Good work Nina. I like the thick serifs and especially the readability of this face at the smaller point size (8pt is my favorite).

The ball terminals seem to be more compelling on the 'k','r' and 'y'. For some reason on the 'c', 'g' and 'f' are not pulling it off as well. I prefer the third 'g' as well.

Otherwise, well done!

Great to see this. Here are some thoughts. (Keep in mind I'm only about one awkward set of caps ahead of you in type-design experience, so take with a grain of salt.)

This is a personable font that is already working well both small and big.

I prefer g #1 as far as fit with the character of the font goes.

There's something I very much like about the b.

The blunt terminals at the bottom of c, e, s, and t seem too crude. I wonder if there are other solutions.

Least successful are k and s: k because the mismatch of a structural straight arm and an unfurling curve (something sort of Cyrillic looking to this), and s because it's a bit lumpy and struggling to be wide.

In some cases the ball terminals seem too tacked-on, rather than developing gracefully out of a curve. This is particularly true where the curve leading to it is flattening out to reach horizontally, as in c, f, and s most noticeably.

The top join of q seems odd to me - it has no analogues in the other letters that I could find. Did you try it with an intersection like the bottom of b has?

Something about the thickness of the arm of the r doesn't look right to me.

The serifs at the tops of v, w, x, and y seem too heavy. I never thought about it before, but I suppose if you adjust diagonals for optical balance you might have to adjust slab serifs at the ends of them. v and w may be a bit too spread at the bottom, and thus light (topheavy).

I might consider raising the intersection of the y, and maybe bringing the top-right vertex of the z leftward a touch.

Seems to me like this has a great deal of both charm and function - very impressively so for a first font!

sorry for writing german, i wrote this for german typografie.info, then deciding to add it here for more coherence:

ganz kurz, spontan und unvollständig, und mit Bedacht zu genießen:

das sieht schon sehr sehr ausgewogen und ruhig aus, spitze! Ich wünschte ich hätte den Nerv, so lange am Grundalphabet zu bleiben, bevor ich mich aus Neugierde und Langeweile in Zeichensatz- und Schnitt-Orgien verliere :)

- die jeweils rechten Teile von y und v, vielleicht auch bei w und x, stechen im PDF in den kleinen Punktgrößen dezent heraus, sind zu dunkel. Das mag am Rendering liegen (PDF-Vorschau von OSX) oder wirklich ein Problemchen sein.
- der obere Teil vom "k" wirkt mir eine Spur zu verspielt. Ich sehe dass das mit dem "r" korrespondiert, aber dort ist es irgendwie weniger "curly". Vielleicht braucht das "k" eine gerade Serife, keinen Tropfen? Tropfen hängen bei dir sonst immer nur an Rundungen, der Tropfen beim "k" macht das auch "rund", auch wenn's das eigentlich nicht ist.
- das "s" ist mir links oben und rechts unten eine Spur zu eckig. Auch links unten macht es einen recht abrupten Schwenk nach oben. Vielleicht mal neben ein "a" stellen und wirken lassen. Außerdem ist es oben zu schwer, und/oder in den senkrechten Teilen etwas zu leicht. Für mich (neben dem verfluchten "d" und den Schrägen) der schwierigste Buchstabe.
- das "z" hat einen leichten Hang nach links.
- das "u" hat im rechten Teil seines Bogens einen leichten Knick, es geht eine Spur zu gerade nach oben.

Dinge die vielleicht mit der Industria zu tun haben, die ich natürlich nicht wie du aus dem FF kenne:
- ich bevorzuge #1 der drei "g" (ggf. mit etwas weniger gekräuseltem Ohr), wenn das nicht, dann #3. Das mittlere steht in den vertikalen Proportionen zwischen den Stühlen und könnte durch das "Schmuckelement sogar fleckig werden. Hier kann man aber sicher auch zwischen Display und kleinem Text streiten ...
- das "q" sieht mir noch am unfertigsten aus. Oben ist es mir eine Spur zu rund, d.h. die Rundung geht rechts eine Spur zu weit nach unten. Die Serife gehört für mich rein gefühlsmäßig genau in die andere Richtung.

Thanks for your feed-back guys! Much appreciated.

The ball terminals are one of my big "question marks" about this. I had a lot more of them at one point (like on the head of the "a", and both ends of the "s") but realized they close up the shapes too much. Now I don't know if they are too few and far between to still make sense as a principle. Also, it's true they don't work equally well in all their instances – thanks for pointing this out.

Jesse,

"I prefer the third ’g’ as well."
It seems to come down to the first or the third. While I do heart the second one, I agree it doesn't work very well in text; I'll probably keep it as an alternate for the display cut though. The first is the one most closely following the metal face I was (partly) working off. Only beef I have with the third really is that it keeps reminding me of Souvenir. :-|

Craig,

"The blunt terminals at the bottom of c, e, s, and t seem too crude"
Oh … I wonder what could be done about this. I was actually quite happy to come up with this solution; as noted above, I had more ball terminals before, but that was getting too much. Also I felt I needed to add a little weight / "determination" to the terminal at least in the "s", otherwise it was starting to feel top-heavy (and the "t" keeps toppling over anyway). Hmm.

"Least successful are k and s"
Yeah, touch me where it hurts! :-)
Those were the ones I was struggling with most. I had no idea how difficult it is to make a "k" (especially at this kind of width). With the "s", I was at least expecting it (which of course didn't make it easier). In any case, I agree those aren't done yet.

"The top join of q seems odd to me"
That's actually one of the details that carried over from said metal face I was working off; I must say I like that little corner that doesn't say where it's coming from :-). Although I guess I should also try a "b"-like smooth intersection & compare.

"The serifs at the tops of v, w, x, and y seem too heavy"
I was noticing some weirdness there too, but must say I feel quite insecure generally with all of those "diagonal" lettershapes.
I wonder how much of the impression of excessive serif weight is due to the diagonals, and how much to the fact that they're on the x-height; they're the same weight as the ones sitting on the baseline, but I guess they also look heavier when they're up there. I wonder if I should thin them overall (throughout vwxy) or maybe just on the insides or something?

Sebastian,

Hope you don't mind if I reply in English to "tie in" your comments with the rest :-).

"- die jeweils rechten Teile von y und v, vielleicht auch bei w und x, stechen im PDF in den kleinen Punktgrößen dezent heraus, sind zu dunkel"
Do you think this excessive weight on the right hand side of yv/wx might have something to do with the serif weight discussed above? Or is it just the stem weight that's off? (There's something fundamentally wrong with the "y" in particular that I'm still looking to pinpoint. Is it weight?)

"Vielleicht braucht das “k” eine gerade Serife, keinen Tropfen?"
Hm – I had a version with a straight serif on the "k" and it looked like an industrial clamp or something ;-) – although the ball terminal may be too cute (if it works at all).

"[q] Die Serife gehört für mich rein gefühlsmäßig genau in die andere Richtung"
Interesting. While it may well be unbalanced yet, the principle of having the serif of the "q" face rightwards feels right to me, and seems to make a lot of sense too*. Does it look very confusing/weird? (Does it look weird to others too?)
* Readability, stressing of reading direction, disambiguation with "p"/"g". To give credit where credit is due, most of the thought that went into the "q" serif comes from reading about Hrant's alphabet reform work – and I then kept finding "q"s with rightwards-facing terminals/serifs in "real life" too, and felt they work/read nicely.

--

Thanks again! This is extremely helpful. Keep'em coming. :-)
—Nina

re: c/s/t terminals, I can see why a little added weight serves you well. Could you just soften those corners a little?

I do think, if you're going to stick with the ball terminals, that you should have one on the head of the a, too. (I confess that my printout on US Letter paper cut off half that letter so I didn't catch its absence at first.)

One new comment: on the central intersection of the x. It looks like you've offset the / stroke but not the \ stroke. In a contrast face I think that would work well but here where the strokes are even I'd expect the intersection to be more symmetrical, too. As it is, you get a little clockwise torque to that crossing.

A friendly and jolly face, this! I see great potential for expansion here. I think you have to work more on most of the curves, though, especially the c, s, u, n, m, f and e, and the y and j descender hooks look quite wobbly and uneven to me, making them look kind of bent iron-ish. The r looks a little weak, too. Is that u a little too wide? I'd try a ball terminal on the a once more, and try compensating by making the bowl smaller.

Your b, p and k are truly beautiful! Definitely keep that k.

That first g is my favourite. I'm looking forward to see this revised.

S.

Heh, looks like the "k" is a love/hate character. Which kind of makes me want to keep it.

Do you guys really think this is better?

I was all excited about the left hand shape at first, but chucked out the ball terminal after looking at this in text size. Somehow I felt it was mannered and a bit too "pretty"; most of all, it seems to stand in the way of readability, especially in smaller sizes. Closes up the counter too much (and looks too dark, given that the "a" is a pretty dam busy character already). Also, I wouldn't want to make the bowl of the "a" *much* smaller, since it'd then lose all reasonable proportion, as well as any connection with the eye of the "e".

Other points well taken. Craig, thanks for pointing me to the "x"; I realized while I was making it I really don't know much about "x"s. Need to look at some others some more.

"re: c/s/t terminals, I can see why a little added weight serves you well. Could you just soften those corners a little?"
Soften? As in round? Or as in, cut at a different angle?

"The r looks a little weak, too."
Yeah, that's a defiant little thing that doesn't know if it wants to be straight or curved, and ends up being kind of both (and too light in the process).

