There it happens again! Another font that I like from a category that I don't. (Is it me, or this forum?...) Script fonts are usually hopelessly imitative and non-typographic, but this one's cool.

I'm not sure what bugs you about the "s" (maybe a little too wide) and the "k" (I think it's dandy). The "f" bugs me (the descender shouldn't do that), and the "p" looks like it's running for cover, but otherwise I think you have a winner.

But what about the caps? Allow me to make a suggestion: don't try to make the conventional Roman cap structures work; instead, look to the uncial tradition. Hammer might have been too much of a purist, be he was onto something - something that remains largely ignored by most.

hhp

Brian,

I like the spirit of the face in general and the g and m are quite nice. You say the k bothers you, but I don't mind it.

It seems like a few of the elements are a bit forced, like the spur on the q and the tail on the p. Also, the loops on the some of the letters seem a little awkward (too exagerated, perhaps and the ovals not highly refined).

As an exercise, it would be interesting to see a sample setting of the face, where you could more easily see the relationships between letters outside their order in the alphabet.

Post it again when you've developed it further.

Cheers. //Joe

I love it, Brian. Reminds me of how Berkeley Oldstyle
Script might look. The essence of machined type and
handscript in one face. Very nice.

I too question the "f", but the rest is right on. Hrant
has a great idea with Uncial caps. See if it pays off.

Wow,
cool script font. It would even look good on a shiny new toaster!

It seems to be a consensus. The 's' is fine, and I'm in love with the 'k'. Please don't change it. The 'p' does look forced, but everything else seems to fit in quite nicely. The tail on the 'q' works for me.

I wonder if the 'f' would perk up if the descender wasn't as heavy... maybe narrowed just a hair. Or try using the 'q's tail without the flip.

The whole face seems like a modern caligraphic form. What if all of the letters w/ascenders and descenders varied ever so slightly from top to bottom?

Really nice first face... can't wait to see more stuff. Can you post a set paragraph?

HiggledyPig
Eric

Hi Brian,
I like it. I just have a little remark on your 'p'. I would start the belly a little bit lower and make it a little more rounder. Your 'k'is alright. maybe you try how your 's' looks like, when you curl up the end a little more.

Jacques

Brian, this is a terrific design. I think that a double f could get a little cluttered

Hi everybody,

Thanks for all your input. I just started working on this again about a month ago, and I should have a new draft up in a week or so.

Random question for Christopher: you wouldn't happen to know my father, would you? I'm just asking because your profile says you live in Kansas City, where he lives, and you happened to post on my birthday after a few months of inactivity here... just seemed a little wierd.

Brian

Well, here's a slightly updated version, with some changes to the lowercase letters, and, most notably, a handful of uppercase ideas. Some of them I like; most I think are quite hideous.

You can see it at http://www.oogby.com/positronic.swf

Brian

I agree with Stephen on the point about balance. The 'd' is out of place. However, I think that 'd', considering how upright everything else is, would make a good beginning for a great eth glyph (from the icelandic alphabet).

I see that this thread has been quiet for almost a year, which is sad as this font has some real possibilities. (has the font been published? If so, where can I get it?)

I really like what is happening here. However, the new p and q don't quite fit. I like the theme of the upright ascenders, and the cursive loop descenders like on the g, j, y, z, and old p. Perhaps the q could share this theme with a loop descender similar to the y.
I agree with christopher on the begining stroke on the r.
Would it look out of place to give the d an ascender in the style of the b, f, h, etc.?

I see that this thread has been quiet for almost a year, which is sad as this font has some real possibilities. (has the font been published? If so, where can I get it?)

I really like what is happening here. However, the new p and q don't quite fit. I like the theme of the upright ascenders, and the cursive loop descenders like on the g, j, y, z, and old p. Perhaps the q could share this theme with a loop descender similar to the y.
I agree with christopher on the begining stroke on the r.
Would it look out of place to give the d an ascender in the style of the b, f, h, etc.?

