Here goes. I'll just give a running commentary as I scroll down the PDF.

-The 'S' and 's' bug me. The contrast is really wonky.
-Why are some serifs flat, and others curved?
-'&' looks like an '8'
-I dig the ball terminal on the '4' and some other letters. I wonder if this could be incorporated into other characters.
-I think 'C' needs a spur.
-'G' doesn't really fit. The bottom is too thin, and it could use a spur also.
-'T' is off-putting. Maybe the curves on top should go the other way to better match the other characters.
-'k' looks very poorly constructed.
-The bottom of the 't' is cut off abruptly - it works though. Maybe introduce this into other letters as well.

Overall, it's got a nice feel, but it's a little inconsistent. With some refinement and redrawing, this could be a very nice display face.

- Lex

Thank you much, Lex. I'll try using my more usual ways to display sam[les next time, and get right to work on your suggestions.
That 'k' is quite wonky, I agree.

How do you envision these "spurs" on the 'C' and 'G'?

Obsoive:

- Lex

I've addressed pretty much all the concerns you pointed out, and some others as well. The lc "s" still needs work, and I'm increasingly unhappy with the "e".

Lots of stuff left to do, but my progress is shown on the new PDF up top.

Some observations:

AX has wrong weight distribution (it's mirrored to usual ones).
B too big upper part.
CGOD bowls slightly to light compared to other stroke weight
J strange
K upper arm too thick
S needs serifs
U not round enough

e maybe 45° is too much for the bar
hmn uppermost parts of the bows are too much to the left. more tension!
r too wide, needs a foot serif
s too wide, needs serifs
x wrong weight distribution

4 bar too high
69 no weight in the bowls?

Have a look at other typefaces, don't copy them, but see why they work, how the weight is distributed, how the proportions are, etc.
And there's an error I tend to do as well: I do way too much special characters before the basic ones are settled. It multiplies the time needed for corrections...

Sebastian

Wow, this posting sounds arrogant, I'm sorry for that... It's late and I have to go to bed, but I thought feedback in a few words is better than none.

Thanks, Sebastian. I'll get on to those fixes you suggest.
6 and 9 always give me trouble.

Though sometimes I sketch out few letters, I tend to design my fonts in Fontographer from the beginning, usually starting with "h", "V' and "O" then hashing out the basic forms by collaging components from them to the rest of the characters before fine tuning the shapes. This leads to all the mistakes you noted, but they'll eventually get worked out. It also makes it relatively easy to rapidly construct the special characters that, I agree, really would be better left for later.

What do you think of my other projects here: Palormak and Cartmeign in this subforum, and Triangulor in the experimental section?

I've made some more changes. There is still a lot of work to do, and a lot of little details even I notice are wrong. Still, this shows significant progress. New PDF up top and this here:

I don't think this face will ever be useful for setting text but as a display face it could be quite nice. I would encourage you to reconsider each character & see how you could make them differfently. I get the feeling that some of them were made based on others to a too great a degree. I think your 4 works well desite it's oddity. Your 5 and 2 as well. The two is a little unballanced. The 3 is struggling. Perhaps one arc should be bigger than the other or a historical form with an arbitary straight line should be used. The 8 too. It needs direction. Keep at it.

The general feel I get from the caps reminds me of precast letters I used to use in customizing leather belts, actually -- the serifs have a real "western" zeitgeist to them, particularly the "L".

I agree with Eben that it would make an interesting display face.

Linda

Damn, I just had a big long reply and I accidentally hit a bookmark and my browser ate it.

I'll be back once I recover from the shock.

Good.

OK, it's been a while, but here I am with another go at it (again with a PDF #6 for closer inspection).

There are a lot of changes here, some obvious, some subtle. Try and find them all!

Maybe I'll change the name of the font to "Corinthian Leather" unless Chrysler still holds that trademark.

It looks like it's gelling up better. Still here is what I am thinking:

- The Cap X looks like it needs to pee.
- I think that if you look at some wood type you would find a model for putting the detail & charcater you have across without compromising the face quite so much. In particular, I am thinking that the serif wiggle you have in some glyphs like cap E seem just right whereas the lc m seems like a victim of imposed rules. I would start making some exceptions & let the m off. Some of the Serifs seem to be hiding out. They make their glyph look like a wall flower. wheras the 2 seems at ease with itself and the 5 is qite outgoing. The 4 is not keeping up. It's just too many excentric details in one glyph - 4 of them! Help that 9! Above all I would ask myself - what gets better with the wiggle? What gets worse?

I hope you keep going! I still like the excentricity overall and I think it could become surprisingly readable. I really like the 'e'. Make the others play nice with it.

The 9 does look like it belongs in another font entirely, doesn't it? I was experimenting with things and it just seemed to work for me like this. How would you suggest I change it? I don't want it to end up merely as a rotated 6 (I'm still not happy with the 6).

I am working on something new for the 4. I've eliminated the curve on the diagonal and flattened the horizontal crossbar a bit. That will be up with the next installment

About the wiggles, I find a certain amount of this enhances readability. I'm not sure it's having that effect here, but in my earlier font Gohan, the vertical wiggle almost makes it suitable as a microfont, in spite of its heavy weight and rounded shapes. Of course there are some details on that which need further refinement too. That font has a pretty odd 4 too.

Definitely take my suggestion with a grain of salt ( or more ) my assumptions about what you want the font to do may not be correct. What if the overall shape of the 6 was more like the 9 ( digonal-ish) but it was tapered or had a small teardop.

Not quite like this but

http://www.dwr.com/images/thumbnails/tn_9774.gif

Actually. I am noticing now that you have an re-opening taper on the 2, A huge one on the Ampersand, a ball on the 4, r & g, x z, and then there is the finish on the s. Anyway. I don't think you shouyld be doctrinare about this but looking at finnishing strokes I am seeing more variety than is maybe ideal.

Also, looking at the xyz I seem to see 3 different ideas about how to manage diagonal widths. The y suggesdt that stroke variation will be low. The x suggests it will be high. The z is quite light. Looking at the e and g, both of which seem right for some reason, I think I see the weight I would have the xy&z adopt.

I am looking foreward to seeing the new 4. I agree that the wiggles add to the face in general. Did what I was saying about woodtype make any sense to you?

I'll have to do a bit more research on the woodtype, but I think I understand what you're getting at.

I'm about ready to post another revision sample, but I'm becoming bored with my presentation. Should I keep it the same for the sake of consistency in comparison, or what, if any, other direction could I go in?

Keep the 1st page the same for the sake of continuity & then use 2nd 3rd (etc) pages to show us how you think the face might be used to best advantage or to exhibit new questions, problems, alternatives or features.

OK. Here's what I've been promising:

Lots of changes here, including a whole new teapot a, Q, accented characters, a new 4 and 6, a bunch of changes to misc. symbols, modified x, y, &,*, °, and more.

Much work still to do with the spacing.

PDF 7 up top.

Quick and dirty, just to see what it looks like in different colors.
Without an idea in my head.

Very Amusing!

about the changes - I like the increased consistancy but the stroke contrast in the digonals seems a bit harsh. Especially on the y & cap V. I like the new six but I wonder if it wouldn't be better flipped for a new 9. What if the 6 had a longer ascending arm? I think you need to give the Q's bottom stoke a bit more weight to carry it off. But it's a fun idea.The e has to gain some weight to match or the others have to loose a little.

Yeah, it looks like I got the contrast on the y backwards too.

It occurs to me that many of the caps are too narrow. They look all condensed while the lc looks all fat, even though the stroke widths are nearly the same. Also the O isn't obviously different from the zero. Handling this problem would mean quite an overhaul, though. Any idea how I should go about that?

There is something about the 9 that I really like. I know you keep telling me to change it, and I agree it is a bit strange, but it works for me.

What do you think of the new 4?

The 3 does have an odd finish, but that's meant to make for a good <3 emoticon.

I love the italic g from Galliard, but I wouldn't put it in my Cyril. Just because a glyph is good doesn't mean it fits. The 9 is interesting, but I don't think it works here. I also question the motive behind the 3: to make a good emoticon? Which will people use more often: the 3 or the emoticon? If you really want to be able to have a good heart, just draw a picture of one and stick it somewhere in the font.
If something looks wrong, don't hesitate to fix it, even if it does mean "quite an overhaul". In your case, it actually won't take a whole lot to just widen the caps that need widening, like OGHCDB. Make them all look consistent with each other. Giving them similar amounts of white space is a good place to start. (This feels a bit weird, because I can remember when I was on the other end of this exact same critique with Cyril. In my case, the font was totally not what I had meant to draw the first time, so I redrew it, but I don't think that's really necessary here.) The new 4 strikes me as better, but I think I prefer the old 6. The 1 needs more character.

So I've fixed most of the things that have been brought up so far. With all the things I've done to unify the font, it seems I've neglected the punctuation somewhat. It's all very square and seems undersized to me, but I could be wrong. Also my accents acute and grave are awfully steep. I don't use them extensively in my language, but does that bother anyone who does?

The font is on the whole juicy. It seems like the punctuation should be too. The dots on the i & j seem over weight to me ( slightly ). Also the Caps now that they are wide enough seem to need some air. Maybe add a bit to the sidebearings. Look at all those Es. Also I thought I should metion that something is going wrong with the encoding such that some glyphs don't display when I open the PDF. Like 3-4 I think... I can tell you which ones later. But in the meantime what encoding are you using & why?

I think I did a bad thing to the B. Back to the drawing board on that one.

This relates to PDF 8 in the first post.

BTW I like the new 3 6 & 9. I guess my comments about the caps were about the acccented caps! The others seem good I think.

I'm using default settings for Macintosh encoding in Mac TrueType format from Fontographer 4.1.5 NFPU.

I did get a report of some sort of encoding error when I viewed the PDF, but I didn't notice anything missing from the displayed characters.

edit: Upon further review I do notice a couple missing characters on the bottom line. I'm doing my PDF output with Canvas 8, if that makes any difference. Hey, I'm broke, and I got it for the cost of a magazine, and it does the job, more or less.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. Just letting you know what happens. Cheers!

