You have a round . for :!?äëïöüÿ, and a weak . for i, j.

Many thanks for that Alessandro. Do you suggest that I make the . i , j stronger?

Best wishes,

Tokyodrifter

I have to say that it's rather nice – however it does appear to look remarkably similar to Etelka Light Pro.

Perhaps you could try making some of the characters a little more distinctive to gain better differentiation between the two faces?

Keep consistency, punctuation marks are not structurals but they give a swerve to the face, say they are more functional. Make them (i, j) stronger and consistent. Design your ligatures fi, fl when you have done with the metrics.

Thanks for your comments Jon. I'd have to disagree though, they're nothing like each other.

Many thanks Alessandro. Very useful comments!

As I said earlier, they do have a *similar* look and feel – although this is not intended to imply there is any plagiarism at work and I apologise if I have caused any offence.

Don't forget, I did also say I rather like it ;-)

No problem Jon. I did ask for constructive comments though on how to make the design better, not what other typefaces it has a similar feel to. I've been working on this typeface a long time so maybe i'm a little too protective of it. Sorry if I snapped.

All the best,

Tokyodrifter

No problem, I know what it's like when you've spent 2 years working on something and some smarta$ comes along with what might appear to be a cheap shot – apologies for any insensitivity. I'll have a closer look and see if there's any constructive recommendations I can make.

This is a good start, but some of your curves are letting you down, espcially the top bout of the a, the tail of the g, the c and e, and the s, which looks like it's falling over to the left. The uppercase has fewer such issues, and C and G are pretty good, but the J needs help, and the S also looks like it's falling over.

As has been pointed out, the dots should be consistent, and if you do go with squares, they should be @20% larger, otherwise they look too small.

The æ shouldn't have a the stick up its butt.

The top diagonal of the k is a little too far to the right.

The two components of the m should be a little bit narrower. It needn't be a lot.

The accents don't match terribly well; they are a little thin, and taper a little too much; they should match the design of the font. The cedilla looks like it's from a completely different font.

You might want to look at the way many people design w; in my opinion, the outside strokes should be brought in at the top. (It's a little hard to explain, but have a look at this:

See what I mean?

You have done a good job making sure that the places where your strokes intercept don't get too thick, which is a hard trick to learn. On the whole, I think this is pretty solid work. Not amazingly original, but it has potential and will serve you well.

Hi Chester,

That's great! I'll get to work.

Best wishes,

Tokyo