"Is that u a little too wide?"
Huh, might be. I just checked and it is narrower than the "n", but only a little. I haven't checked its width after changing serif shape/size around a few times, and looking at this I agree it looks wide.

Is the "w" too narrow btw?

(I was worried, but I'm happy to see that Typophile is
still a good place to get a type crit - keep it up guys!)

Nina, are you sure this is your first font? :-) Because it's coming together quite well, and has much more depth than a beginner usually shows. Heck, many old-timers just play on the surface their whole careers. It's certainly frightening jumping into that dark, luscious jungle.

For example, the decision of putting a ball on the "a" or not, of how to do the top-right of the "q", these are things that you can either just formally mimic precedent, or really think about first. When I was making Patria I tried to make the letters be what they needed to be in terms of reading, as opposed to just something that other type designers would applaud. I like to leave the terminal of the "a" pretty "weak" because I believe it helps readability (without looking ugly - in fact it can look quite elegant and graceful). I think your "q" however is going in the wrong direction, it's neither attractive nor harmonious. Not the descender mind you - that's wonderful! I mean the top-right. I would try giving it a vertical spike/serif, like in the "z". If that doesn't work I might try making it like the "b" (even though many type design will definitely go "uuugh"). Divergence is extremely important in a text face, it's just very easy to go too far, and too tempting to do it semi-randomly. You need some method (and you seem to be good at that).

Craig says that the "terminals at the bottom of c, e, s, and t seem too crude". I agree, and I think it's because they're gently flaring (in the "a" as well). If you make them totally monoline, or maybe even taper gently, I think that might fix it.

The first "g" is more harmonious, but the third one might be just what the font needs in terms of making its mark. I would make the third one the default and the first the alternate. Don't worry about any Souvenir connection. Oh, and dump the second one. :-)

The "k" I actually like very much! And like Spiekermann has said, a love/hate glyph can be a veritable gold-mine! You might need to tweak it later, but I would let it live until there's reason to believe there's a problem.

The ball of the "r" needs to be larger.

The head of the "s" is recoiling. You might pull it to the right a hair.

The very top of the "t" is boring. Not sure how to best fix it though.
And I would make the leftward bar flat on the bottom, slanted on the top.

I think I would make the "u" serifs like the ones in the "v". That's one convention that seems to make sense (even though it seems counter-intuitive).

I would make the "z" serifs longer.

The exclamation mark is way too blah.

--

I also have some macro crits:
If this is really a text-size cut, and you're planning on making a small-size cut, the problem is this cut is already very wide and large on the body*. If this will be used small, it needs to be darker. If there will be another smaller cut, what's THAT going to look like?! :-) I'm not sure what to recommend, because the large width of this design is part of its charm and character... Normally I would recommend making a bit narrower. Another way is to shoot for small text with this (and probably give up on making a smaller cut) and make it darker.

* Like Jesse said, it's happy at 8 (and maybe even 7).

In any case, the vertical proportions are a bit off. Assuming the x-height will stay this size, if this is shooting for small text I would shorten the descenders; if it's shooting for 9-10 point I would lengthen the ascenders.

Nina, this is great stuff - please keep it up!
(But don't forget to eat and breathe.)

hhp

Hrant, thanks for your critique; it's much appreciated.

Depth: I'm glad to hear the thought that is behind at least some of this is showing. I generally can hardly do any work without a semi-solid concept. And actually,
many of the things you criticize are those I hadn't really thought about, but rather "assumed" as sort of a starting point – like the vertical metrics, for instance.

"Divergence is extremely important in a text face, it’s just very easy to go too far, and too tempting to do it semi-randomly."
Yes! And I find it very hard to tell how much irregularity is OK in terms of doing
what feels right, or what seems to work; and how much *must* be standardized.
Like serif size: most of them are slightly longer on the right-hand side, those in
the more symmetrical and/or busy glyphs are symmetrical, and I have made them significantly longer on the right-hand side of the "f" and "r" because I felt these glyphs got stronger / more stable this way – and I have no clue if it's a good idea (theoretically) to work them like this.
The mysterious convergence of Brain and Gut makes this a very interesting process. :-)

--

Selected details: the others aren't forgotten, but on the checklist for the next round.

"I like to leave the terminal of the “a” pretty “weak”…"
I didn't consciously realize this before, but I like Patria's "a" a lot.
As well as the one in Constantia (which is also "weak").

"g": It's awful, but I've realized I don't *like* the third one. We're just not friends.
I'll search for this shape some more. Maybe something between the first and the third one, with the join of the descender at an intermediate angle, might be interesting.

"k": I'm glad to hear you like this one! Because I've decided I do like it,
and hope to be daring enough to keep it (or something conceptually close to it). :-)

"The very top of the “t” is boring. Not sure how to best fix it though."
Maybe something like this? (Please try to ignore the ugly bottom.)

"I think I would make the “u” serifs like the ones in the “v”. That’s one convention that seems to make sense (even though it seems counter-intuitive)."
Huh. Extremely counter-intuitive. I'll have to play around with that.

--

On the macro level: You know, I have no idea what this cut should do. In fact,
I don't really think of it as doing something, more as being the "master design"
of sorts; like a cell that hasn't differentiated, & can still grow into something really small, or something really large. But that may not make that much sense as a plan.

I don't know. I guess it's definitely not for standard text sizes (I just honestly can't picture anyone using this at 11 or 12pt, and yes I'm reluctant to make it narrower). I agree it feels quite happy at around 8; so how about I make this the base cut for say 7–10, and then derive one for 3–6 (I do want to see how low I can go with this). Does that make sense?
(Because the "tiny" cut needs traps, and if there's something I loathe in type,
it's visible ink traps at larger point sizes. And the traps I've experimented with
are visible at 10.)

"If there will be another smaller cut, what’s THAT going to look like?! :-)"
Hey, remember the downright absurd proportions (I called them "funky" back then!) of that metal face? :-)
Seriously though: I'd like the "tiny" cut not to look substantially wider than this, just slightly heavier. Though I don't know yet if I can make that work.

--

I'm letting this rest for a couple more days, as I'm currently facing a heap
of (other) work; I'm planning to get back to working on it in the weekend,
and hoping to post a revision maybe next week. No worries: This is my project
for the Zurich course after all, so I'll need to finish *something* by June!

I'm not that petrified of the jungle anymore. After all, I'm armed with coffee,
chocolate, and beer. And I feel like I'm at least beginning to see a path.
And it's great to have Typophile! (Especially now that school's on spring break.)

—Nina

> I have made them significantly longer on the right-hand side
> of the “f” and “r” because I felt these glyphs got stronger

That is a classic and smart feature.

Constantia's "a": it's my favorite glyph in that font. I'm pretty sure that John had seen Patria while making Constantia, and I think he's said that he liked my "a", but I can't be sure mine was a direct influence. Proforma has a great "a" too.

Your new "t" seems too... sophisticated?
Dunno, maybe your original form is good.

> being the “master design”

Cool.

hhp

Man, you're quick.

"I’m pretty sure that John had seen Patria while making Constantia"
Oh. Neat!

"Your new “t” seems too... sophisticated?
Dunno, maybe your original form is good."
:-D
I'll play around with it in the weekend.

—Nina

[terminals]
"If you make them totally monoline, or maybe even taper gently"

This feels like a pretty major breakthrough.*
(Although the bowl isn't done yet.)

* It's pretty weird to have "major breakthroughs"
that "normal people" don't even see!

More soon.

Yes, far better; the tapered terminal now relates nicely to the serifs.

Hi Nina
I saw this one starting off on your blog and like the direction you're taking.
The tapered hood of your a looks great; not too noticeable but keeps the lightness and openness you want. My solution would have probably been to raise the terminal up more horizontal, to keep the line thickness even, but that would have destroyed the shape of the glyph completely. The tapering will really help your s.
I prefer the souvenir g, but do see what happens when you mix it with the first one, with the tail starting between those two versions.
The k doesn't work for me, but it's not the curl, it's the crossbar...for me it's too wide and I'd bring the knee in a notch or two. Would that do odd things to the angle of the arm and leg?
You're right about monolines being the most difficult! I haven't ventured into them yet. Good luck! :)
I'm also a beginner so

Thanks, guys! I'm glad to hear this terminal works for people other than me too;
I am quite happy with the way it seems to unify the letterform to appear like more of a consciously designed whole, if that makes any sense (though I know that bowl is still lumpy).
Also, I honestly wasn't expecting it to work. :->

It's going to be an interesting process to work the different offending terminals in such a fashion; without the added weight of a flaring terminal, I expect quite a few letters to fall apart (like the "s" and the "t"), which is probably a good thing because it'll show me how they don't work.

Ben: Thanks for your comments!
Re the "a", I'm finding it pretty difficult not to make the shapes too angular &
still make them fit into these wide proportions. I would indeed rather keep this kind of curvy.

"The k doesn’t work for me, but it’s not the curl, it’s the crossbar...for me it’s too wide and I’d bring the knee in a notch or two."
Interesting. To be honest, I was actually wondering if I had to make it wider.
Need to look at this in context / some more / seriously / … :-)

"Would that do odd things to the angle of the arm and leg?"
It probably would, though I'd have to test. As it stands, at least the angle of the arm corresponds (roughly) to the "x".

"I’m also a beginner so"
Wow… did you fall asleep mid-sentence? :-)

oh dear!
I think I meant 'so don't take my comments too seriously'!