Oh, I know... Just hoping you knew how to fix it.

Hmm I would post a new topic about the missing glyphs here on typophile. That will be the best way I think.

The most significant changes this time around are the punctuation and accents. All that was square is round now.

Also, B, f, fi, fl, and Florin have changed.

Ohm and Delta are the characters not showing in the PDF, resulting in the error message. I haven't a clue why yet. Version 9 is up top, and it works but for those two. I just need to figure out how to get the rest of the characters in there. Canvas 8 doesn't have the character pallette to input them with.

Since I have the file open right now, is there anything more I can do to improve this?

Here are some ideas to keep you busy: Pull the nose of the 2 in slightly. ( Maybe) Give it more overshoot on top. The tops of the eights & nines seem to thick maybe. The left side of the 7 seems to light/weak. The curve on the lc k could be more weighty/exuberant. I can't find a way to love the flat r - why not lower the join of the n & m & make an r that matches? Why not throw in the p while your at it? ( it might be better like the b) What about a loop at the beginning of the Q's tail instead of a reverse. That might be more 'ballsy'. heh heh ( rolling of eyes obligatory ). But more meaninfully it would create a more 'even' feeling in the weights. The Q is too light now. In the case of your font I think a flat side to the inside of the O in OE might be better. Why does the l & t drop their bottom? I am not diggin' it. How does that go with the rest? I like the lc v but the lc w & y still don't quite sing to me. The left bottom of the lc z needs more weight somehow. It feels lopsided. The ae seems too wide & lumpy to me. The UC W could be wider. Why not? It's such an exumberant face in general why not give it some room? What about dropping the Join on the UC Y? It seems a bit cramped with those big serifs. I would add mnore weight back to the CAp S in the middle. I don't lknow if the UC T needs to be quite so wide. The N needs some air & width ( a bit ) - The C needs more space & a more gracelful left curve. The G too. Even more, actually. The serif on the UC M makes it look like it's sad. Your best glyphs have a a hardy readdy to do anything feeling about them. The UC A has it. TheB,R,g,s,o & V too. Get that spirit in the rest. The $ is not wide enogh at the bese especially the left side. British Pound sign - same thing.

Eben, I agree with most of your suggestions, though I'm not sure how to efectively implement them all, with the exception of the lc r.

I have a specific reason for not making the r similar to the m and n, which I go into here. I may still try lowering the joins on m and n, but we'll have to think a bit more before doing anything drastic with the r.

Perhaps raise it slightly higher then. That has historical precedent actually. And in the end it's your eyes that count. Cheers!

Nice looking font, very consistent shapes all through the design.
Only things I see right now are:
The indent on the leg of the cap R, it catches the eye, since only that char and the lc 'k' have it. Not that it looks bad, but it sticks out a bit maybe.
And the circumflex, which is a bit square / pointed and straight-lined, compared to the other characters. If you know what I mean.

Do you mean the ASCII circumflex or the combining diacritical circumflex? They're very and deliberately different.

Both, but mostly the ê, â, etc.
If you deliberately made then different, you obviously thought about it, so then it's fine. :)

Does the accent acute look all lumpy compared to the accent grave, or is it just my monitor? I saw some odd curves on the asterisk too. Anybody else catch anything?

Yes, checking pdf no.9 I see that too. The acute has a couple of 'corners' in it, on the left curve, not a smooth line. The asterisk as well.

I can't explain why that is happening. These flaws do not appear in Fontographer, but I see them in the PDF just as you do. The acute is a simple H-flip of the grave, and the asterisk points are rotated copies of the top one. I suspect some artifact crept in there when I added points at extrema and aligned points to grid, and possibly even in the output to TrueType, but I think it is more likely a flaw in Acrobat rendering. I'm also noticing a vertical stretch overall in the PDF compared to how the forms appear in my graphics programs.

Florin isn't working, x still has reversed stress, counter of a should be more symmetrical I think, and W's usually have the thicker diagonal continued all the way to the top. Serifs of s have no relation to other letters (consider making them like c, ß, or S), and ß has wrong stress: on the bottom it should be like s, and on the top, the outward-facing curve should have it, not the in-pointing one (viz. Sabon). Z too light, WwX too heavy. Corner at bottom of inner curve of J no good. M too wide. Cedilla not bold enough at parts. 9 needs a corner at the terminal, not curves. © way bolder than ®. "n-ary product" sign comes below baseline. Ah, revising: so much fun, no? Keep fighting the good fight.

I have had similar weird glitches when I export to TrueType. I usually make and export it in otf. But I'm not too experienced as a type designer. But TTF-curves are weird, heh.
What program did you use to set the type in, and export to PDF?

Both the PNG images and the PDF files are generated with Canvas 8. I suppose I could use my ancient copy of Illustrator in Classic mode, but that would mean installing the fonts in the old system folder, and well, now that i think of it it's not too big a bother, but I don't want to bother.

For some reason Fog's export to PS1 fonts is glitchy (which is why I'm making as TrueType. OTF isn't even an option), at least when i comes to installing them-- the space gets all stretched out, but returns to normal after purging caches with Linotype Font Explorer. I'm not sure exacly where the problem lies, apart from the fact that I need a new compuer and software updates and I can't afford any of it right now.

Once I get it done, I might try making a PS font from Fontographer then converting that to OTF with FontForge, but I don't want to geet ahead of myself just yet.

Try renaming your font for the purposes of checking. I had Font Explorer seemingly cacheing some of my old data. It didn't go away util I changed the font's name. There is probably another work around but that's the one that worked for me. You should also be aware that FOG doesn't work in whole numbers. It uses fractions. So when you export to TT at 1000 UPM some numebers may round up or down on you producing results that may not be expected. You have come pretty far with this. Why not go the extra mile? Also, re-reading the thread I started to wonder what you meant by I’m not sure how to efectively implement them all. What upm are you working in?

Just that it might take more than the moment I used to write the response to come up with solutions to the problems you pointed out. (And likewise for some of Nathanael's comments.)

7, k, w, y, C, G, and M you made somewhat perplexing comments on. The words themselves are not but figuring out how to make them happen is. I've already made a bunch of changes and will try some more before I make another test image.

My em square is 1024 UPM.

“n-ary product” sign comes below baseline.

Um... pardon my ignorance, but which character is that?

A bunch of changes here before I head out, covering most of what people mentioned. Another spacing error crept in as well as the recurring PDF problem. PDF 10 on top.

The usual UPMs are 1000 (usual) & 2048 (the microsoft standard). You can use something else but you might not want to. Did you mis-type?

It seems like the whole thing is starting to tighten up. Would you post a PDF with some text so I can what's happening better? Also what about posting an example of how you imagine the font being used. That would helpful too.

The Fontographer manual suggests a multiple of 1024 fo the em square for TrueType, so that's what I set it at. Naturally 2048 will double the pitch of the grid, which would be handy.

I'll give a shot at some layouts. I'm not really sure what a good use for this is right now. It calls attentiont itself a bit too much for body text, and is a bit bold for that anyway. I might come up with a lighter weight version once this is nailed down and see how it works. Maybe with slightly looser spacing it work for advertising copy. Would you buy a luxury car from this font? Eh... maybe not.

I think I overdid the Q—rather than going with a loop instead of a reverse on the tail, I did both. Is the result too heavy/busy for such an infrequently used letter?

I took a cue from the curve of the k to reshape the h, m, and n. Is it an improvement?

I think the hmn are improved. I don't know that it completely matches the face yet exactly. But you should look at your b I have it match the new letters a bit more. Or make the others match the b. Or something else but getting them all on the same path. Speaking of which ... Maybe think about that p too. It's an odd man out. All of this is a big deal beacause you will gain in legibility going some ways but I know you wanteded your own solution. I would keep trying things.

Similarly I think you can make a case for keeping the g & q with the structure they have. I think you might want to bring the d in line with them to some greater degree. the g is looking abit too closed right now. Almost like an odd 8. I like the opening on the y - even though it's got the same structure the opical difference is huge. Optics are what count.

RE; the cap Q I think you can make it work ( maybe) by adding weight to the bottom of the curve before it loops. You might have to drop the tail slightly to do that. But I bet that would work. I like the Q. I want it to work.

The top of the 3 feels off balance - maybe it's too heavy. The 8 feels denser & darker that the other #s. Maybe open it up a bit.

BTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_mathematical_symbols

The "n-ary product" symbol is the uppercase pi. I note that you changed the W but not the w. I'm not entirely sure the dot in the zero works. The Q does seem a bit extravagant. Also, the tail of g doesn't look good--try squaring it out some. The point inside the k is too sharp.

(Accidental repost)

That's what I thought you were talking about. Fog only gives the character name as "product". This uppercase pi does not come below the baseline, which is why your comment confused me. Are you saying it is supposed to?

The g hasn't changed since the v.6 beta. How does it attract attention now that it has been stable through 4 iterations?

The thing is when you have bigger problems with a font they are more obvious and get pointed out first. Also, people don't have time to look for 1000 things to fix - just 10 or so. And how would you feel if you got a list of 1000 problems? Overwhelmed or irritated or depressed I expect. You must do whatever you want with your font. But I think Nathanael Bonnell ( no.3) is probably right.

I posted a Q&D page layout showing the font at various sizes. It's not very good as a layout, but it gives an idea of what it looks like in use.

Yeah, I was saying it's supposed to.
Looking at the font actually used to set text, it looks pretty good now. A good quirky feel. I maintain that the Q is too much. I think that (along with the Q) your most distracting characters right now are g,u, and maybe a. The u should probably have a different serif scheme--no other letters have a similar one. I'm thinking top serifs perhaps like Weiss, or maybe just as though taken from a rotated Agamemnon n. And the g will probably be okay once you square it out like I suggested. Oh, also x is a bit wide. Next sample post a pangram or two so we can see the whole thing in action!

