On the subject of your Fedra (Peter Bil’ak) and Typodermic question,
I will probably state the obvious, but nevertheless;

Fedra is a very, very large text tailored typeface, where Typodermic mainly designs/sells display-type. Typefaces for text-purposes demand a high level of sophistication and attention for detail to be able to be used at textsizes, and thus take (most of the times) far more time to design and build than (most) display typefaces.

Also, an extensive typeface like Fedra in OpenType for example, can contain thousands of characters to be able to set bodytext in as most languages as possible. But usually also smallcaps, alternates, ordinals, fractions, ligatures, lining- and oldstyle-figures (sometimes both as Tabular and Proportional), superscript, etc. These options also need to be programmed for OpenType, which is also another part of the design process.

So for a large part it’s about what the designer has set out to accomplish.

Thanks for those observations. I kinda picked Fedra out of the air for brevity’s sake rather than perfect illustration. I admire the ambition and dedication necessary to produce such a large amagalmation of function and art, and have been disappointed not by its continuing expansion but rather by the fact I am extremely anxious to see Mr. Bil’ak’s next sans typeface.Whatever the case, I think I approached this particular issue incorrectly. Let me try from a different angle.

In your post you mentioned the tremendous amount of work put into the various Fedra families - including the display version - which to me is awe-inspiring. If I read your post correctly, however, part of the reason for such disparities in output could be that Ray Larabie creates a lot of display faces, which require less overall effort/time (though immediately coming to mind right now is the amount of work and time put into the Beorcana typeface. However, your point of course is accurate.).

What I wonder is, could this disparity - and for that matter any disparities between two designers in production rate - be rooted in something much less technical, and perhaps much more prevalent than anyone might expect?

My point: I believe the quality of a typeface owes at least some small part to a designer’s expertise and instinct just in operating a computer. Or in understanding the overall concept of how computers work and putting that knowledge to work while using Fontographer, FontLab, etc. I cannot then help but wonder how many times the copy and paste functions are used when successful Designer A is creating a typeface. Given the seconds in which these functions can be employed, taking years to produce a technically superior, attractive typeface - for text, display, or otherwise - seems inconceivable. For that matter, hypothetically speaking, a designer could all but create a solid, geometrically sound skeleton of an entire font in only a few hours just by using the copy and paste function.

I also wonder how many designers - if any - release a font for sale after doing nothing more than selecting the “autohint” option in Fontlab, or auto-kern option in Fontographer? Certainly those kinds of options in font-creating programs were included to be used, but by whom? Are the top tier of designers using these options, or were they included for what in golf vernacular would be use by a typographic hacker having fun with a unique hobby?

If someone were to ask me to guess how many income-generating designers were using these or other similar program options, I’d probably answer “British Columbia” and be just as confident in its correctness as anything . . . however if a gun was involved I suppose I’d probably say “zero.” Another question this raises: is there anything really wrong with using all of these functions/options? If you answered no, I cannot imagine you then being able to comprehend a font taking years to produce.

I ask these things because I honestly don’t know the answers. To this day I’m just a guy in Florida with a fever for this stuff but still trying to put many things in their place. For reference’s sake, the one font I have somewhat completed - or got completely sick of looking at - is called “Myndraine” and is free at dafont. I strongly considered the far more applicable name “Crappy Sans,” but decided against it. It took me approximately two months to produce what was submitted to the site, with more than a few baseball games, History channel and UFC Fight Nights mixed in and battling for my attention. Trouble is, I spent the entire second of those two months making the font worse. When I said “sanity,” I weren’t kidding.

1: People generally value crispness onscreen rather than the soft appearance. So your taste differs from that tendency.

2: There are people here from every age group, country, economic background, and stripe of being you can imagine. Add to that: type is a subject that inspires passion but does not necessarily bring wealth. so there is a small community and some people in it are defensive, overzealous, underemployed, or perhaps frustrated, by their own situation, or possibly someone else’s. There could be a million reasons for the attitudes and personalities presented here. I tend to agree; the level of bile gets unnecessarily toxic sometimes. It’s not necessary, since type is one of those things most of the world can safely ignore forever, but again with the passion....