What about trying to make the crossbar on the k flow into the lower leg, smoothly, as a curve? I think that might harmonise better with the ball terminal and help keep the overall texture curvy, which seems to be your direction.

(Also, new PDF up top: ernestine_lc_v2.)

--

I've found that trying to work out a cut that isn't supposed (or capable)
to do anything by itself is too abstract for me to figure out (and also started feeling kind of pointless). So, I am shooting for 8–10 with this – which seemed
to necessitate some rather deep changes. (I'm keeping the old contours, though,
as a possible starting point for an eventual small size cut.)

Since this starts off in a bit of a new/refined direction, which also seems a bit scary, I'd love some feed-back before diving into all the detail refinements that I'm aware this needs.
I have done quite a bit of detail work, but most of that was before re-thinking proportions, darkness, and contrast. So I concede the old version has more even color than the new, but I'm hoping that's just due to the fact I haven't done nearly as much detail tweaking on the new one yet. Also, spacing is still quite basic.
I'm also aware that the weights are still kind of all over the place, and they seem to behave pretty unpredictably when printed small-ish. I guess this isn't a project I can pull off with my 600 dpi laser printer; I'm hoping to be able to buy a better one soon (which is one reason why I'd rather not start out with the small size cut yet).

So I guess the most important question is: Does this make sense?
(= Does it read better, or at least promise to do so after further tweakage?)

I'm sure this new direction runs me into a slew of new problems I'm not even seeing yet (yay! and I mean that). Don't hold back. I'm really trying to learn and understand what makes a text face work; and I'm up for redoing & changing this until it can do what I need it to (as long as I can sometimes still find time to sleep, and do the work that feeds me).

--

Some detail notes:

"q": I couldn't make it work with a vertical serif on top. That thing kept looking tacked on, kept messing with the bowl in ways I didn't appreciate, and I couldn't really see why it'd need to be there. So, here's a "q" with a join like in the "b",
and it's actually one of my very favorite glyphs! So, I'm officially challenging
all of you (except for Hrant I guess) to go "uuugh", and then tell me why.

"g": The other one has not been voted off the show, I just haven't adapted it yet.

Hrant:
"I think I would make the 'u' serifs like the ones in the 'v'."
I officially don't get this.  :-{  I tried making them flat on top and angled on the bottom, and that looked positively weird, especially next to glyphs like "i" or "n" where I'd expect the same serif shape. It kind of makes the "u" look like a flipped "n", or like it's hanging from the x-height rather than standing solidly. Or did you mean something else? I'm confused.

--

I'm very grateful for any pointers, opinions and crits. I'll let this hang around* for a few days – and am looking forward to then resuming work on it in full blast. :-)

—Nina

* I like the way my office wall looks.

Salt ready?

Your strategy of getting right to a target size design is sound, and the helpful side-by-side comparison demonstrates at a glance how well the revised design is fulfilling that function. Even on my likewise low-res printer's version, it's impressive to see that the charming character comes through at small sizes while remaining perfectly legible.

Here are the things I would (or might) take another look at:

c/e/s : I sung the praises of this taper before, but I wonder if starting the taper a little later (letting the bottoms of these letters stay thick a little longer) would serve you well. At small sizes the c and e lose that end and look like they have an overbite. s actually winds up looking inverted: maybe reconsider the relative width of the counters as well as shortening the taper? (All that said, s's curves have picked up a lot of grace since v.1.)

g : might be a little too prominent. Does the tail reach around too far? Maybe also consider reducing the scale of the entire upper bowl by lifting it up off the baseline? (I'm not sure but I think that the bottom of that bowl need not align with b, q, etc.)

q : yes, it's quirky, but if you're going to let the foppish k into the party, maybe you can't say no to the nice bald guy, too!

v/w/x/y : relative stroke weights on these diagonal letters need work. In general these don't have near the same confidence as the rest of the alphabet. I wonder if w might be a touch too wide. The / stroke of x is too thin, and the optical offset isn't lining up for me (but obviously fix the former first).

I'm impressed with your patience on this, getting one thing right before moving on to the next.

(and jealous of the hanging space!)

I'm glad the tapering clicked. Although I think you've lost some of the "butch" character of where you used to be. Maybe pull the tapering back just a bit? On the other hand, other glyphs have a fair amount of modulation too now. Dunno. Is the modulation ruining things? I'm not sure, but I think maybe the old monoline look had more character (although it was less versatile/readable).

> I am shooting for 8–10 with this

Great - go for it. But you need more weight.

BTW, 600dpi is indeed misleading (especially for smaller
sizes) but if you get a 1200dpi printer you're 90% there.

The "q": love it.
The "u": don't sweat it - do your thing.

Looking at the PDF:
- Some of your ball terminals are malformed (like the "r").
- I'd make the "g" narrower, and pull in the rightward bulge of the descender. And that ear isn't working. :-(
- The dot of the "j" is slightly right.
- The spine of the "s" is bumpy and unorthodox. I would go traditional and have the most weight towards the middle.
- The "t": the head is confused, and the bottom curl needs work.
- The "w": you need more weight in the middle "v".
- I think the "x" has too much stroke contrast.

Keep at it - this is going to end well!

hhp

Thanks for your feed-back, Craig & Hrant!

Regarding the tapers: I'm glad I put them in, but I might be overdoing that.
As well as this:
"Is the modulation ruining things?"
I hope not. Though I've been wondering too.
But while I'm working out the weight, I'll try out different degrees of modulation
as well. I guess I will eventually have to make a decision to push either practicality at the expense of character, or the other way round. (I'm slowly beginning to understand your statement, Hrant, a few months ago that "trying to make a font some sort of 'ultimate' always ends in tears.")

I'm glad nobody has objected to the narrower proportions (yet). They do seem to read better (plus make it a *hint* less *impossible* to make certain glyphs work, which is also nice).

I'll be working on the details / individual glyphs both of you mentioned, most of which is touching me right where it hurts :-). I'm quite uncomfortable with all those diagonals (vwxyz), the "s" is driving me nuts from a technical perspective
(I was actually trying to make the spine heaviest in the middle!), and the "t" is just confusing me – I can't seem to figure out what matters in that strange little letter, & how it relates to others (most significantly the top).

The ball of the "r" was sort of an experiment to make it clog less at smaller sizes (well, and on my printer) and still have it be kind of pronounced – though I admit it looks quite silly.  :-)

"I’m impressed with your patience on this, getting one thing right before moving on to the next."
Craig, that ain't patience. But you may call me obsessive, or a control freak.
Both of which feel rather futile in the face of this!

Hanging space: Magnetic wall paint rocks for flexibility. It's not like Ernestine is always allowed to take up all that space.  ;-)

Cheers!

Nina, this might be counter to your nature, but it's a technique that I've used and heard of others using: at a certain point it might be highly fruitful to put this away, for at least a month but probably longer, and then pick it up again; you might be surprised at how much more objectively and effectively you will then approach the various issues. The design process becomes less emotional and more "big-picture"; it becomes almost like critiquing somebody else's work (which for me at least is easier to get right).

hhp

Hell yeah that's counter to my nature, Hrant.  <:-{
Though part of me is thinking it's wise advice…

Classes (& thus, guided project work) are resuming in 3 weeks. I'll have to see
how I deal with that.

A hiatus has been a good idea (thank you, Hrant). And it's not over.

Little interim musing: I'm beginning to think I've tried to cram too much into this one (and first) font. Too many ideas – and concepts too complex, of which I'm honestly just beginning to grasp some nebulous contours.
Thinking about going back to more basic principles, I can see that modulation die. Mostly because I don't truly understand modulation. And I can't help feeling like an impostor when I try to make this font speak in tones that aren't mine, or that I can't master, or that I don't understand. In fact, being on a Beginner's Steep Learning Curve makes this process pretty crazy – many ideas that give me the warm buzz of accomplishment one week seem plainly deficient the next.

It'll be at least two weeks until I'll resume work on this!
In a way, I can't wait; but I will. :-)

I really like it. Reminds me a little of a wide archer (I swear its the ball terminals) but it's got a nice open feel to it. Keep going!

Thanks, Yehan. Glad you like it (which incarnation?).
Archer: In the beginning I was looking at it a lot, though not so much anymore. But I guess the combination of slab serifs + ball terminals is more or less automatically reminiscent of Archer.

The show will go on soon-ish. I'm beginning to see more clearly where this can/should be going.  :-)

So. Young Ernestine was a bit large, a bit butch, loud, and jolly; then she suddenly got a serious office job and ended up buying stiff waisted clothes she never really got comfortable in (and couldn't afford, either)… :-/
Font psychology aside: A little temporal distance really seems to make v.2 look pretty cramped.

This time, before I spend forty hours cooking up an whole new alphabet, and derail somewhere along the way without noticing, I'd like to throw a few preliminary new glyphs out there that show the changes I've been thinking about. Those are mainly
- making it monoline
- making it heavier (& with thicker serifs too)
- and a little bit wider again (but not so wide as to be uncomfortable at text sizes – still aiming for let's say 8–11 with this).
There is also a new attempt at a "g", and I must say I dig this one!
- vertical metrics aren't quite sorted out yet.

What do you guys think?

I like the direction it's going. I think the new g is a vast improvement over the old one. However (and you knew that was coming), I'm not sure I like the terminal of the tail. honim look very good.