I realize ∏ in a Latin font is meant as a mathematical symbol and not for writing Greek, but looking at the wikipedia page Eben linked, ∑ is set the same way in equations. Should that be similarly oversized too?

Looking at these characters in several other fonts, I can find no consistency to this rule. Hoefler Text has both at standard cap height, in Helvetica they both drop their bottoms to the decender height, in Chicago they both go below the baseline, but not that deep, and in Courier they extend both above the cap height and below to decender level. If there is one correct way, then three of these fonts must be wrong!

I don't think that's the case, It's just understandably confusing.

Pangram sheet now in the PDF collection.

Yes, I forgot entirely about the summation symbol (the Sigma); that one also descends. Wow, we must be losers, spending this much time quibbling about whether math symbols descend below the baseline. (But for the record they do.) By the way, check out the stress scheme in other fonts' summation sybols. That's the generally accepted way to do it, though you could probably get away with the current one.

In what way is the d not in line with the g and q? When I started, at least, the a, b, d, p, and q were all derived from each other through rotating, flipping, removing the stem, &c, as was the g with the addition of the hook decender. in fact, the h, n, and m were in this family too, just with their bases opened. I went with the 2 story a because the earlier æ wasn't sufficiently distinct from the œ. Apart from that, are you suggesting I revert to the original shapes, or that I replicate the curve on the n to those letters that don't have it yet?
I thought the blended serif-curve ripple was an identifying characteristic of this font. Is that worth eliminating? It seems that would be removing a cohesive relationship rather than adding one.

Damn, that sounds plaintive. I'm just trying to understand the thoughts you're contributing. Most likely it's a matter of my lack of experience and limited vocabulary that I'm just not getting it. I truly value and welcome your advice, and I hope to avoid any misunderstanding.

I may be trying to hold you to a higher or simply different standard than you are interested in. Which may well be unfair. But, I think this face might actually sell with more of the kinks worked out. (You should get other folks opinions on that)

But that makes me think: what sells more? Display or text? 'Text' is answer. And the closer to a text face a display face is ( & this is a display face) so that you can use it for pull quotes & stuff the better it will sell. So the suggestions I have been making have been geared towards making the face a bit more suitable for text. If thats not your thing- no problem.

So. Assuming you could be interested in the text thing: About the b h n : One of the features that help identify a b h or n is the notch where the leg joins. If you look at the face FF dax you see an alternative solution. But conventionally speaking, and your face has some of it's roots in convention, there is usually a notch.

About rotating & mirroring: Conventionally the q should not mirror the p. The d aught not to mirror the b. Sure they do in some faces like DIN. But it is a 20th century affectation having to do with modernist reductivism. I don't see that focus in your type. There are many other alternatives but first let's look at the traditional one:

These are from Sansa Slab (Ourtype). See how the forms differ? Look at d the q! I see the d & q as a more vaiable place for your wave. Maybe the r too. Maybe not though. I would maybe make it more narrow. Maybe a different kind of wave aught be available for the b h & n. So I think you should retain your ripple but think about ways to integrate & vary it with the greater diversity of forms found in text faces. Applying 'rules' can backfire if it interferes with the distictiveness of a letter.

BTW - You are right to be concerned with cohesion, but there are many ways of achieving that. The wave was not enough. There is stem weight, optical weight matching, spacing repeated themes in the ornament, and the ends of strokes.

If you can clarify what you want from the face the choices are easier. For instance: if you plan on the face being used at 36pt and larger then your g with it's narrow opening may be okay. Looking at large text it doesn't bother me at all. But if you want people to be able to think of using this font at 12, 14, 16pt etc; then I would definitely open that thing up right away! Context helps. Keep thinking about your intended use & the choices you make will be easier & smarter. 100% of these suggestions are refutable in the right context.

It would be great if this could work as a text face. As it is, it's a bit too bold and tightly spaced, so I'll have to loosen it up and make a lighter weight version once it is fully nailed down. (To say nothing of corresponding italics. I've never done those before.)

And, I have opened up the g in the next iteration quite a bit. I also increased the em square to 2048 (surprisingly painless).I'm still poking around for other things to tweak. I should be ready to show those developments later today.

In the mean time, here is a sample to compare with your example of Sansa Slab, plus a few extra letters:

In version 11ß, the bowl of the b will have a similar top to the archof the h,n, and m. but as I understand it, you're suggesting that follow on to the p as well, and also be reflected on the underside of the d, q, and maybe the g.

The wave I speak of is most clearly evident on the top of the r, but it is present on the top of the p, q, and g as the curve of the bowl flows into the serif, and similarly on the bases of the b and d. To apply your suggestion (in the manner that I'm understanding it, which could be wrong) would wind up putting notches in the d and p that aren't there now. Am I getting this right?

You almost have me. What I am saying is that the glyphs which have bowl or arms that emerge from the left to right ( nmb&p & maybe r too ) will all benefit from being notched as in the Sansa example. Whereas the qd & g all seem to take to the wave shape ( on the top ) more naturally. Looking at the b I see is has the wave on the bottom. So there is your connection still in place.

Assuming you agree that this is worth trying out I should add that the n & m do have that 1st serif that make them semi cohesive already but the way the arms are coming out don't look quite right to me with the rest of the design. What if you used something more like the b's bowl top join. That feels more relaxed.

As for the r I would either give it a b like arm connection or alter the wave for that glyph. I realize that it was the concept glyph but I think it could be better. You could raise the height of the r's arm & ball too. And or you could try to make the glyph less wide. It's creating an odd break in flow as it is. The a might be slightly less wide too.

It took me a little longer than I expected but there it is, version 11, including a lot of the changes we've talked about. I do not like what's become of the r, and I'll likely revert back to the previous version.

Here is that short sample I posted earlier done up in the new version:

New PDFs are up on top too.

I like your first 'r' better also. Although the ball terminal works in itself, it's too slanted and sticks above the x-hight too far. And the serif is too distict. But you already saw that. ;)
The decrease in size of the loop in the Q opens the shape up, good thing. The rest of the overall little changes are improvements, I think.

I think some of this is exactly right. The b p & h now have a notch but they also look utterly natural. They fit right in. About the lc r. I agree it isn't working. Oddly enogh it looks you took both of the ideas I was suggesting for the r at once! I was thinking high or less wide. It's actually incredible cool to see both just from an interest point of view and I think you did a great job but I think one or the other is right way - especially now. I would try less wide and model it partly on the n. The g looks much more readable at small sizes. There rae still some letter relationship things left - like the am&b all seem to be thinking about different x heights. Do you see what I mean? I think I like the a as the model for ideal height the best. What do you think?

The a is a bit taller than the rest of the lc, a side effect of swithching to the two-story design. but looking at it that is probably a better height to aim for with the rest of the letters. It will mean making adjustments to almost half the characters, but it should be worth it.

Jelmar, I think you could be seeing an illusion in the Q. The loop is larger, not smaller, than in the previous version, but there is an overlap in the loop that got rendered even-odd by Canvas exporting to PNG and needs to be made solid. It should render correctly in the PDF samples.

I was looking at the PDF of pangrams and it struck me that when you are done with the next round of changes it might be most productive to start altering spacing and then maybe kerning.

I have been wondering what effect the rolling shapes would have when set into text. If for instance they would produce an unpleasant unevenness or if they would be colorful and attract the eye. Of course it's a little preliminary to say, but I think it's the later & better of the two. Nice. I especially like the z. It's really doing it's job.

Ohh, yes I see. I was mistaken, I switched them around.
Well I guess I like the previous Q better then. Although you did reduce the weight of the loop, which also works.

I think now might be a good time to look at how far this has come along. Remember, this is something I started a several years ago before picking it up again last October. Here is pretty much what I started with (corresponding with the agamemnon 4 PDF):

And here is where I'm at as of yesterday (v.11ß):

What do you think of how this is evolving so far?

Come to think of it, I should try that same layout with an even earlier version. I can't think of why I didn't.

Yes, it's gotten much better. What's next? Will keep on with it - or put it away for a while?

I have another update to show. There are just a few kinks to kick out of it.

I solved one missing glyph problem (seems inherent to Canvas 8) but for some reason the lc y acute and multiply won't generate in the TrueType font, and I'm having loads of problems when I output to PS1 format. A whole bunch of glyphs go missing and the space comes out four times too wide.

I might have to boot into OS9 and see if that solves the problem, though I dread having to do that.

PDFs seem to generate just fine from the print dialog in TextEdit, so I'll be using that for my character sample. I'll have to see if I have anything else that will do as well and allow a 2 cloumn layout for a text test.

Well, the above issues remain unresolved, but here is revision 12:

I normalized the x height overshoot of rounded lc to match the a, redid the r again, along with æ, œ, more subtle tweaks to move some serifs that weren't lining up across the board.
Loosened up the spacing a bit too and I think it's good, but the kerning pairs still need work. Any flaws you can cal my attention to would be appreciated.

The new PDFs are multipage documents. You may want to only print the first one or two of each.

Maybe there is missing info in the glyph itself, or wrong info. I ended up pasting my outline data into a whole new font 'holder' to get rid of a corruption problem. I don't know that any of this is what will help you - but it might. The other thing is you might want to search the Typo-L archives and typophile archives for similar problems that may have been solved already or create new threads on typophile with one specific problem per thread. There is also a MSN group for the company Fontlab - and you could post there as well to see if anybody can help you get a grip on the tech.

Aside from the technical issues I've already mentioned, is there anything that still sticks out as inherently flawed? How does the spacing look now?

I've already widened the feet on the Ohm from what I've shown. I'm still a bit concerned with the terminals on the C, G, S and c, e, s groups. Might as well bring 2, €, §, £, ¢, and $ into the discussion too. Should I force them all to match each other, or are they fine as they are, or do some need fixing and not others? I'm at a bit of a loss at the moment.