3: Same variance between visitors: some have all the time in the world, some have very demanding jobs. There’s a variance too in how speedy people are in developing their types. And each design has it’s own demands; one-style display types take a fraction of the time a 48-member text/display family takes. Autotraced? Cut the time in half!

There’s experience level; the last large family I released overall took a long time to finish; but I started when I was a student, and learned a lot on the way; doing it again, it would take me much less time. It also depends how people define their work as finished; some people are frankly sloppy and do not have good digital hygiene, others obsessively tweak beyond the point when it makes a difference. And there’s the matter of originality. Whether it’s an honorable, faithful revival or a cheap knock-off, with revivals, many design decisions have been addressed before the design gets digitized. Some new designs need a lot of preliminary gestating to clarify their ’thesis’ or feel. Sometimes there’s a customer tapping their fingers, looking at their watch, and ready to write a big check if the work is delivered on time. That can motivate you! Retail type design is speculative; if other, paying work is waiting, you might put off terrific or easy retail designs for years in favor of paying the bills.

Combine all these variables, and you can see there will be a huge range in the time it takes to finish a design. I know type designers who marvel at how their quickest, throwaway designs are the big sellers, and the fussed-over, long-gestating ones don’t get that attention. That has to do with their intrinsic appeal and usefulness, which is not really under the control of the designer.

Yes, you can make a font in a week. You can make a font in a day. Depends....

Too many words. You need to learn to be more concise.

See, that’s just what I mean.

Ms. Pattyfab, I easily could be more concise but then I’d be catering more toward your preferences than benefitting from the purging effect being far less concise brought me. Since the former seems to be something you not only find acceptable but apparently expect, there’s a really good chance you will accommodate my preferences and no longer presume to be able to tell me what I need to do or not do.

Or, more concisely, save the tough-girl, opinion-fueled strong-arm tactics for someone else because I fail to see the charm in them.

Thank you, though, for the warm-hearted welcome to this forum. I think we’ll be fast friends for sure.

Thanks for such an informative answer. It helps me transition perfectly into a more esoteric question:

Above, you brought up two very intriguing issues. One was your comment “It also depends how people define their work as finished.” Wouldn’t an ability to also know WHEN to define their work as finished be just as important, provided there was no preset deadline? I would be interested to know one thing from you specifically ... how different was Beorcana one year before it was labeled “finished” than it was the day it officially was “released?” Was it so different that an ordinary layperson could successfully have identified half the differences? All of them? Any of them? In truth it doesn’t really matter because your final product was and is stunning. It’s almost too pretty to use, you know ... kind of like the fine china you just display in a case and look at. Whatever tangible returns you get from that typeface will never be enough because when I think of or refer to the upper tier of designs, that font immediately comes to mind. And speaking of production output, if I was in your position I’d be terrified to begin my next typeface and would give a lot of thought to making that my lone legacy. For at least 5-10 years. So were there or will there be any feelings of fear?

Alas, though, you are certainly correct in that there are countless situations that can directly affect the amount of time it takes to build a typeface.

Also above you wrote that some designers were “defensive, overzealous, underemployed, or perhaps frustrated, by their own situation, or possibly someone else’s.” First I can’t help but believe that eliminating the first two of those probably would help ease or even reverse a lack of sufficient employment or that level of frustration, but more than that, each of those things can slowly but definitively tear down one’s love for the very thing causing those previously mentioned conditions. It just seems like I’ve run across a few people who have forgotten the concept of typography is and always will be much bigger than they are, and I for one honestly thank God for introducing something to my life into which I can gleefully and energetically sink my teeth. I’m still in the believing in Santa Claus stage and it’s a downer to see some of the arrogance and/or blatant disparagement that can go on here. There is of course a foolproof cure for anyone with such a jaded, cynical view of their former love: just take it all away from them for a good while.

Your response was quite thoughtful and very much appreciated.

1. Brown is not hinted for stem widths, but it does have alignment zones. There is some leeway for how much hinting is put into a font, and I try and do what’s best for a particular typeface. I find that severely hinted fonts can look awkwardly distorted, and change their personality drastically depending on their screen size.

2. There are occasionally personal issues here, but many