Glad to hear that, Steve!
About the terminal of the "g": Can you say if you wonder about the ball terminal per se,* or its execution?
* Which looks a bit lonely in this word, too, since it's the only one…

--

By the way:
"Nina, are you sure this is your first font?"
http://typophile.com/node/54857
:-[

Just throwing this out there; have you considered making a fixed-width version of this? I can see it having huge potential as a Courier-replacement. Which is to say that I love the design and see it in a universally-useful light.

I'm not entirely certain. What does you c look like?

Steve, that "honigm" up there is all I have of the new version yet (and an "l"). But I was expecting to keep the placement of the ball terminals pretty much the same as in previous versions, which would mean there would be balls on the descenders of "g", "j", and "y", as well as on the "c", the top of the "s", the "r", the arm of the "k" and the top of the "f".

Alex, thanks! I hadn't thought about a monowidth; but I've heard quite a few comments that this has a "nice typewriter feel". I might give it a shot once this is finished. Though highest on the list is a small size cut, maybe a display cut, at least one additional weight, possibly italics… so it may be 2020 or so until I get to a monospaced version. ;-)

Nina, this is looking great. The color and vertical proportions* seem very good. And that "g" is da bomb! Definitely a keeper, with little need for an alternate. The only thing I might tweak is the ear: it seems possibly too close to the x-line half-serifs; I'd try making it higher.

* Here you've moved from ~8 to 9-10 point size.

I would give this warning however: you've moved pretty firmly into the "contemporary" sphere (even with that "g") whereas before it had a distinct and arguably nicely anachronistic flavor. This move will make the font more versatile, but also perhaps less memorable. Considering this is only your... second :-) outline font I actually think this is a very good move. You can revert to a more old-school version later - and in fact having the two (daughter and mother?) would make for a nice subtle contrast, the sort we don't have enough of in type.

BTW, am I noticing that you've made the tittle a hair "too" dark? Is that
a Patria influence? :-) Be prepared for the flack from other type designers.

hhp

Thanks, Hrant! I'm very glad to hear you say that. Figuring out darkness and vertical proportions has seemed especially hard to figure out, so it's great to hear this may work. (There is no "talus" however. So I guess I should scale the whole thing down. :-/)

I wasn't *consciously* trying to make it more contemporary-looking; that kind of happened, and I like it. But, I love your idea about the "old" and "new" sort of "family"! It's a pretty exciting thought to come back to this later and try to play a subtle variation with a slightly more "historical" feel. Though of course right now I'd have no idea how to go about it; that sort of subtlety is way beyond me. But I'll definitely keep this in mind for when I've done another twenty fonts or so. ;-)

"you’ve made the tittle a hair “too” dark? Is that a Patria influence?"
Really, would that be considered *too* dark? I realize it is rather large, but it looks good to me that way. Not sure if it's directly influenced by Patria – I've been partial to larger tittles for a while :-> – but Patria has certainly strengthened my conviction that they can look dam good.
Anyway, I've been seeing a lot of Patria lately, so I won't be surprised to see some elements of it crop up in Ernestine. One thing that is consciously informed by Patria is the ear of the "g", although rather subtly so. (And I do see what you mean about its height.)

"Be prepared for the flack from other type designers."
With that "q" and that "k" (and maybe the "a"), I'm not expecting to be taken down over the tittle. What's the problem – does it just look bad to some, or is there one of those underlying minefields I'm not seeing?

> There is no “talus” however.

You will most probably need some (although less now with the
smaller x-height). The amount depends a lot on your cap height,
so figure that out first.

> would that be considered *too* dark?

You'd have to show a PDF to be sure.

But as you might guess, in my book it has to look a hair too dark
to the average type designer (if that means anything :-). When
a type designer casually points out Patria's, I smile on the inside.

> I’ve been partial to larger tittles for a while

Hmmm...
(Then they say type is boring! ;-)

> With that “q” and that “k” (and maybe the “a”),
> I’m not expecting to be taken down over the tittle.

Good point!
And that "g" might nicely distract from all of those.

> does it just look bad to some, or is there one
> of those underlying minefields I’m not seeing?

It's just another symptom of misguided Modernism, wanting
to goddam "harmonize" everything. Most people don't really
grasp that information comes from contrast and nothing else.
You just have to keep everything under the radar of the reader.

hhp

Hrant,

Talus: Good to know! In that case, I'll get back with that question once I have caps.

BTW, I still think somebody should come up with good type-nerdy t-shirts involving tittles. Might attract a bit more attention to type design(ers). ;-)

"It’s just another symptom of misguided Modernism, wanting to goddam “harmonize” everything."
I've been wondering if this attitude might be furthered by the fact that many type designers see to come from graphic design (not entirely excluding myself there). Though that's still quite a half-baked theory.

"You just have to keep everything under the radar of the reader."
Which from my experience even Patria, which may look rather extreme to some of "us", does extremely well.

Anyway, about Ernestine: I'll work on those other letters and post a full alphabet with PDF in due time. Cheers!

Actually, it's still going to be a little while until I can post a full alphabet (too much other work ahead), so:

"You’d have to show a PDF to be sure."

While this is still quite half-baked, I *am* curious about that tittle. Just if you have the time to take a look, Hrant – thanks. (:

http://www.altaira.de/posted/ernestine_v3_tittle.pdf
(No corrections in there yet, this corresponds to the version posted above.)

Tittle: I'd make it a hair larger.
g: I think the inside cusp between the bottom stroke and the ball should be abrupt, not smooth.

hhp

I think a large tittle befits a ball-serif font of this character.
Is it a little clotted at the join of g's ear?
This new g does contemporize this font - I wonder if it's no longer an "Ernestine"...

Thanks guys.

Tittle: Craig, I think so too.
I thought it was already on the largish side, and didn't want to make it completely indecent; but I'll gladly try making it a bit larger still!

"g": Hrant, thanks for that! That little thing has been a difficult detail. Making it abrupt is an interesting idea; gonna try that.
Craig: I haven't done anything really in the way of optical correction of the join yet – actually the shapes aren't even merged. You might see some overlap artifacts in the PDF.

"This new g does contemporize this font - I wonder if it’s no longer an “Ernestine”..."
Interesting.* Does "Ernestine" sound more old-fashioned than this looks?

* I say that because the "g" is shamelessly influenced by the Heavy weight of Kabel, which after all is a pretty old design (though not quite as old as my original "Industria").

Hi Nina
You seem to be doing very well on this so I don't have anything further to offer I'm afraid, but just wanted you to know I am following your developments and choices with interest and even excitement! Ernestine is looking very neat and good-humoured.

Is your tittle a bit off to the right (optically)?

According to http://this cool site Ernestine peaked as a baby name in the 1920s, right when Kabel was developed and released.

But Kabel has never struck me as 1920s-looking.

At any rate, yes, I think this is losing its grandmotherliness. Now it's more like a hip young woman. (But one who still knits!)

Thank you, Bendy, for the encouragement! It's been a rocky but highly enjoyable road indeed.

"Is your tittle a bit off to the right"
I'll have a closer look.

Craig,
"According to this cool site Ernestine peaked as a baby name in the 1920s, right when Kabel was developed and released."
See, they are cousins of sorts! Funny. Now I only need to find out who Patria is in that family. Possibly the godfather? And Archer & Caecilia the aunts? :->
(They're all pretty young either in spirit or actual age or both, so I guess that works. Not sure who among them knits, though!)

In some circles, knitting is very glamourous, you know :)

Knit Hop in da Hood!

So I knitted a new tittle and played around with the "g" a bit.

--
(PDF here: http://altaira.de/posted/ernestine_honigmohn_2.pdf)

The tittle feels really indulgent now. I'll confess I like that; but I'm wondering if I'm overdoing it.

I'm not quite sure about that ball on the "g". I'm thinking it may need to be larger, but then it starts seriously closing up the tail at smaller sizes, which I don't want it to do. Kind of reminds me of the "a". I might try making one without a ball – but in a way I don't want to give up on the few ball terminals that are left.

BTW, feedback from a few of my type design class peeps today showed that the "g" is a love/hate glyph. I like that. I was beginning to worry this font was getting boring. :->

I love the new "g" - don't change a thing! (For now... :-)

The tittle: nothing to worry about - I myself
would actually make it a bit larger still!

hhp

I think it's beautiful. Unlike Hrant, I wouldn't make the tittle larger, but right not I don't think it's too big.

feedback from a few of my type design class peeps today showed that the “g” is a love/hate glyph

I would keep developing both this one and the previous one (like the first one in the first post of this thread), and use one or the other as a stylistic alternate. Then everyone's happy!

Hi, Nina!
I wanted to express Ernestine had taken a nicer direction, if possible: she looks really great and very exciting.
About the g, I'd keep it as is in the current pretty version, though I'd like to see how it looks with a larger ball, since optically it seems small a bit against, let's say, the c (it's a subjective appreciation, for sure).
I assume you've not completely spaced it, otherwise the "go" kerning would need to be revised (below I read "mig o"):

I'm dealing with the g right now, and think it's amazing the synthesis you've achieved in yours.
Who could say such a young lady is boring?

MarS

Actually, yes, I agree the ball should be larger.
But don't change anything else! :->

hhp

Wow. Thanks guys (-:
I'm happy that this seems to be clicking!

Craig, about the "g": I'm not sure I need everyone to find the "g" of their dreams in this font. Imagine Meta having an alternate "g". (Or does it? I don't have it.) Or Kabel! Those are basically defined by their "g"s, some people hate them, others love them. I think that's great.
Which doesn't mean I've decided against making an alternate. But I guess I don't think it's vital for the font.