I've copied and pasted the characters into a new FOG file. Sadly, the guides and templates did not carry over, but there was so much dead weight in there I suppose that's for the best. If I need reminders of the past I can look in the old files.

About the lc : I can thing of two things to try : You could pull the upper arm back slightly & see if you like that better at text size. OR you could add weight to it and move the spacing slightly further to accomodate it.

I think the e is fab. You could add a little weight to the bottom - not an issue at display size but it would make the text size work better. Maybe the s could benefit from some similar tratment above & below - but be careful. Even small changes are a big deal!

I basically like your CG& S. What issues do you see?

The main thing I am noticing at text size is that the X height portions of letters are maybe too contrasted with the overshoots. The w is dwarfed. The m & n seem to jump. I don't think you have to match the usual text convention. But the 'deviancy' could be softened.

BTW if all this seems too text centric the other thing you could do is go back & make a display version! That would be an awesome pairing.

What about a ball terminal on the 2? The Pound Serling might be better with one too.

BTW I really like the german double s. Could I see it in use?

I think the euro is okay but it is a little light. What about a heavier initial mark on the right?

The Bar D ( Eth) & Bar L have bars that are too heavy. The lc eth has the cross bar at too acute of an angle. and it is too far down. Have you seen this? < a href=http://briem.ismennt.is/2/2.11/index.htm>(link) Thorn and eth: how to get them right

What is next to that Yen Sign? It seem interesting!

The infinity is pretty weird. What's the idea there?

What if the fi lig joined at the top rather than the bottom of the dot?

What precedent is there for a curl under the 'mu' sign? That looks odd to me.

Apart from a funny feeling the sterling sign is going to fall over I think I like the Currency symbols. They seem to match the spirit of what your doing.

The Section symbol seems to belong in another font though. It's so quiet & small. Maybe try making a new one from a Cap S. Ahve a look at some other fonts. Also it should be bigger and taller - that is the Height should be that of the Cap but it should descend to the depth of the lc g.

I saw a lc k like yours the other day on a font caled Olive Green Mono. It's on the italic. I suggest you have a look at it! It has a motion woth emulating.

you mean this ?:

It's a personal logo of a sort. The father of my girlfriend at the time was a curator at the National Museum in Taiwan, and quite an accomplished ink painter and calligrapher himself, helped me with the design. I forget what it literally translates to, but it kind of sounds like "Jason". It's the first thing I ever literally carved in stone.

Since then I've put it in the "apple" key space in my fonts. Maybe it's not right, but I don't think it's right to put the Apple, inc. logo there either unless they're licensing the font.

The reverse curl of the mu is indeed rare (I've usually seen them extend left and hang straight), but I have seen it in other fonts. I'll have to get back to you on which ones.
Too many older fonts never even bothered with matching shapes for all these special characters and just substituted from whatever their basic serif or commercial pi font was. I hope that doesn't go on too much anymore.

I have read Briem's pages, but it looks like I'm due for another review.

If the fi lig connected to the top of the dot instead of the bottom, the arch of the f would be much wider and more open. The hook of the regular f is very tight in comparison already. Is it wise to make them more dissimilar?

I'm not sure what I was thinking with the infinity other than I did not want it to be a sideways eight.

This is something I've been meaning to ask in a more general context (rather than specific to this font alone) but exactly what features differentiate a text and display face (and other optical size categories, if that's the right term) of the same weight?

While I haven't found another mu with a similar recurve to the one in Agamemnon, the following have at least a noticeable rightward hang to the descender:

Adobe Garamond
Bodoni
ITC Cheltenham
Souvenir
ITC Veljovic italic

What I noticed a lot more of, though, was the use of an italic mu in otherwise upright fonts, and quite frequently a mu from an alltogether different font, often without even regard to matching weights. These are from the big foundries like Adobe, Bitstream, URW, etc. Those that do have a matching mu often look like a u with a p descender snapped on the left upright, though about as often there is a lachrymal descender.

The C, G, S, and € each have a different spur on top. I think the one on the C is the weakest, while the one on the S is a bit too strong to directly transplant to the rest of the group. I just feel there must be some way to make them more consistent without making the designs fall apart individually.

Ouu. I found a very good example of a right-hooked mu, in Halter from the Apostrophic Lab.
I don't know how much of a precedent that counts for in font court, but there it is.

This is something I’ve been meaning to ask in a more general context (rather than specific to this font alone) but exactly what features differentiate a text and display face (and other optical size categories, if that’s the right term) of the same weight?

This is topic much discussed. There are ways of searching typophile - ( admitedly not all the search boxes work for me) but google can help. In general though it's things like x height being in a certain range and a a whole bevy of other tendencies. Really your face is never going to be used to set a novel or a whole story in a magazine even - so it will not be a text face per se. But it could be used for pull qotes and a whole range of other near text tasks now that it would not have been acceptable for before. Actually, do you agree it is better now - or not so much?

About the serifs- (CGS etc.) Your right about their needing to be different while maintaing consitancy. My adice to is to go look at the many & in some cases contradictory things that have been done & find a model which you think suits your font best & try it. Alternatively - trust your eyes. Find what feels right. Try things.

I was looking at the mu in the new Arno Pro from adobe & it actually kinda close to yours. It's basically down with a slight curve in & then a ball-ish blob. It's less wild than yours if you see what I mean. But realated. It comes with the trial version of the latest Photoshop. Maybe it's in the font shops too. The bold 36pt has a weight kinda like yoyr too. Have a look if you want.

Well, just to see how it looked, I did actually transplant the spur from the top of the S to the C, G, and €, and y'know, it works well enough, and much better than what was there before. I think the spur on the Euro mark is supposed to be angled, though, so I might have to alter that one some.

I've calmed down the mu. It still has a curved stem but the descender ends in more of a blob than a hook.

I ought to have the new one up tonight, or maybe early tomorrow.

In addition to the points touched upon earlier, I raised the lc serifs to the x-height, reversing the slopes on most of them. This results in some of the serifs being tapered, which I couldn't quite figure out how to match on the v, w, x, and y. Maybe it doesn't matter. At least there isn't that big jump between the serif and the humps of the m, &c.

I have printed out the latest. I am looking foreward to checking it out.

Overall I am finding the face really really pleasant. I especially like the k oe ae r s e h.

My opinion is not informed enough so take it with a grain of salt but I like the german double s too. Maybe ask a german speaker about that.

Nice!

But of course I found things that bugged me too. So here is what I noticed when I printed the pangram sheet:

- on the second line 'funtidrk' the ti seem to be clashing. It's a spacing kerning issue. But before you address that you might want to alter the 't' which looks odd & a little weak compared to the robustness of the other glyphs. The ending that works for l is not strong enogh for the t

- with such a robust face the 'eth' ( reverse italic looking d with a slash) will need to be ajusted the slash is still in danger of being swallowed by the bowl. Why not extend the height of the ascender to that of the h & d?

- I am still finding the Cap M looks pidgeon toed. Can you alter those serifs at the bottom? On a related note the serif in the upper right of the Cap N seems overlong to me.

- If the end of the question mark stroke ( near the dot) was just a bot lighter and perhaps had form more lik ethe end of the lc r I think it would be better.

- the lc u seems too wide. Try reversing that lc n perhaps. It needs to have that bite out of it too - like the nmr & so on.

Cheers!

So on the t, do you think it should have a full hook, as the decender of the j, or a flat base like the f?

I think the t would look bizzare with the flat base. But try it & the reverse j hook & some other things besides. I suspect it will need it's own shape. But you can start from those places. Also you could try clamping on the trail end of the lc z for fun too.

Dang, I have a drawing of the t to share and now the "insert image" doohicky isn't working.

Anyway, I tried it with the ball terminals from the j and z, and they just seemed too out of place above the baseline like that, so I took the flare terminal from the c and shortened it up a tiny bit. With a lengthened crossbar, I think it looks pretty good. I hope the description is enough, since I can't get the picture to upload.

Let's see if this works:
link to picture on ImageShack.us

Can't seem to hotlink an image either.

Jason, what is the latest PDF. I want to peek and give you my 2¢ but am too darn lazy to play catch up.

Miss T: The last three PDFs at the bottom of the list of attachments are the most recent. Each begin with "agamemnon13-" and refer to the same font version. "allcahracters" shows all the characters in the font at 48 pt. except the multiplication sign and y acute, which for some reason Fontographer won't include when generating the font file. The other two show the font used in blocks of text.

The image linked above your post shows changes to the t after those PDFs were made.

What about looking at other fonts with similar charcateristics? Ball terminals in them and a heavy weight like this & so on. It might be very useful to observe what they do and how they do it. Also : A pencil & paper might be just the right tool at moment. ;-)

Tiff, thanks for taking a look. If this font seesm like the cup of tea of any typophiles you know please let Jason know. I have been doing my best but I think he would benefit from a diversity of opinions now. Take a look at the 1st version. I think he come a long way. :-)

Your y-acute appears to have the accent after the letter.

In the text sample, yes it does. The proper combined y acute isn't in the font so I typed in the accent after the y.

It exists in the FOG file, but it won't come out when I generate a TT font file from it. I guess I'll have to spring for the upgrade one of these days.

Just for fun, I've been making some short words and testing them out on WhatTheFont over at Myfonts.com, to see if there is anything similar out there already. One thing I've discovered is that their OCR initially recognizes my k as an h, and that there is no other instance of a cursive k like this in an upright font, at least as far as the matching engine can tell.

I'm going to be away from my computer for about a week now, so please take your time picking this apart in detail.

To name but two, Bernhard Modern and Berlin Sans have cursive k's despite uprightness. (Incidentally they were both designed by Lucian Bernhard.)

I knew there had to be something out there. Either it means WhatTheFont is dumb or Bernhard Modern and Berlin Sans are not in its database.

Well, it is possible that those fonts are sufficiently distinct in other ways that they wouldn't score a match with what I have here, but still...

Anyway, any feedback on the latest update?