I see that this thread has been quiet for almost a year, which is sad as this font has some real possibilities. (has the font been published? If so, where can I get it?)

I really like what is happening here. However, the new p and q don't quite fit. I like the theme of the upright ascenders, and the cursive loop descenders like on the g, j, y, z, and old p. Perhaps the q could share this theme with a loop descender similar to the y.
I agree with christopher on the begining stroke on the r.
Would it look out of place to give the d an ascender in the style of the b, f, h, etc.?

I see that this thread has been quiet for almost a year, which is sad as this font has some real possibilities. (has the font been published? If so, where can I get it?)

I really like what is happening here. However, the new p and q don't quite fit. I like the theme of the upright ascenders, and the cursive loop descenders like on the g, j, y, z, and old p. Perhaps the q could share this theme with a loop descender similar to the y.
I agree with christopher on the begining stroke on the r.
Would it look out of place to give the d an ascender in the style of the b, f, h, etc.?

I see that this thread has been quiet for almost a year, which is sad as this font has some real possibilities. (has the font been published? If so, where can I get it?)

I really like what is happening here. However, the new p and q don't quite fit. I like the theme of the upright ascenders, and the cursive loop descenders like on the g, j, y, z, and old p. Perhaps the q could share this theme with a loop descender similar to the y.
I agree with christopher on the begining stroke on the r.
Would it look out of place to give the d an ascender in the style of the b, f, h, etc.?

I like the ornate 'O' it's pretty, I think, the 'J' should go further down, and I dont like these dots, I know, it's only mer, I just don't like the squared dots.
Otherwise a really good design!

Hi again,

Here's the latest version of this font, with a complete set of capitals and some sample text. I'm pretty happy with most of the capitals finally, but I think a few might still need some work, like the 'H', 'K', 'T' and 'Z'.

Here are the links:

http://www.oogby.com/lj/letters.swf
http://www.oogby.com/lj/sample.swf

What do you think?

I personally would like the H better if it were a little wider, or if the bar were lower, or both. It just seems to uptight to me, especially next to the with the P and the R.

The T I thought looked great in the word "Tulip", but on the first page I have trouble recognizing it (and only then by process of elimination). Perhaps if the horizontal stroke extended a little further to the right? Or perhaps if the vertical stroke curved in the opposite direction it would be more recognizable by evoking the shape of a lowercase t.

Here's the latest, with some numbers and symbols thrown in.

http://www.oogby.com/lj/positronic%20diary%203%20august.swf

Zach -- I completely agree about the 'H', so that's a bit wider, and while I loved how styilized the 'T' was, I see your point about it being difficult to recognize. I've moved the horizontal stroke over a bit. Does that help?

I just noticed that, looking at the B and E, the overshoot on the bottom of the B doesn't feel at all right. I wonder if it's just the B, or if I've got a larger problem here.

Yes, I think the T is much more recognizable, even with such a little change. Those numbers are spectacular.

Brian! So glad to see you're back. It's looking tasty.
Barnbrook should be pooping his trousers right now.
Let's get your hands dirty...

1. Balance. I think the upright quality of this design is
what makes it great. You lost that with the new 'd'. But the
new 'p' is better - the original being off-balance. The 'g'
leans a bit too much to the right as well.

2. Good work moving the 't' crossbar to the x-height.

3. I thought Christopher's ideas on the 'y' and 'w' were
good. Maybe just move the left v stroke of the 'w' to the left
a tad. He might be right about the 'r' too, but I can't tell
without a text setting.

4. Caps. Your best uppercasers are the simple ones: 'V',
'w', 'A', 'Q'. Don't touch those. I think there's too much going
on in the 'N', 'T', 'F', 'C'. The Tim Burton curl isn't working
for me and it belies the smooth, calligraphic nature of the
face. The ornate 'O' might work as an alternate, but the
simple stressed oval is just fine I have no idea what to do
with the 'E'.

5. Punct. Pretty.