Marcelo, I was chuckling before when I realized we're both quite involved with the "g" right now.
Spacing: There is none. It's horrid. I know I should at least have something like preliminary spacing, but I feel I need more glyphs first to work out the sidebearings.

"though I’d like to see how it looks with a larger ball, since optically it seems small a bit against, let’s say, the c"
? I don't have a current "c" yet. Are you comparing this to the old one up top?

Actually, yes, I agree the ball should be larger.
But don’t change anything else! :->
Haha. I promise. I mean I promise I'll try. :-)

Are you comparing this to the old one up top?

Oops, yes!

MarS

Bigger balls all around:

PDF: http://altaira.de/posted/ernestine_honigmohn_3.pdf

She's getting quite yummy I think. Looking at that huge tittle, maybe the ball on the "g" could even be larger than this? So far it seems to read OK; but I do prefer that tail to remain quite open optically…

(Hrant: Haven't touched the "g", other than the terminal. <:-) )

I'm looking forward to having time to work on the other glyphs. But that won't be until a week or so from now.

I wouldn't make the ball terminals much bigger for text sizes. (But then again, I'm not a ball-terminal fan, so I'm probably not the best one to comment on that.)

One request: could you use non-food words? Every time I visit these critique sections, I get hungry. (Mmm, poppy seeds...) :-)

I think the tittle (not large at all - "she's a good size", as they say) and the terminal of the "g" are well-balanced. One thing I'm seeing though (perhaps a hold-over from a previous iteration) is that the bottom stroke of the "g" is getting a bit too thin close to the ball; you don't want it totally monoline since the ball add visual weight to it, but I think it needs to be a hair thicker (which might make the ball a bit larger too - but you have room for that).

BTW, I just realized something: I don't think the "m" needs
to be so narrow; it detracts from the character of the face.

hhp

Steve, haha! I actually wanted to do "honigmond"; but the "d" is still off getting its bowl polished. I'll try not to post while I'm eating though. ;-)

Thanks Hrant. There's definitely some weirdness where the ball terminal is connecting; the inner & outer contours seem disharmonious right next to it. On the other hand, you're right that when I do make it completely monoline it looks clogged. Will need to play with that some more.
"m": Its proportions have carried over pretty much from previous iterations, and to be honest I haven't given them too much thought yet. So that's on the list too – thanks.

By the way, every time I look at that "i", the tittle seems to be off to one side, but it's never the same side twice. Dunno.

> it’s never the same side twice.

As I said in another thread recently, that means it's fine! It's you. :-)

hhp

I think I'd move it left a tiddly fraction; the centre of gravity of the stem is a bit left because of the serifs. But that could just be me :>

the centre of gravity of the stem is a bit left because of the serifs

Which is why I think it's perfectly placed. I think the tittle should be ever so slightly to the right of center.

Steve, is that because of the "f", or something more subtle?

hhp

I just tried this again: when I move it left by one (!) unit, it looks off to the left
to me every time I look at it. So I guess I'll leave it where it is! (Sorry Hrant, seems it didn't register you just said this someplace else.)

Steve, is that because of the “f”, or something more subtle?

My eyes prefer it that way :-) All of the text faces I really like seem to have the tittle just slightly to the right of optical center, so I don't think I'm alone. (Jenson's is quite far to the right.)

I think it's part of a broader pattern of asymmetry in the Latin alphabet, but I want to let my theory bake a bit more before I present it in public.

> Jenson’s is quite far to the right.

But at least in that case it's most probably to make room for the massive beak of the "f". In digital -especially with OT now- that's far less of an issue.

hhp

Interesting.
Conversely, are there any good reasons for a far-left tittle placement,
as in Adobe Caslon?

Hrant, absolutely (and the long s as well).

Far-left?! The only thing I can think of is replicating
some flawed historical model. Caslon for one was a slob.
(The abattoir is humming!)

hhp

I think the right-trending dot also keeps things moving forward along the line. When printing, for example, I write the stem first, then the dot, then the following letter. As my hand approaches uniform motion along the line, the dot will likely be between the stem and the following letter. (By this I don't intend that type should be or always is an emulation of writing, but I think some of the dynamics are parallel.)

Handpicked. Late to the critique, but handpicked. Nicely done.

:-> Thanks!

I'll continue soon… crazy busy this week.

Did some more work on the tail of the "g". I wonder if this is still too much tapering? I've been doing a lot of non-type work this week, and my eyes feel kind of rusty (ouch!). But I'm wanting to get that terminal to work before moving on to the "c", etc.

Since the tail got heavier optically, I felt I had to strengthen the ear a little too. I'm not sure it doesn't still feel a bit too light though.

That tail is definitely improved! If you're worried about the bottom counter closing up (it doesn't help that foot serifs like the n's in the above pic poke right into the gap), I think there is a little room to reduce the size of the top bowl - but on the other hand it looks pretty great as is!

Thanks Craig! Actually the thing with the tail closing up doesn't seem to be as bad as I feared. Though I'm still caught up in trying to figure out the optimal settings of my fancy new printer; it's doing a lot of strange stuff to stem weights and such, so I actually can't judge text sizes that well at the moment :-(.

g is looking very very cool :)

:-) Thanks Ben!

Craig: I just went through all possible options on my printer and think I've actually found a way to print 10pt text. So the tail looks OK, but you're right about the foot serifs sort of "poking into" the counterspace. I suspect this may be alleviated once I start working on spacing – the pokey serifs might be a bit too close to the "g" now.

this time [almost] without added foodstuffs

Just change the name of the typeface to Poppyseed! :-)

I think the g is just a bit too tight near the terminal. The tail flows nicely, then makes a fist.

Aha! What exactly does "tight" mean though – tapering too much, or not enough?
I assume you mean the terminal starts too abruptly?

Btw: I think the only thing that'd really make me consider a naming change would be a great new name that has a "g" in it. :->

Eglantine?

Hm!
Is it that pink and flowery though? Or thorny?
And can anyone actually pronounce that?

Sorry, Bendy, already done.

By tight, I mean not just the taper, but the flow. The bend doesn't quite work for me.

Ugh! Knew I should have checked first!

I actually think it's all nicely balanced,
but maybe there's something I'm not seeing.

> The tail flows nicely, then makes a fist.

Now I know what it reminds me of: Popeye! :-)

hhp

If you want to go with the knitting idea, "Selvage" (or "Selvedge") is a knitting term that could work as a name. (Too close to "salvage" or "savage" perhaps.)

<:-D
That'd explain why it seemed to want more weight close to the fist!

Craig, I'm not that fond of knitting after all.
Of course now I could call it Spinach! But I think Ernestine will be fine. :->

Perhaps... Geraldine?
(Nothing to do with Geraldine Wade, from Microsoft, of course!)

MarS

Hey, not bad. But that's a capital "G". I don't know yet if that's gonna be a cool glyph ;-)

Evangeline.

Nice, Craig!
MarS

The reason I still like "Ernestine" is because
it evokes a bygone sincerity, something both
appropriate to this design as well as timely in
our society.

You can't beat a slab serif when it comes
to saying "let me tell you how it really is".
Leonard Cohen is a slab - although not as
wide as this design.

hhp

Evangeline is nice, but sounds too Christian for me. I'd see an Evangeline as chanting stuff and floating mid-air, rather than being honest and down-to-earth.

"Sincerity" is a good word, Hrant – I agree pretty much completely with your perspective.
I like "Ernestine" because while the name is feminine, it derives more or less directly from "earnest". Both of those sides seem to match the font well – in relative terms; I think it is more of a "she" than a "he", although definitely not "girly" – and yes it's meant to be serious in a, well, earnest kind of way, which doesn't mean it can't be quirky here and there and have its own mind about things. It's just not whimsical.
Plus, I like the "bridge" between the old-fashioned name and the newish design.
(And I can definitely see Leonard Cohen as a slab. Just not Archer. :-D )

Actually, the more I think of it, I think I'm quite married to the name. Guess I'll just have to live without a "g" in there! But questioning it was worth it.

I suppose you could call it Ernestine Regular! :-)

:-D
Great point!

For me, the name Ernestine calls to mind Lily Tomlin's routine on TV when I was a kid.

So taking my baby steps, I've been working on the "m" (which I think benefits from being wider – is it a bit too wide now though?) and started working out the "a", which is still rather wonky – mainly trying to figure out the overall proportions, the amount of tapering on the hood, and such. My main problem being, I don't want to make it look desperate to be as wide as it can. It may also be too dark right now. Any opinions?

(This is really just a mini-update; I'm hoping to be able to spend more time on this later this week. But the bug bit me NOW. :-) )

--

Steve: Now there's a cultural association I completely missed. :-)

If you really want the a to be that wide, you can pull back a little on the top while leaving the bowl wide.

I think you might even try a wider "m".

In the "a" I like the lateral relationship between the top and the bowl, but I would make the whole thing a bit narrower and the bowl a bit shorter. Also, I would shear the top terminal perpendicular, not at an angle; if you can match the angle with the inside of the foot serif, that would be a bonus.

hhp

Thanks for your feed-back guys! Will try a slightly narrower "a" (and maybe a wider "m").

Hrant, when you say to make the bowl of the "a" shorter, do you mean flatter (vertically)?