Here is some:

- The exclam point is too uniformly fat. It's a good weight but it needs some thin parts too.
- The bottom of the lc g seems too light.
- The cross bar on the t & f seem too light. The bottom of the g too perhaps.
- The double l looks great. The k still seems tasty too.
- The w is too wide. It looks lile it's getting pulled to the left by the ear.
- The u is wider than the n. Why is that?
- The stem width feel irregular. The too wide d, the r too, the might be too thin. the 1 too.
- The 'el' l's bottom could drop past the baseline.

I appreciate all the help you're giving me, Eben. Still, I can't help but wonder what might happen if still other voices were to make themselves heard.

I'll give the ! a shot, but I'm not sure how much I can do with it.

I may be putting too much effort into making the thickness of the horizontals consistent. There is room for more variation. The t, f, g, and others will benefit.

All the letters with strong diagonals (e.g.: A, K, R, M, N, V, W, X, Y, Z, k, v, w, x, y, z) give me trouble. What am I doing right in some that can be applied to fix what is wrong with the others?

The u is not simply a rotation of the n. Is the difference in width causing further problems? Would the problems be resolved by matching the widths?

I'm fairly certain the stems are of consistent width, but I will measure them again to make sure, Even then, some might be giving the illusion of being irregular and need adjustment to compensate.

You mention a couple pairs of letters (ll, el) I hadn't really given much thought to those or other pairs besides kerning. Should I make a contextual substitution for the el pair? I don't think I can do that in Fontographer. I haven't even begun to touch on learning the wonders of preparing OpenType fonts, and the only tool I have to do that with anyway is FontForge. I'd like to get the basic letter shapes settled before trying the fancy stuff.

I appreciate all the help you’re giving me, Eben. Still, I can’t help but wonder what might happen if still other voices were to make themselves heard.

I could not agree more.

Do you have good relations with anybody else on the type board? Why not email some people you respect & ask them if youcan email them a PDF?

The u is not simply a rotation of the n. Is the difference in width causing further problems? Would the problems be resolved by matching the widths?

You are right about the n & u not just being rotated! But I think that your n rotated would be a better base from which to work out a corrected u than the one you have now. And you would be starting with a width & stem weight that was matching.

I’m fairly certain the stems are of consistent width, but I will measure them again to make sure, Even then, some might be giving the illusion of being irregular and need adjustment to compensate.

That might be going on. Yeah.

I’ll give the ! a shot, but I’m not sure how much I can do with it.

If it was me I would narrow the beginning of the base of the stroke inward to create a contrasting weight - so that the top flares out in comparison. Have a look at other faces though & see if any of them inspire.

About the diagonals. I have a couple of thoughts about that. One is that compared to the issues you have solved now these were more minor. It may be a good time to adress them now however. On some level I have been reticent to suggest changing these until I saw the effect of the other changes because the two aspects relate to each other and with one thing sorted out for the most part it's easier to se what to do about the next. I also had a sense from you (and I wasn't sure I disagreed) that some of the important character of the design might be caught up in these diagonals & serifs.

But now that I see where we are I think that yes you could adjust things. To my mind the biggest blockage in getting the diagonals sorted is the serifs. Most of the glyphs have an unusual pidgeon toes look to my eye. I think that may be fine now and a source of color in the face but I think it may just bee too strong. The serif have a big impact on how the diagonals feel. Why not bring them in on the interior a little in some cases or center them more? I would try both & see what you think. More centering could bring up letter spacing issues of course..

But let's do this. Let's pick just 3 letters & try a few things with them.

- UC V let's try trimming the inside serif on the right side.

- For the K let's try bringing the upper diagonal stroke back to the left a little. The join can occur higher up.

- In the case of the lc x offset the lighter digonals by making the pitch or angle more vertical. You could also widen & open the letter up a little by offsetting the heavy diagonals more too. You don't have to do that with the UC X because the glyph is less cramped with stuff going on.

There are other ways of doing these things too. Look around try different things.

With diagonals the solutions are often one-off. A common approach or priciple might be shared across letters but the circumstances are often too unique for the 'solution' to be common across more than one letter.

about the el: I didn't mean the e & the l. sorry. It's jist that l & 1 look alibe so I was sounding it out. All I meant was that with the base of the l having the shape it does I would be good if it overshot the baseline. You could also change the shape to be flat & sit on the baseline. I am not suggesting either one is better. I just think the l floats as it is & looks odd.

what don't you like about the lc z?

I’d like to get the basic letter shapes settled before trying the fancy stuff.

exactly. I agree.

There isn't a particular problem I'm having with the z, but it, like the others I mention, has the diagonal stroke, which, by the function of the software's drawing tools, are a bit more difficult to adjust than the strictly vertical and horizontal lines and keep consistent angles and stroke widths, especially when they intersect another stroke. It isn't that difficult, but it does involve some extra steps.

Good relations? No, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I have bad relations with anyone either. I just don't really know anybody.

(Have you noticed that dark chocolate Hershey's Kisses® have a subtle cinnamon flavor undertone?)

So, how is it the I, lc l, and 1 resemble each other? I thought I had made them fairly distinct. In earlier versions, the l did descend, as did the t.

Oh! I see what you mean - I don't mean in general I mean as far as their bases were concerned. They have flat bottoms with serifs. The l does not. That's what I meant to get across.

(Have you noticed that dark chocolate Hershey’s Kisses® have a subtle cinnamon flavor undertone?)

Yes. Sometimes. I think they do it when they cocoa they are using is lacking something.

Here it is, version 15ß:

Tell me what changes you can spot before I post the PDFs. I have to run, so that won't be at least until next morning.

Nobody spotted it?
In addition to most of what's been discussed, I changed the !, ¡, gave all the horizontal strokes a bit of a flare before the terminal serifs, evened out the length of the horizontal serifs all over (though I think in some cases I shouldn't have), reshaped the J and a few other things I can't quite recall.

PDF set 15 (3 files) is now attached on the first post.

I am up to my eyeballs but I will look again soon. Looking good though!

You do what you gotta do to put food on the table, Eben. You've already been a far greater help than I could have hoped for.

Now, if only I could somehow attract other experts to have a look at this project. Is it uncouth to advertise this thread in another forum section, like "Design"?

Should I be typing things I mumble under my breath like that?

Thanks! I appreciate that. You have been good at taking my suggestions in too. About the muttering: I think it's okay.

Here is what I would do: If you have been on the board long enough to know who you respect here; tell them. Ask them for help. Be ready for harsh reality or praise. Whichever it is. It might also be that they don't have time or they don't think enough of the design to rate it. That would be the worst I suspect. But be ready.

The thing is, when you started this design looked pretty scary. Not that it was ugly. It just had a ton of unresolved aspects. It probably looked like too much work to wade into casually. Now though I think you have a shot. You have done much of the that work now. Your face is decidely quirky but it's getting more solid all the time. And quirky & solid are a great combination I think.

And I do want other folks to have a look in. I think the font will benefit from that.

Do you know how to use the typophile IM?

Do you know how to access user profiles & find out if they accept email or not?

Cheers!

So anyway, I'm getting more satisfied with how this is looking. I still have serif issues, but right now I'n giving another go at the Q. I have a new design, with the loop in a more customary position, but I'm afraid it is getting too "2"like, and not really fitting in with the rest of the font, no matter how hard I try. Tell me what you think so far, please.

Stupid Canvas 8 won't fix the overlap. I'll do that later, but I'll keep it while I'm working on the overall shape.

I think there is something worth keeping in this idea. And that there are several ways to find a way of doing that. The idea I have is that you could begin the stroke not inside the o but instead at the left of the loop. But that might be sucky. Try it & find out. I would sketch it in pencil over & over until you get what you want. And I would consider some more expected options too. Leave yourself open to the best solution. Have you contacted/email anybody on the board to ask about the font? I am glad it's giving you greater satisfaction. I have been told by people I trust that sometimes the best thing after an intense bout of development is to take a break & work on something else to give your eyes & brain a chance to freshen up. I am not saying that's what time it is - just that it's an option.

I like it, although I agree it is much like a 2. In context, it would probably work out ok. You might just include it as an OpenType alternate.

Jeremy Dooley
www.insignedesign.com

The new Q is very Goudy-looking. It reminds me of his Q in Aries or in Goudy Swash. I think it will work, mainly due to the fact that when in use it will most likley be combined with other characters.

I just saw a Q very like yours and I finally think I get what you are up to here. It was an Italic Q cut for Elzevier foundry (pub appox 1650-1700?). Unlike your K I don't know if you can made the Italic form work here. But I encourage you to try just for kicks. Where did you get the idea for this Q?

Two things inspired the new Q. The first being that the previous Q is kind of weird, and the second in that I liked what happened when I added the loop to the pound sterling, so I wanted to see if it would work on the Q. I didn't really look around too much for historic inspiration as much as my vague memories of elementary school handwriting lessons (which among other things gave me a psychological block against writing to this day).

I guess my intention was to get something a little more normal for this character and as far as that goes it failed pretty badly. I suppose I could go back to an early version of the Q resembling an O with a stick through it, but I don't really like that idea.

@Jeremy Dooley:
I'd love to do OpenType alternates and discretionary ligatures and all that fun stuff, but I'm still using Fontographer 4.1.5, which does not have that capability, and evidently has further problems working in Classic mode under OS X. When I can afford the FOG upgrade and/or crossover to FontLab (or ever figure out FontForge) I'll make an effort at implementing all that.

3 pages of intelligent critique and subtle iterations is alot to wade into! I feel like Eben has already answered very well on all the details that actually have answers, and speculated far beyond my skill level on those that are arbitrary. But outside voices are being welcomed so....

