreme serif detailing. But once set at
'normal' reading sizes they are quite harmless. What
am I trying to say? Try to judge it at the sizes you intend
it to be used at.

The lc t,v,w,x,z seem to be a little out of place. All the
rest of the glyphs possess fairly organic traits, whereas
these seem to be too "sharp" to harmonise. Great work
though!

one more time

i fix much details, i hope you have more comments.
thanks

Juan Pablo

This is a nice face you're making.

I must say I liked the first q with the forward-pointing serif better.

The G still looks heavy all over to me. Even C,O,S seem somewhat heavy compared to the straight-stroke capitals.

hello mr. and mrs. typophile

Chucara is come back, i

I think you're on the right track, but it's more of a 6-7 point design. Push everything more for 5.

Especially:
1) Less stroke contrast, and less delicate features.
2) More open forms, like pull apart the foot serifs in "h" and "n".
3) Trapping!

hhp

I just find it odd to open the bowl of the "g" in
the regular version, and closing it in the 5 pts
version.

I find your lowercases very characterized and strong, while most of the uppercases seem to lack this strength, except the ones you "mediated" from the lc, such as J, U.
I'd try to translate some of the lc features to the UC. As it's now it seems it could work good in text, but it's always hard to say out of context.

Hi boys, this is a part of my title proyect.
the font is not finishied still, but you can understand me.

if someone of us have a question, a comment, or a critique i

Geocities says it's not available.
Try posting it here (use the 'upload attachment' button).

sorry, eduardo.
i don

Juan, that file is huge, and your server is too slow (apparently it would take me one hour to download it, and I'm on an ADSL connection!)...
Please make a smaller file (less than 1 MB, for example) and post it here.

here is a new pdf...

with some corrections.
and lighter...

look it (but is in spanish)

PD: if you want better resolution, go here:
http://www.geocities.com/sabiaustedonline/chucara.htm

proyecto chucara proyecto_chucara_chica.pdf (825.3 k)

Wow, pretty amazing presentation. Some wonderful comparisons (especially the "negative space" stuff), and great support material (like the classification and glossary). Very serious effort.

In trying to figure out if you've hit the mark in balancing your design for the intended size usage, the primary factors are: vertical proportions; color; and spacing. Each has to make sense in the context of the others. A good "bad example" is Mrs Eaves: x-height is ideal for large setting, color is ideal for midrange setting, and spacing is ideal for small setting: three-way mismatch. Chucara is balanced much better, but I'd say that:
- The "text" cut is a bit loose.
- The "small" cut is a bit light.

On the other hand, if the target is newspapers, the ink gain could shift things notably.

--

I'm very interested in comparisons of typeface economy, and I'll be taking a close look at page 21.

--

Could you please provide a translation of the explanatory text on page 19?

hhp

I

Thanks!
But I'm still confused: it seems to me that the first two columns are set at the same size with different leading, and the last two columns are set another size (but the same between them) and different leading. Am I going blind?

--

Juan Pablo, I took a close look at your page 21, and I'm seeing a classic problem that shows up in efforts to compare economy.

Given a set of fonts (and a given setwidth), the two factors you can control are point size and leading (tracking is bad). The results you're looking for are a balance of readability and economy (and not simply a total preservation of the former at maximal economy). Readability is of course nearly impossible to measure (while economy is very easy), so it's best to match the various settings in outward appearance (very different than true functionality), see which ones are how economical, and try to subjectively balance that against an informal evaluation of readability. (I'm not sure I'm explaining this well...)

Anyway, the tricky technical part is making the outward appearance consistent across the different fonts. We already know that apparent size is what counts and not point size, but there's also the issue of apparent leading. A reader's "appreciation" of a setting is firstly based on how big the type is, but secondly also based on the ease of doing a return from the end of one line to the beginning of the next - and this depends on apparent leading.

So for example let's look at the middle four columns (page 21), ignoring Chucara Text and Bell Centennial.The apparent size between them is mostly fine (just Clifford is smallish), except for Times, which is much smaller. But the apparent leading is way off: Chucara Small has very little, then there's a gap toClifford, a bigger gap to Celeste, and then bigger one to Times. So I think you have to play with the point/leading of each to get them to really match in outward appearance, then you can really compare economy versus readability.

It gets even trickier afterwards though! Once you have those matched, you need to feel your way between what appears more readable (while in fact that's legibility) versus what is in fact more readable. For example, Clifford has a smaller x-height than Chucara, which means it has longer extenders however: depending on the usage size and the type of setting, this can be an advantage, even though Chucara will always seem more legible.

There's also another issue: when you're comparing fonts with a wide span of widths (like Times versus Clifford), you need to worry about the proportion of linebreaks in your test text, because design widths affects economy much more depending on that.

hhp

hrant, excuse me please, you have the right, you not going blind.
you download the another pdf...
take it and move it to trash and choose empty trash, and download him again.

i had a problem with atm and i exported the pdf without chucara.

..

well, you are right, again with your observation.
i was talking with francisco "pancho" galvez and he said me i have two ways to show i want.

1. i can put to all fonts solid leading, or
2. i can show the comparisons with a optical leading.
...

i dont know if i explained well this way.
i found an exageration show this example of both ways... i dont know.

and, hmmm

i cant answer you with the right, if i dont know what pdf you download.

why dont you download aganin (the pdf) and forgive my stupid error?

anyway, thank you by read it.

i hope you can undertand everything if i show you the "real" chucara.

JP

http://www.geocities.com/sabiaustedonline/chucara.htm

OK, now p19 makes sense!

I would say that in the first comparison the "Small" style seems slightly larger on the body than the "Text" (even though it's set 0.4 pt smaller), but it also has less "apparent leading". While in the 2nd one the apparent sizes are very well matched, but the "Small" still has less apparent leading.

--

Setting the leading solid for everything won't work for the same reason that mainaining the same point size across the different fonts won't work: the proportions of the face on the Em affects everything. It's well known for example that fonts with larger x-heights need more leading.

So I think you have to 1) match the apparent sizes, then 2) match the apparent leadings, then 3) compare the economy, then 4) balance it against readability. And always remembering that you can sometimes gain readability by reducing the apparent size.

hhp

señores typophile, Acabo de empezar a disribuir la tipografía (gratis) en mi blog:

www.letritas.blogspot.com , pueden pedirla en la sección comments.

Gracias por toda la ayuda

JP

Hi Juan, I really like what you've got so far. I was
wondering if the uc U & T shouldn't be a bit wider, and
there are weight problems top and bottom of the uc G.
The uc C seems to be leaning too much to the right.

I'm not so keen on the style of the leg of the uc R
(that's personal though) but it does seem to be
floating above the baseline, so you might want to
optically correct that and have it end a bit lower.