Yes, flatter vertically, but if/when you make it
narrower too the aspect needn't change too much.

hhp

Gotcha! Cheers.

Medium-sized update.

First, more work on the "a" and "m":

Btw, going back to Industria, I realized I really like the foot terminal on its "a":

What I did do was transfer the more slanted inside angle of the "a" foot serif to the top-left of "m" and "n",* which I think works well – this way I need to taper the curves less as they're approaching the join, which helps the monoline look.
* You can see that in the topmost image of this post, though only in the "m".

--

Also, I have a first "postable" version of "b"/"d"/"p"/"q":
(Please ignore the ugly "u", it's not supposed to be here yet.)

--

PDF with the current state of things:
http://www.altaira.de/posted/ernestine_090306.pdf
(I'll attach an "official" one to the top of this thread once this third incarnation of Ernestine has a complete lc alphabet.)

Any comments muchly welcome of course. :-)

FWIW I think you may have narrowed the 'a' a touch too much.

New letters look great. The serifless bowls of 'b' and 'q' work well with your 'g' in style, I think.

I like the reasoning behind the new angles on the insides of those serifs. Perhaps the angle could be hair more upright; you're approaching a thinness that makes those serifs look like they could break off. Or alternatively perhaps keeping the angle but just sliding that line a touch away from the serif (of course it has to align well with the stem on the other side of the join).

Salt to taste!

100th post to this thread, Craig! You should win a coffee mug (or a salt shaker?) (-:

Yeah, I wonder about that "a". Type design seems to be something I can only do in brief and somewhat isolated spurts – having looked at this for a few continuous hours, I can't really tell what's up with the "a". But I did narrow it quite a lot, so that may well have been too much. Will try some variations on that.

I like the angled serifs but see your point about them "breaking off"; this is also an obvious (and visible) breach of the "monoline" premise, but I must say I'm somewhat intrigued by that. Will play around with them some more!

I wonder if the "d" is too light. But I still don't trust my new printer…

The bowl of the a could indeed stand to be a bit wider. The d doesn't look too light to me at this point.

BTW, Moaning Dingo is a killer name for a typeface! (Quail Blip isn't bad either.)

Yeah – I'll definitely keep track of these for whenever I do a wild display face! ;-)

And thanks for your feed-back Steve. Looks like the "a" is getting reconstructive surgery tomorrow!

('d''s weight looks fine to me, too)

Here's an intermediate-width "a" (I agree this looks a lot more harmonious – thanks!).

I've also pulled the inside angle of these head serifs back up a tiny bit. Better?
(Though I realize those weights of the curves to the east of the respective joins are still a bit, uh, inconsistent…)

PDF: http://www.altaira.de/posted/ernestine_090307.pdf

I think you had indeed gone too far with narrowing the "a" in your first post of 3/6, but the most recent one looks great. About the b/d/p/q: it seems like the "p" is missing the "movement" present in the others; the "q" is nicely pendulous (the "d" seems close, but might need a flatter top) and the "b" is nicely perky, while the "p" seems totally straight (even though it might not be mathematically).

Revisiting the "i": I think you should raise the tittle. It depends on the "t" though (as well as the cap height - concerning which I'm getting a strong vibe that your caps should be short and unusually wide).

hhp

Thanks for addressing the "movement" in the bowls. I was wondering if that was showing (or working, rather). I can see the "p" does it least (mathematically, a deviation from say the "o" is definitely there); and the "d" I've been struggling with most out of these – it seems to get too droopy and sad really easily. I'll work on those some more.

"I’m getting a strong vibe that your caps should be short and unusually wide"
Ha. Interesting! I was just thinking about what my caps might look like yesterday, and caught myself wondering about making them rather short (which would probably require them to be quite wide). Wouldn't hurt for German I guess. :-)

I'll hold off on moving that tittle until I know more… (so many variables in this!)

I’ve also pulled the inside angle of these head serifs back up a tiny bit. Better?

I would still add weight, probably by moving that line rightward a bit. As is, the head serif looks a bit like a flag on a pole, rather than sharing the slabby solidity of the other serifs. But again, this may just be me!

I agree with Craig on the serifs, and with the notion of shorter caps. But don't make them too wide.

Well, I don't even have half of the lowercase so far, so I guess there's still time to incubate those caps. To be honest, spending very serious thought on them now feels a bit like overcharging my brain with uncertainties/variables. :-]

Craig, your point about solidity is interesting – I do see what you mean.
I wonder, does the "p" work better for you than the "m" and "n"? That join is higher, so there is more black to hold the serif together with the rest of the glyph.

I don't think it's so much the join as the angle of the line. (For me, that is.) I would try to echo the angle of the foot serif by bringing the apex to the right.

Aha! Do you mean the angle on the foot serif on the "a" and "d"? If so, that angle should actually roughly correspond to the m/n/p (although the latter is a bit steeper, at least mathematically). I'll have a closer look at it.

Also, I'm thinking the x-line serifs may be too heavy overall. Adding that to the list.

Here's an update!

First, revised bowls:

Second, revised x-line serifs (actually, quite a bit of mini-tweakage done to serifs in general, so see PDF linked to below).

Third, new glyphs:

Overall, I'm beginning to wonder if my straight stems are heavier than the rounds.

Current PDF: http://www.altaira.de/posted/ernestine_090310.pdf

bdpq: Nice!

e: What's a "notch"? In my terminology I'd say it's "slightly" too wide. :-)
BTW, are you pulling a Patria with that huge eye?

j: It just looks heavy somehow.

u: I ain't seein' nothin'.

> I’m beginning to wonder if my straight
> stems are heavier than the rounds.

Yes actually.

hhp

Hmm… a notch is definitely more than a hair.
Actually, it's probably a hair more than a bit.  :-)

"BTW, are you pulling a Patria…"
Huh, not consciously, though I opened Patria at least five times again tonight (but mostly related to the "j"), so it's creeping deeper into my brain. Come to think of it, most of the time I can't really tell how much of Ernestine is influenced by which other fonts. Like the "a": I only consciously realized I love Patria's sans-top-terminal "a" after I decided to make mine "weak" on top; but it's still quite likely that Patria's "a" somehow registered with me previously.
Out of curiosity, for you, is it more good, or worrying, or just weird to wonder how much of Patria is in this?

"…with that huge eye?"
Hm, I was trying to make it match the bowl of the "a".
Actually, I was mostly thinking I was pulling a (slight) Ezzo on the "e", in the way it curves out and up on the right side.

"u: I ain’t seein’ nothin’."
Good.  :-)

Gonna look at the weight on those rounds. Or the straights.

[Edit:] Actually, I'm quite sad that most of the features I consciously love in Patria just don't seem to work in Ernestine. Like the foot terminal on the "a" mentioned above (and the "u" and "q"), and the tail of the "g" (although I do love mine too), and the right-side angle of the beak of the "r", and the weight/serif size ratio on the leg of the "k" as well as the serif treatment on the "x".
So I guess the influence really is more subliminal; or in other details. But it's definitely there in some form.

> I can’t really tell how much of Ernestine
> is influenced by which other fonts.

I think that's ideal. As long as that's "fonts", plural, for two reasons: the more numerous your influences the better your results; and you're less likely to offend a single source's author. In my case however the latter does not apply at all - to me it's mostly very flattering.

FWIW, some people say "Hey, Cheltenham!" when they see Patria's caps. The first time I heard that I was taken aback - but I shouldn't have been: although I didn't reference ol' Chelt consciously, it is in fact one of the fonts I fell in love with early on (although now I've mostly moved on).

That Ezzo "e" style is quite nice - and nothing like Patria's BTW: my "e" has a very hard nose, with a totally straight vertical segment at the tip - I got that (partly) from Jens Gehlhaar (who once produced an extreme incarnation of that structure).

hhp

Yes, definitely "fonts", plural. FWIW, these are the most important fonts I turn to repeatedly while making this (though some of them only via samples): Archer (though not so much anymore), Caecilia, a bit of Officina, and (lately) Oranda; a bit of Swift, and Rocky; Patria; Legato (mostly to remind me not to forget the white); Kabel; and Ezzo has been creeping in too. I probably forgot a few.
Plus, there's a definite influence from typewriter fonts, although I don't usually look at these actively. But I originally learned to read and write with a mechanical typewriter, so that stuff is about as deeply rooted in my system as it gets. (-:

>“u”: I wonder if anyone notices the funny thing I did to this.

Is it the left stem being off-vertical?

This is looking fantastic Nina!

I agree the stems look a fraction too dark for the bowls. I think j only needs a bit more work on the curve, perhaps a little bit of a wider base to open up the darkness there.

Does h look slightly too wide?

I'm looking forward to seeing the other letters. Especially s!

Nina:

Gonna look at the weight on those rounds. Or the straights.
In a fleeting glimpse, it's quickly noticeable, say, in your "d", that the width of the stem and the top serif apparent weight are optically higher than those of the bowl, at least for my "senior" vision. Again, in your pleasant hard-worked "a", straights are heavier than rounds (always talking on their –being redundant– vertical width). Actually, the stress in the bowl is negative (in red) respect to the stem.

“j”: I do think that descender needs more work, but I’m not sure how to do it.
Probably it needs just a little more air to let the ball "float" more freely –I think of the nice way you solved the end of the loop of your "g", or the opposite in your "c".