I am going to have a go at the entire set, by commenting on version 0.15's glyphs as they strike me. This may be too little or too much, but I can't tell before I start. No matter how I am phrasing it, I am not saying any are "right" or "wrong", but simply musing. Take any negativity as a mis-emphasis on my part. This face is already beautiful. Ignore most of what I say, please, as I will just write it all, including possibly incorrect or irrelevant details. I have looked at the prior versions only as they come up in the thread. My feedback will consider the designs in context to each other, not as simply standalone letters, but it is based on personal aesthetics, not tradition, which others here are sharper with. And I am assuming that it is targeting both versatile display use (med-large sizes, med-short passages) and decorative use (large sizes, shorter passages).

Regarding OT Alternate glyphs: I don't have Fontographer, nor have I even seen it in a long time, but I imagine you can create alternate glyphs, name them and assign them to whatever space you like. Does it support Unicode number addresses? If so, you can implement alternate sets, substitutions and such through VOLT, a free tool from MS. To make things simple for now I would just recommend adding any alternates you think are "essential" to some blank spots and ignore the functional aspects.

--
A:Where there is no accent, It seems that the top serif could have a curve like the top of many other letters. I see it being flattened to fit the accents like it is now, coexisting in the same face.

A w/accents: I love the proportions.

Accents acute/grave: It seems that the bottom curve could look more natural, giving it a less constructed look, and more aerodynamics.

C/G: I wonder why the vertical serif doesn't bend a hair right at the top

D w/bar: The left of the bar seems to disappear at smaller sizes.

E: is this a "flagship glyph" I love all of it.

J: I love the hook's termination.

L w/bar: this comes across as heavier at small sizes.

M: The serifs are... odd. It feels as if it is collapsing in on itself. I think the center of the serif's arc should be contained by the stroke, even if it is still slightly weighted inwards. But I think it would look fine with shorter top serifs and everything centered. Lots of options here.

N: I might tweak this if it were mine, depending on what, if anything, I did to the M. But pretty nice.

OE: The sidebearings for this appear to be tighter than the O's, but I bet they aren't. Probably an artifact created by it being darker. Even tho' I think the -E is the same size, it looks shorter than on the AE.

Q: The stroke connecting the inner loop to the underbar becomes thinner at small sizes. Possibly fixable by making where it intersects the bottom of the outer loop wider by a unit or two. Or just fiddling with hinting. Otherwise, fantastic design.

S: Would a semiserif like the 's' look good, or silly? I don't know.

V/W/Y: The upper-right most serif seems to have an oddness like the 'M' I think the 'X' shows a more soothing arrangement. I realize the stroke has a different angle, but it is still possibly inspiring.

Thorn: The righthand side could be rounder, or the counter could be more like the 'P'.

a: love it. It looks so flowing, yet it has that uniformity that makes tpye cool. should the top of the bowl be thinner at it's thinest part? I suck @ 'a', so just ignore me.

ae: at large sizes, the bottom of the join looks slightly heavier than needed. The righthand of the a-'s counter could hook in, to mimic the naked 'e' contour.

fi: Brilliant. pleasant, hip, general goodness. What about bringing the f's tip's approach in lower, more audaciously. Right now, it is a surprisingly cool look, and fi ligs are show-off glyphs, no? I might try an acute, rotated abt. 45 clockwise or so as the merged dot.

fl: looks good, the top is fantastic.

i/^: I hate dealing with those. Some faces use a skinnier accent.

r: this has come a long ways. very practical, but the width of the counter does a great job of avoiding that rn=m effect, as you wanted.

ss lig: why does the long s look so much like a long s, but the short s looks quite different? Does this contribute? I know I just suggested getting wild with the 'fi', but in this lig, I feel that the part within the heart (the standard baseline-to-xheight) should flow like "normal" letters, for those languages where it is exactly that. Considering that, I personally tend to customize only the top connection.

v/w: These might look really neat with the same effect as the stroke in the 'y'. The sound arrangement of the serifs might be a good model for the 'M'.

y: There is an interesting optical illusion going on here. At very large sizes (several inches) the left diagonal appears constant width (I think it actually is). At medium and smaller sizes (3/4 inch and under)the stroke appears to taper towards the bottom. This may be caused by screen hinting, or has something to do with the serifs on 3 corners, but not the outside bottom one. Just something to consider, unless it is all in my mind.

Either way, this is one of my favorite lc's.

prime: where is it?

double prime: Interesting, in a good way.

Dot period/elipsis, etc.: This seems to feel heavier than the text. I think it would look funny if it was the size of the accents (which are great), but it might look a little more cohesive if they were a hair smaller. In the lorem ipsum, they also seem to sit a little low on the line, intermitantly. I think that must be a scaling artifact.

daggers: alternates with mirrored center strokes could be a great feature, in case users wanted them to match in either direction.

&: Very cool. I love the arced serif on the right, and the grace of the diagonal stroke.

@: the very end of the hoop seems like it could have a flaring, like the c/e, but that might be a dumb idea, too. :)

Numerals: A third numeral with a ball terminal could compliment the 2 and 4.

Superiors: The horizontals feel very light, especially as the face gets smaller. Not that they should math the regulars, but just a little more weight?

Superior 3: It looks different from the regular 3, but it doesn't feel like there is a purpose to that alteration. Is the regular 3 too noisy to condense?

fractions: the inf. 4 seems to sit differently in 1/4 and 3/4

Infinity: The "two thin stems next to each other" looks kinda forced, and without precedent elsewhere within the face. Additionally, it seems to kinda go against the spirit of the symbol, which is a continuum. I like the thick/thin/thick idea in general.

Delta: I love the horizontal that looks a lot like the face's serifs.

mu/micron: I don't care if this is in other faces or not. A real keeper. The beauty is wound well into making it more useful as a symbol, esp. at smaller sizes. Great job!

Latin ordinals: Overall, nice and legible. You may look at how the bar interacts with numerals, and consider making it narrower. I can't guess from looking at the documents.

%/perthousand: the 0's dominate the bar.

equal or greater / equal/less: Do you have a preference for them touching? Does anyone? Is there a correct approach? I happen to usually prefer them as discrete shapes (like plus or minus), but I haven't researched it.

cent: has a much heavier vertical bar than ' . Why? (Keep in mind my treatment of both on !Crass Roots, I might just be crazy, and even considering my opinion batty on your part.)

Euro/Sterling/etc: I love the center bars on these, they feel good to the eye.

Florin: This is the most inconsistent glyph, in my opinion. The broadening, serifless shaft seems to just make it stick out, and the join with the top arch looks a touch abrupt. The vertical proportions however, look good, not too heavy-handed.

Damn, I had a lengthy response to all your points too, and the browser ate them. If this were an ordinary form field I could have just hit the "back"button and had it all there again, but evidently this is something special here.

But thank you, Choz, for taking the time to go through all this stuff and say something about it. Hopefully you will find many of the points you made addressed in the next version.

I was going to reply to each of your points in a single message, but I'll break them up to a few at a time.

Florin: Is this still a valid currency symbol? I thought any country that had used such a thing is now in the Euro zone. Anyway, I agree it is the most inconsistent character in the font, but it is one of those that is pretty inconsistent in any typeface I've looked at, frequently based on the italic f, and more often than not an italic f from a totally unrelated font. In an earlier iteration I had it as an integral with a crossbar, but that seemed less right (or at least more wrong) than the one I currently have.

¢/$: You're right, the vertical bars are different weights. I'll see what I can do about that.

%,‰: Again, good point. It is a struggle to get those "o"s not to dominate without making them too light.

∞: I didn't want this to look like just a sideways eight, but it looks like the magnetic field diagram doesn't translate well either.

I've learned the hard way, too. Whenever I am about to submit a monster post, I do a quick copy-paste into notepad, just in case. I trust the intarweb as far as I can throw it.

If I want the 0's to look like real inf/sup numbers, I try that trick of making them independent of the intended combined symbol. Or, I go for something else completely, and draw the percent as it's own item, then duplicate the last 0-type-thing for the perthou.

On ∞, I'd say that your overall proportions are successfully distinct, and that it would still be a far leap to say it would look too "8" afterwards. Especially when the '8' of the same face is the more classical offset thins touching a thick. There is some decorative face that probably has an '8' like your ∞, but then there is probably one where the x looks like your asterisk, too.

Perhaps a fresh single-character thread might do the trick, if you aren't confident in the design.

I appreciate your taking time to consider all I said. I know how annoying it is to have to recreate a post, but if you had anything else as meta-feedback, I'm curious. If any of it was crazy-talk, I'd like to learn from this as well. Or, if there was something I didn't explain well enough, I can revisit it.

Please, again, don't take anything I've said too seriously, unless perhaps you keep hearing it from others as well. Anyway, it was great to focus like that on a face, and I sure look forward to seeing .16++!

M: That is one that has given me trouble from the start. I have yet anouther new design in the next iteration, and corresponding changes in the N, but I still feel it isn't quite right.

Superior/inferior/fraction numerals: The numbers are based on the full size forms of an earlier version, and haven't yet caught up with subsequent changes. I do like this older version of the 3. At full size it made a pleasant <3 emoticon, but didn't fit in with the rest of the font very well. I think it fares well enough at the reduced size, tough, and I may keep it. They could all stand a little beefing up in the horizontals, but too much will durn them into blobs.

Œ: The sidebearings are: Œ 50 80, Æ 70 60, A 70 70, O 40 40, E 80 60. The horizontals are longer on the plain E, but I'll pull back on tthe E side of Œ to get them lined up. This may not always be right to space ligatures the same as their respective components, but it's a good thing to point out if their difference is too obvious.

One last note. I am certain it might have been an encoding error, or a problem with working in Fontorapher, but I didn't see a snark. Perhaps it is an issue with encoding PDFs in Canvas, or something like that.~

What is the preferred Unicode position of the snark?

$E2D2

Oh that snark... ha! There is no Unicode place for it yet is there? Or did I miss something?

You didn't miss a thing. $E2D2 is a spot in the Private Use area. ;)

I did at last figure out how to get the y-acute and multiply characters to appear in the font. For some reason they won't be saved in the TrueType font file when saved with Mac Standard encoding, but they will when encoded as Mac Expert, even though they appear in the Mac Standard character set. Weird, huh?