“u”: I wonder if anyone notices the funny thing I did to this.
As Hrant says, I see nothing, except for the not exactly vertical left stem (Adobe's PostScript will hate you ;-) ). The only thing that seems odd a bit –depending on how much I put my eyes on "her"– is a slightly shortness in the right top serif, that mathematically is not.

There is something disturbing for me in your "e", but I'm not sure if I'm right –I'm not sure I'm not sure :-) –, perhaps some flatness in the tail (maybe I like too much your "c"):

Is the "h" wide a little?

MarS

Wow, lots of input! Thanks guys.

"u": Yeah, what I meant is the left side being off-vertical by like 2 units. Kind of an act of desperation – that side kept optically slanting out, until I physically slanted it in. Does it work? Oh, and Marcelo, why will PS hate me for that? Hinting stuff?
Btw, the right-side serif is slightly longer than the left, but I guess it may need more!

"j": I like the idea of "giving it a bit more air". I'll try that.

"e": Marcelo, that looks quite good! I had a variant with a less-flat bottom, but couldn't really get it to work nicely – it seemed to close up too much. I'll play around with this some more.

"h": I think, I think, I agree! But I'm stumped as to why it should be looking wide. The "n" isn't, is it?

Weights: I'll need some time to figure this out. It'd be a lot easier obviously to reduce weight on the straights than to add some on the rounds, but I don't want to make it too light overall.

"I’m looking forward to seeing the other letters. Especially s!"
Uh… me too. :->

When I saw your first entry, I thought Ernestine was a beautiful hit. Nevertheless, there was a lot of space for improvement I'd never imagined then. Definitely, don't touch the width of your straights.

Marcelo, why will PS hate me for that?
Just kidding. That's coz the way PostScript manages printing: when near to vertical or horizontal, but not exactly, the interpreter has to make a lot of decisions about what to do, that is, if inking or not; the digital world is discrete, while the analogous is not; aliansing is the gap where noise comes in. Nevermind. Programmers must work for human –not machine– efficiency. As the German aircraft designer Willy Messerschmidt used to say: "You can have any combination of features the Air Ministry desires, so long as you do not also require that the resulting airplane fly". Nevermind. It makes me remind the hateful discussion with that guy of the iPhone –he would surely uppercase the "i"– and his ego.

The “n” isn’t, is it?
No, it's not. BTW, time ago I posted an uncommented log (not in the proper place) about some concerns you introduced in my mind on that matter. Still have a lot of unanswered questions.

Ben expresses my anxiety quite well 8-D .

MarS

Uh, sorry Marcelo, I sure as hell didn't want to remind you of that thread!
I don't really care if PostScript is swearing at Ernestine internally :-) – I was just wondering if I was setting myself (OK, the "u") up for a lot of (printing) problems by going this route with that stem.

I remember reading your "hmn" post – left me impressed, and stumped. It's interesting to look at it again now and see some of those fonts actually have sligthly differing widths between the "h" and "n"… that's good to see.

I was just wondering if I was setting myself (OK, the “u”) up for a lot of (printing) problems by going this route with that stem.
One easy way out is converting to curves (algorithms deal better with them):

MarS

About the h and n, your question made me look back at the pdf rather than the image above. I think the disparity may be due to the neighbouring glyphs. In the image above the h is between g and i, which are both of course narrower, whilst the n is between m and o. The hs in the pdf seem more in tune with the other letters, so we'll have to wait for the whole alphabet in block text to see if it still looks fat.

I like Marcelo's e, looks like it would go very nicely with your lovely g.

I may be unduly worrying here but to my eye the curved descenders on j and g look shorter than the straight one on p.

"the curved descenders on j and g look shorter than the straight one on p."
This is interesting – thanks! I'm still experimenting with the amount of undershoot the curvy descenders should get, and it's currently less than the overshoot zones at the x-line and the baseline (which I've also been figuring out more exactly recently), so it's quite possible it's not enough.
The problem is, like you said too, both the length of the straight ones and that of the curved ones looks good to me when seen in isolation. :-|
Will play around a bit and try and make them line up better.

Also, interesting point about the "h"/"n" width "illusion". I might just hold off on actually changing the "h" until the rest of the lowercase is born.

It might be a matter of enlarging the whole glyph g, fractionally, to preserve the proportions, then getting the strokes the right weight, or the other way round with the p.

I suspect the non-baseline sitting g-bowl could be playing subtle tricks on the eye in this equation too.

What do the others think?

I suspect the non-baseline sitting g-bowl could be playing subtle tricks on the eye in this equation too.
That's what I was going to say.

c - does the top curl around too far before terminating?
j - is indeed cramped looking
e - I wasn't sure at first glance (too eager?) but I've decided I really like it. The large counter works great with the flavor of the font that's emerging.

Personally I don't really like the serif-lightening you're doing - foot serif of d and head serif of p in particular look wimpy to me now, at large sizes anyway. But that one inside line we were talking about before looks great to me now.

and your specimen text is very entertaining!

Thanks Craig.
"c - does the top curl around too far before terminating?"
I don't think I get this. :-(
Are you wondering about raising the ball / flattening the top curve?

"foot serif of d and head serif of p in particular look wimpy to me now, at large sizes anyway."
Oh, not good. I agree that cutting off that corner makes them lighter optically, which probably isn't a good thing. Though I'm not sure they don't work okay in text. I should probably put a PDF together soon that has more text at intended text sizes… but that's still going to take a moment – it's pretty hard to think up anything resembling text with only 16 letters! ;-)

Off-topic, sorry – I'm just curious.
Hrant,
"my “e” has a very hard nose, with a totally straight vertical segment at the tip - I got that (partly) from Jens Gehlhaar"
Might there be some Avance influence in it as well? I just noticed this.

I've never looked at the outlines of Avance, and that segment is too small to see by eye. As you can check, in my "e" the segment is so tall even the inside counter has part of it.

hhp

I don’t think I get this. :-(
Are you wondering about raising the ball / flattening the top curve?

I'm looking at the vertical relation of the top and bottom ends.

The ball at top stretches over the bottom - it shares this with the 'e' (it's what I meant by "eager" in that context) but IMO it doesn't work as well in the 'c'. At first I was going to suggest rolling back the top end, but now I'm thinking to retain the roundness of the whole, it might work better to extend the lower end out (and probably up). I think it can be more different from the bottom of the 'e' (which, with its crossbar, is a different context) than it is, while still maintaining a genetic resemblance.

Ahh, thanks for the explanation, Craig! Does it look top-heavy/overbite-y? Somehow when I moved the bottom out more, it looked strange (like it was having an underbite). I'll try again though, and maybe post some variants.

Cheers Hrant – I was just wondering. :-)

OK. I got immersed in the "s", and it has opened up a little can of worms. :-)
(The changes discussed earlier are still coming up; just got quite caught up in this.)

To recap, the "s" I originally intended has one ball terminal on top and no ball/serif on the bottom (like #2 below). I like the concept, but it kept looking pretty lopsided/contorted/unnatural. So just to open up the field again, I did some thinking about my options; this is what I came up with:

Options I'm definitely unhappy with in grey.
Also, I know the curves still need some work; but I'm hoping not to do the serious tweaking six times! So I hope these are worked out enough to tell if the respective concepts could work.

Some notes/comments –
1: Works, but probably looks too naked in the context of a slab serif font. Also makes me queasy when I think about the caps.
2: Still my favorite, but still a bit awkward; I'm hoping it's only a matter of execution. Would nicely match the "c" while not clashing with the "a".
3: Seems like the obvious solution, but looks too cute and too cluttered/busy to me. Also makes the weak-topped "a" look like a mistake.
4: This struck me after looking at my old typewriter again – typewriter fonts tend to have ball terminals on things like the "a", "c", "j", &c., but outwards-pointing serifs on the "s" (as well as on many caps). I'm not at all happy with it, and don't think it works for Ernestine (see the "q"), but happy I tried it.
5: Tried to combine #2 and #4 in an effort to make #2 less top-heavy. Looks like a zombie up close, and is probably too distracting in text, but was interesting to try.
6: Variation on #4, moving the serifs inside the curves. I like this better than #4, and think it works okay, but doesn't click with too much in the font (except the "z", which isn't there yet).

I'm not quite sure. I think, I think, I'd probably most like to continue on the #2 route; but I'm wondering if you guys think it's actually possible to make it look truly good and balanced (I'm finding it tough). Also, when I think ahead to the terminals on the caps, I'd probably feel most at ease with #2 or maybe #3; though I'm wondering about #6 as well, and any thoughts on the "permissibleness" of #1.

So here's a PDF with all 6 variants tested in a short paragraph at 9pt:
http://www.altaira.de/posted/ernestine-s-6variants.pdf

My first impulse was to say 2 and 3 are the only legitimate options, but you may want to give redrawing #4 a chance. Move the top serif down and let it close the aperture a bit - so that the inside curve of the top counter almost hits vertical (becoming the edge of the vertical slab serif) and do the same for the bottom serif. (Don't know if that description made sense.)

I never realized how many ball-terminal fonts don't use ball terminals on 's' until you made me go look!

Considering your "c" is probably final, I think you have to use a ball form, not a serif form. So either #2, #3, or... ball on the bottom and nothing on top! Assuming it doesn't look too peculiar, it would: pull away from the "c" while still being related; nicely echo the "a" on top; and nicely echo the "g" on the bottom.

hhp

"I never realized how many ball-terminal fonts don’t use ball terminals on ’s’"
Same here, Craig! I was pretty surprised.