The Mac Expert set includes positions for small caps and punctuation, OSF, more superior/inferior/fraction numbers, and lots of spaces marked .notdef. Most of these positions, even if they are defined, don't have Unicode numbers assigned to them. It'll be a pain to put everything in place, but I can do it once I find out what those numbers are.

Did you know that Fontographer puts the wrong Unicode numbers on the f ligatures? I found that out and fixed them, but now other things are squirrely. Anyway, I got it all working in the new PDFs on the first post. I'll come back in a bit with the sample image.

Looks interesting, more new treats than I expected! At first glance, I really like the slight emphasis on the lefthand curl of the snark's tilde. And that the lig is more than a simple sum of components. The new second serif(?) on the l is very fun, and still very readable. I notice the fl and ffl don't share this, but they look consistent, nonetheless. I will give the entire update a longer take this weekend. [edit: Sun night]

Building on your earlier comments, since they didn't change significantly from the last version:

preiod, comma, et. al. punctuation: The base dots ride low, dipping 14.5% of their height below the baseline.

Double Acute (Hungarian umlaut): You mistook this for a double prime. I have not included any primes yet. Actually this one changed a lot from 15 to 16.

I made a long reply, but it never landed, and I lost my copy after not noticing the failure to post.

Sigh. To summarize myself, The M looks very good now, and sets well amongst the other characters and on its own. The N's modifications reflect this very well, too. I am not sure which Q you prefer, meaning I feel like you are still trying to decide between them. I think the former style suits the neo-wood motif. The flare on the @ rocks, bringing it into the package very well!

What are your thoughts on your tweaks?

I kind of forget what all I tweaked in v.16 and whatnot. I came down with the flu last week and am only just now recovering—I think I was in a bit of a delirium when I posted the last package.
I stole the idea for the mid-stem serif on the l from someone else's project on here. There is historic precedent for the thing so I hope the one I was inspired by doesn't mind. It actually helps to solve a lot of the spacing problems that letter was giving me. I wouldn't put that spur in the fl and ffl ligs because that would basically extend the crossbar into the l, making a confusing A like shape. I know lots of fonts have that feature, but it's not a good one, in my opinion.

As I said before, I switched the encoding to Macintosh Expert, and now all the glyphs seem to encode properly in the TTF file, but now I have twice as many character slots as I had before, and half of the new ones are not defined. What am I supposed to do with those? And what of the ones that are defined but don't have a unicode value? None of them have a keystroke, either.

Anyhoo, I think I'll revert back to the v.15 Q and move this new one to an alternates set.

I have not looked at the font in a while to try to see it fresh eyes. Now that I have come back to look again here are my suggestions:

Move thedot on the i up It looks cramped. The i deresis too.
Make the w slightly less wide. It's a little ungainly
Wheras the r & m are really strong designs, the t seems unfinnished. I would start again with it maybe. That r is maybe the best thing in the font. It's so robust & confident. You might have to reduce the anle at which the arm ends to get better letter fitting later on but its tasty!
The little serif on the g is too light. It doesn't fit. It lacks confidence.

This would be a good time to start looking at the white shapes between letters and see what you are making. The white shapes should be balanced with each other. You can solve a portion of this with kerning but you should try to get 50-75% there with the basic combinations so you don't make yourself crazy making special kern combos for 1000s of combinations. To get good interletter spacing you have 3 choices- modify the shapes, modify the side bearings, modify the kerning. It's tricky.

The nice robust body weight of the shapes of the font seem like they need slightly beefier serifs to me. The letters look like tigers with the feet of deer. What if they were thicker or if you reduced the curve very slightly?

I think the crossbar on the l creates as many problems as it solves. The l's shape ( especially the height at which the tail ends ) is the problem along with the sidebearings. In contrast the i is working.

The extreme thins vary a little too much maybe. I would think about harmonizing them. Look for example at the lc o & the uc E or UC L. To me they don't belong together. I think the n gets the contrasts just right.

I hope some of this helps.

I'd hate to be trampled by a tiger with deer feet.
Is it all right to make the serifs thicker than the horizontal strokes, or are you suggesting I make them longer?

I’d hate to be trampled by a tiger with deer feet.

:-)

I am suggesting making them more hefty or thicker not longer. But try anything you think might work. Anything is okay if it looks right to you. Including leaving it as is.

Does my comment resonate with you at all? I am just seeing the rest of the face as more robust than the serifs - so much so that they don't seem to go together to me anymore.

Maybe take a look at other serifed faces as they become heavy like yours - clarendon, Unger's work, Font Font serifs etc. You will see a wide range of options used but also a certain relationship maintained. It's nature is perceptual & optical not mathematical.

So I find I'm in a bt of a bind. Since I changed the encoding, I can'r get the font to work in Canvas or CorelDraw, or just about anything without full Unicode support. That pretty much leaves me with just TextEdit, which I've been using for the last several sets of PDF samples. There might be a way to generate an image from that, but I haven't figured it out yet.

You could use 'Grab' which is in the utilities folder. It can take a screen shot.

OR

You could save as a PDF ( built into OSX) out of text edit & see if you can read it in Preview or Acrobat as a PDF afterwards.

That's exactly what I've done to generate the PDF files from TextEdit (it's actually a function of the Print dialog, not Save as... Go figure). I should have thought of just using screen capture for the in-thread displays. Now I feel dim.

I've been away from this for a while, but I'm back at it. Above are a set of old-style monospaced numbers I've been working on.
This isn't the full update. I'll be bring that out later this week or maybe next. I also have some small caps but those aren't ready to show.

It looks like there could be refinements to the weight distribution and the heights etc but this looks really fun. I like your swooshy 7!

Here are a couple new ligatures from the expanded set.

It's hard to judge them outside of their real context but I like what I see so far. You must have been reading the same blog as me! I recognize the idea!

I like the new text figures. They have a broader feel in general, and the larger ball terminals compliment them well. The 2's diagonal seems a little too forced at the bottom, perhaps.

You have such a grasp on ligating the f that your new ones are beautiful on the first go. :) Once again, nice work. How far do you feel you are from completion?

Who's blog have you both been reading?

There was a blog entry referenced in another recent Typophile thread, regarding the proper desigh of eth and thorn, and toward the end it suggested creating ligatures such as those I made above. I wish I could find it but I can't remember what it was.

edit:
I found it!
http://font.is/?p=166

and the thread referring to it:
http://typophile.com/node/33006

Jason, without having to read this entire thread, are you considering stylistic sets? Your typeface has loads of character and potential, but in some spots, for my taste anyway, I'd want a more regular option here and there for some settings.

Oh, definitely there will be stylistic sets. I already have two Qs, and I may add an even plainer one. Is there anything else in particular that strikes you as too fancy for regular use?

OK, over the last month I've kind of gone crazy with extending the character set, possibly neglecting some more basic design features that will probably cost me in the long run. I have a whole bunch of ligatures, small caps, old style figures, diacritics, alternate forms and all that rot. I should have an image up in a little bit, once I figure out how to best showcase the new stuff.

Here it finally is. I skipped a few versions bringing it to this point. Still a lot to do, along with some glaringly obvious errors.

The PDF on top is the same as the above image, though the last line repeated for some reason. Small caps are coming soon. I had been working on them in the same font file, but that was getting way too cluttered so I copied them off into a new file.

Enjoy.

Wow. This is polishing up nicely. I think you have made a good case for this flavor in type. I really like the lc r, the Delta, and the UC DE&Z.

I have not looked in some time so I think my eye is fresh - here is what I am noticing now:

The weight of the c seems to light compared to the other glypshs. I think the top might be built up a lttle too. When your a zomed in it's not that noticable but when the letters are smaller it jumps out at me. The Cap C is also less poshed & strong that the Other Glyphs. On the f thorn ligature I might let the arc start slightly higher on the left. The join on the ct ligature could be a bit weitier as it joins the t. There seems to be a litle toomuch weight on the right side of the u. The top left serif on the AE lig might have more weight & flourish. The join in the middle of the a is bothering me. What if the join was straighter or more narrow? I think either thing would help it read as an a better/faster. The diacritics seem too close to me -especially over the d & h. The double story g needs much much more work. But I expect you know that. It's a good idea to have though! The Ogoneks sem clunky - too much weight in their tops I think. I amnot sure about the blob end on the acute/grave. I like it's style but I think they should be more narrow & pitched a bit hgher maybe. Have you read Adam T on french vs polish for this diacritic? The C in your copyright should be smaller. Why not go with a purely circular zero in the old style numbers? That would be cool. What abour harmonizing the ball weights in the old style a bit more too? They all look cool but they don't play quite well enough together yet. They are all grabbing too much limelight from each other because of the over-variation. What if the leg of the Cap l was shorter & had more flair & weight? What if the Join on the left side of the cap Y tapered slightly as it joined the base? The top right leg's Join on the Cap X might look better is it was slightly lower. Maybe that Breve should bend more/go higher. The Paragraph Mark seems a bit too heavy to me. The Q options will be a big selling point for this face. I think if the tails on the 1st two were heavier as they ended it would make the read as Qs more effectively. How about an Alt lc k.

I hope these ideas are useful to you. You have put in a ton of effort and I think it might pay off. I wold take Tiff's idea seriously too.

You know... The x height you have now is great for smaller text but the intensity of style is more appropriate for larger sizes Headlines and Display. Do you see what I mean? In a way I could imagine taking the design in 2 directions now. One for text that would be slightly softer in it's character and made for smaller sizes like you already have but maybe with some additional optical adjustments - Then you could have another one for Display & headlines that would keep it's current character but be for larger sizes and so have longer ascenders and decenders and maybe some of the joins would become less bulky - stuff like that. Have you sen font families that do that kind of thing? If not. I can point you at some.

Cheers!

I know what you mean about the weight being a little uncomfortable with the height. At text sixes I see it as kind of a medium or demi-bold weight, and a lighter version will be needed for the bulk of text use, but a somewhat reduced lc at this weight would be good for display.

As for the Polish accents and ogoneks, you mean the instructions here:

http://www.twardoch.com/download/polishhowto/intro.html

right? I thought I had followed the instructions, but I see what you mean about the ogoneks being a bit chunky. Something gave me the impression they should be that way, but it didn't look right to me either. I haven't set up the Polish kreska accented letters yet, but I have perpared a mark for them (between the cedilla and the ring). t- and d-caron need the abbreviated apostrophe instead of the regular caron/háček.

BTW I was reminded about my display vs Text comments when I looked at this today. Have look - maybe it will be helpful.

http://www.dutchtypelibrary.nl/PDF/M504/DTLFleischmann_M504.pdf

( page 9 to start )

A PDF of version 21 is up now at the bottom of the top post.
This is what comes out of the Print to PDF function of FontForge.

I've gone a bit crazy with some of the features, especially the automated accented glyph assembly, so there may be more remaining work to do than there was before I did all of that.

Perhaps I should pare it down for initial release?

Might anyone have suggestions on making an italic to complement this?

It's hard to compare with the glyphs sitting off on their own little spaces...

True, I output this one in a bit of a rush. I'll try to put together something resembling the earlier samples for better comparison.

Cool.

carons on Z and z are off. The same goes for S and s. I live in the language area that uses Č芚Žž. And this kind of caron positioning is quite unnatural to me. And of course I'm missing the Ccaron and ccaron. :)

I'll get those Ccarons in there and correct the others. Most of the accented characters were made using the automated assembly feature (element> build> accented glyph) and still need some adjustment to be centered properly.

OK, there are a couple new sample PDFs loaded to the bottom of the list again. I am getting the impression I totally have to rework the spacing and kerning, but FontForge's metrics window is infruriatingly slow, at least compared to Fontographer's, and you can't load in a list of kerning words as far as I can tell. Anyway, there are a plethora of new characters now. I've nearly filled out the Latin B area, and some of the IPA and Greek are getting filled in since some of the Latin B lowercase or derivors are in those areas, not that it matters a whole lot, or maybe it does.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this anymore. I feel like I've lost focus, yet I'm driven to keep working on it.

There are two ways you can go, I think. Either treat it as a product, and you need to make it happen, or as not one, and you don't have to.

If this is a product you want to sell, each additional part demands a multiplication of refinement. In software-land, feature sets get locked well before a product's ships. Even really great ideas get shelved for later versions because otherwise, the first version never gets out the door. Cut out the most belaboring aspects, add what is needed to stay competitive, and keep track of your hours. :)

If it is a labor of love, your magnum opus, and all about the journey...
Take time, make more notes, get feedback and keep adding things. Or go for a walk if it isn't too hot. Have a life. Let things stew a bit in your brain and see what, if any, is the purpose. Get back to it when your vision takes you there. But don't rush or over-analyze it until you are sick of the project.

It's a good face, and everyone here "can't wait" to see it released. But we actually can wait. So figure out how far this needs to go for you, and go. Then stop. :)

Sorry to say that but I think that both your "S" and "s" are a bit off leaning right. Or at least the curves aren't as good as they could be. I'd try to correct that.

Otherwise I agree with Choz. He's right. If you feel it's sufficiently usable, release it. If you think some major things are still missing, then finish them and release later. But be a good judge about this.

I'm in software development and I know how can details distract you from releasing an already usable and fine enough product.

Choz makes some really good points.

My guess is that when you are making the Latin B etc you are most likely working in an abstract way in the sense that you are taking an (unfamiliar?) shape and deciding how to interpret it. It's great - but fairly abstract.

If you want to evaluate what you are up to and gain focus - I suggest that you apply your type to a design project. Even a faux one - but ideally a real one. That will help you notice what is & isn't working - and ground the work in a 'reality'.

What did you make of my display vs text shapes comment? Relevant? Irrelevant? Why?

OK, maybe moving this into FontForge wasn't the best idea. It's a fine enough program for designing, but might be a nigh bid more powerful thatn I can handle in metrics handling.
In Fontographer, you could load in a text file of kerning words and shuttle down the list while making adjustments in the metrics window.
I cannot figure out how to do the same thing in FontForge, if it is possible at all. It appears that one has to type in whatever letters one wants to see in the metrics window. So inconvenient.

But anyway, while I've had trouble working on the spacing, I haven't been idle. I've expanded the character set to include support for Vietnamese, lots of obscure languages, as well as Greek and Cyrilic. Those last two are mostly just an experiment, since I have no idea how those are really supposed to be. but I'll have pics pf them up soon so you can tell me what you think of them.

I have expanded the character set into a very large chunk of the Latin Unicode space (including coverage for Vietnamese and a buttload of other stuff don't know), as well as limited inclusion of Greek, Cyrillic, and Cherokee. Actually the Cherokee is pretty complete but I have no idea whether or not it would be legible to native readers (same with the others too). I'd be happy if these scripts just don't look too stupid or inappropriate. I'm sure to get flamed for deriving too much from the Latin for these other scripts, but hey, I'm learning here!

There are some bugs involving missing or incorrectly ordered glyphs in the new output files (pr-AgamemnonTwentySeven-dis1.pdf and pr-AgamemnonTwentySeven-ffd1.pdf, attached in the first post), but those are FontForge and/or Acrobat issues and I've been talking to George Williams to get those resolved.

Here are some pictures.

Some of the foreign-language characters aren't looking good.
Russian:
Zhe should definitely point outward. zhe could probably use mirror, not rotational, symmetry, much as it makes the chirality seem wrong.
Left leg of El/el should be light.
Sha and Shcha are too narrow.
Ya should probably not have a light left leg.
be should have that flourish on top. This one looks very incomplete.
ef, strangely, should probably be rotationally symmetric. (Russian is full of paradoxes, isn't it?)
I'm not a Russian, but I think Russians would agree with me on this: Never ever make ascending myagkij, tvyordij, and yery.

Greek:
Lambda is upside-down.
Xi should have weight in it somewhere. Most people make the strokes thick to solve that.
Pi doesn't need serifs on its serifs on top.
Almost all the lowercase forms look very amorphous. Try drawing a "normal" text face in Greek, then use that study to make the Greek here less erratic. These letterforms are too all-over-the-place to read with anything like smoothness.

There may be things going wrong with some of the unfamiliar characters but the overall flavor of the thing still seems really nice to me.

I already knew about the Lambda. That one switched around spontaneously somehow while I was doing the Cherokee stuff. Thanks for pointing out the other mistakes. I knew there would be many. I'm working on fixing what I can right now.

I forgot: that sharp corner on the cruved part of the De/de is really distracting.

Yup, I got the De, and spotted how that shape relates to the El in most instances in other fonts, so those are corrected. I finally saw what you were talking about with the Pi too. I'd always thought of it as a T with two legs (hence the seriffed serifs) but it's really more like an H with a raised crossbar.

Precisely. Also, I hate to rag on your Greek more, but there's a basic misunderstanding of, I believe, the nu here. The alphabet is out of order, so I can't be sure, but if the glyph that's after eta and before xi is meant to be a nu, it's wrong. A nu is v-shaped, not y-shaped.

I see what you're saying, but I was trying to distinguish the nu from gamma, which, to my non-Greek reading eyes, also looks like a v, and upsilon, which seems to be in-between a v and u shape. What exactly are the distinguishing factors between γ, ν, and υ?

I may have figured it out just by typing that, but what's your take on it?

gamma has a straight stem descending below the baseline, which neither upsilon nor nu have. upsilon is curved, and nu has a corner at the bottom, like U compared to V.

I've drawn up a conjectural evolution of the gamma and nu. I think the nu evolved along a similar path to the mu, so I showed the mu for comparison, because it's more straightforward. I know I've seen the second form for the nu, in GFS Complutum, which is from the 16th century. These evolutions are my educated guesses, not confirmed historical stuff, so don't quote me too exhaustively. I don't know how we get from the Upsilon form to the upsilon form, but I'd guess it was quite a bit of lazy handwriting among scribes.

Has it really been over six weeks since I last posted an update? I did make all those corrections, I really did. I think I even made the Greek lower case almost usable, though it does still need work.

But before I post the next sample set, should I go and remove some of the old PDF samples? I've put a lot of them up here over time and it might be overwhelming people new to viewing this project. Which ones do you think show changes so subtle that they could be safely excluded from the history? Should just I start a new thread to give you critics a fresh start?

I would start a new thread and link back to the old one if this one is starting to feel unwieldy.

It's good to be able to follow process if you want to.

Cheers!

You can also start adding the date or month to the PDF filenames. That way people know what the newest samples are.

The existing PDFs are all version numbered. I thought that would be sufficient.

OK, folks. We can pick this up again over here:
http://typophile.com/node/41105
I started a fresh new thread for the thing with some descriptive text. I hope it isn't too windy.

I've gone goofy with all these new currency symbols cropping up these past few years. Now it looks like I'll have to come up with one for the Icelandic kronur soon. Anyway, here's what I have so far:

Aren't the €'s bars a bit too far apart?
By the way, t's a pity that such nice glyphs like your spesmilo sign would be rarely (if ever) used.

I see it as not so much being that the euro's bars are too far apart, but some of the other horizontal double bars are, out of necessity, too close together.
And, though it's a rarely used glyph, I know a few Esperantists who might appreciate having the spesmilo.

The Sm thing you show, I had to warn a designer recently away from a feature that was a different scale and color than the rest of the font. It had been a while since I had to do that, but it used to be a common occurrence. Scaleable type just can't deal with that kind of thing very well. This hardly seems like a face so shy one couldn't swell the bottom of the S to University Roman proportions to widen and weighten the m?

Also, the bars on the d thing, seem rather harsh.

I'm really impressed with the breadth of progress on this face, what a lot of good work.