Re #4 above, here's the acs treatment in
- my old typewriter (a 1958 Hermes 3000),
- Fine Line, a typewriter font from IBM,
- Alphabet Centre Georges Pompidou (1976) by Frutiger, based on Fine Line.

With the need to accommodate a serif on the outside, the curves definitely get a different character. I tried to bend them in as gently as I could, and I suspect you're right that I'd have to do it more strongly to make the shape work; but closing up counters and making curves less flat/open is precisely one thing I'm reluctant to do in Ernestine (which is also why I gave up on putting a spike on top of the "q"). It seems out of character somehow; and this treatment in particular makes a lot less practical sense to me than it seems to add noise. Though maybe I'm not seeing something.

"ball on the bottom and nothing on top"
Hrant, good point. I did try that previously, but it seemed even more lopsided than the top-balled one, so it didn't make it into this round. Looking at it again, I probably ruled it out too quickly. (Please forgive bumpiness of curves.)

As long as you're casting a wide net for possibilities, these asymmetrical terminals make me think you might want to play with asymmetrical bowls (if that's the right word). For example what would this last option look like with a narrower and shorter top loop?

No, I think you were right to dump the form I suggested... :-/

Personally I'm starting to favor the double-ball one - not mosty because the single-top-ball one looks strange, but because I think the double one makes the "s" belong in the font more.

BTW, I wouldn't make an alternate just for the "s"; if you do that then you should have a... "ballsy" :-) option to fire up a bunch of extra ball terminals, for example on the "a".

hhp

You mean something like this, Craig?

Oh, cross post.
Hrant, do you think the top-balled version works better than the bottom-balled one?

"I think the double one makes the “s” belong in the font more"
Really? Even next to the "a"?
It looks so cute. :-/

I'm not really thinking too much about alternates right now. Sure there are some things that might be nice to have as alternates, but I'm kinda first wanting to find "The One Shape I Really Want To Be In The Font And Makes The Most Sense In It" (ha).

I find 2 and 6 work very well. Version 2 is a less obvious and more unique shape, though I think the spine could move up a few units? I personally like the shape of 6 and it reads equally well in the sample text.

> do you think the top-balled version works better than the bottom-balled one?

Do you mean top-only vs bottom-only?
Yes, the bottom-only is pretty lousy.

> Really? Even next to the “a”?

I dunno. Maybe it's too early to decide.

hhp

:-D
Yeah, I'm keeping a few versions of the "s" (tentatively, at least all of the balled ones, and the inside-serifed one) and am now working on the rest.

Ben, I think the spine on #2 has the problem that it needs to be a tiny little "too" low, otherwise the top looks cramped and the bottom too empty. But I'll try and see if it can handle another couple units.

So, what's wrong with this?

MarS

"what’s wrong with this?"
Hmm, the doubts I have are that it:
1) makes the lack of a ball terminal on the "a" (a decision I would like to consider as final) look strange, or like a mistake;
2) strangely looks too flat overall, like it doesn't have enough overshoot? (And I'm not sure I want to use larger overshoot values just for this one glyph – but if I bend the curves in more to make it less "flat", the terminals close up the counters a lot and make things even busier.)
3) looks primarily pretty and maybe a bit conceited, as opposed to serious and working; maybe also evoking too much of the usual Archer association. But maybe I'm judging that too harshly… in the end, other glyphs are a bit "special" too.
I just don't want this to go too far down the "decorative" route.

It looks twiddly to me.

"Twiddly"? Sorry. Does that mean something like fiddly?

Yes, exactly.
twiddly
Kind of needless and ticklish.

Aah thanks! Yeah, I tend to agree. :-/
On verra… I'm gonna fix some of those other glyphs first.

Looks interesting, but maybe slightly too funky?
[...] I just don’t want this to go too far down the “decorative” route.

Right. You've reached an uncomfortable place climbing up the mountain.
All in all, your "s" #2 seems to be the adequate (and natural) choice.
I'd put it within your todo list for a while.
By here we use to say something lik "let's wait until it dawns".

MarS

"let’s wait until it dawns"
:-) That's beautiful (and befitting). (I'm still glad to hear you like #2!)
It's not like I'm getting bored with this font anytime soon anyway… ;-)

So the lowercase is somewhat complete now. New PDF attached up top: ernestine_lc_v3.pdf.

Apart from a bunch of new glyphs ("f", "k", "r", "t", vwxyz, plus some diacritics and such), I've been doing a lot of tweaking: mostly things previously discussed here, such as figuring out the weights of rounds vs. straights, and the overshoots on the descenders. I think it looks more balanced now, although the spacing is still raw.

**

There are some glyphs that I know are still somewhere between slightly problematic and totally not working.
"s" I think is most problematic in terms of being bumpy and probably top-heavy?
The single-balled one kept looking strange, so I exchanged it for the double-balled one. I still think this is slightly too cute and slightly too busy, but it looks more like an "s" somehow; it's a bit less distracting. But if anyone can advise me on its width, that'd be greatly appreciated. I haven't really understood yet how the "s" is really narrow in some fonts and pretty wide in others, and most of all, how wide mine should be.
"k": Not sure if it's too cute/strange, although I still like it.
"i"/"j": Does the tittle need to be higher?
"t": Does this work? Still not sure what matters in a "t", but I do kinda like this one.
I'll be happy to hear your opinions and feed-back!

**

So after this, next up is: seriously working out spacing (which I expect will necessitate re-tweaking some of the glyphs), and setting up the caps. I'm really looking forward to those, as well as the numerals.

Hi, Nina!
It seems you've hard working on 'Tine. At a very first sight, let me tell you some of my thoughts:
"s": you've got a good quiz here; besides of your concerns (and before progressing in any direction) I guess that you should consider to slant its spine a bit: to my eyes, it looks very horizontal and static.
"k": it's a very attractive/appealing character that notably doesn't interfere when put in body text; certainly original, I'd leave it as is.
"i"/"j": tittles are in tune.
"t": perhaps it needs to be taller and, maybe, a little wider; all in all, I like its shape, but I see it quite small.
Beyond the pretty long-studied "g" (well, our common matter ;-) ...) I like the "e", "c", "a", "r", "b" and "y" the most, probably in that order.
About the third page in the PDF, it immediatly reminds me the word harmony.
i'd like to see your numerals... asap!

MarS

Hi Marcelo! Thanks for your feed-back.

Regarding "s" and "t":

I'll need to look at this for a bit. The changes in the "s" will need to be done a bit more carefully; but this is what you meant, yes? I am a bit worried this messes too much with the NW and SE "corners" – it makes them a bit "pointy"? Slanting the spine would certainly be easier if the glyph wasn't as wide.
Re the "t", I think this works very well! Thanks. (I only made it a very little bit taller, as I don't want it to be too close to what I expect will be the cap height. But the new width I think is better, especially in the foot.)

"i’d like to see your numerals... asap!"
Yessir! :-D
Actually, I've started making caps. That's a lot of fun! The numerals still need to be thought out for a bit, though.

I like the new t too. I wonder if the foot could curve more symmetrically, with the extremum further to the right, or would that not work well?
The first s works better for me, though I do think something about the spine looks fishy. I wonder if the second one can be improved by shifting the upper and lower extrema left and right respectively to make the 'pointy' curves more round than flat?? Or go the other way completely and make the spine more horizontal and the whole thing a touch wider? Tough call.
I'm looking forward to the caps and numerals too. The numerals always take me much longer to visualise.
Funny, I love the g e and a too. And m and n.

Red 's' and green 't' are better. Actually I think that 't' may be my new favorite glyph of Ernestine. That 's' sure is vexing. At any point did you try smaller ball terminals?

I think 'w' is too wide. I might like to see the center vertex raised a little, too, but first I'd try narrowing the letter.

'x''s top and bottom counters look a little cramped. I wonder what it would look like if you kept the serifs where they are but started the diagonal strokes more on the outside of them (so you have less steep horizontals and larger top and bottom counters, while retaining the width of the glyph).

The acute accent on e (and probably on y) looks too far right to me. You may want to lighten your oslash, too.

The 'k' is closer to working for me than it used to be, but its arm still looks rather too droopy to me.

'g''s ear pops out a little when followed by a letter with x-height head serifs (e.g. n or r), but I don't know that that's anything worth worrying about.

You convinced me on my critique thread that the umlaut- and i-dots need not align, but seeing "böig" here I wonder if they should be a little closer in height.

Every update of this never fails to impress!

Ooh, thanks for your words guys :)

After looking at this for another day, I think I agree that the old "s" works better. I don't really know where to go with the "s"; but I'm thinking, one way or another, its spine has to firm up a bit, get more direction. It seems… wobbly.

"At any point did you try smaller ball terminals?"
Craig, I didn't. That's an interesting idea. I've been a bit wary of introducing too many different sizes of balls (and serifs), but the "s" might really benefit from smaller ones. I'll try this.

Thanks for the tips on "w" and "x" (and the rest)! I'm going to try out your suggestions. I fully agree the "x" looks cramped. I haven't yet been able to produce one that looked moderately happy. :-\

Re the "k"'s arm seeming droopy, do you think bringing it closer to the architecture of the "r" might work? (In terms of "more upward thrust")

"’g”s ear pops out a little when followed by a letter with x-height head serifs"
:-) I noticed this too today and had to laugh. It's like the serifs tickle it under the ear or something. Then again, as long as there are ticklish ears like this around (and yes I love Parry's "g"), I guess I needn't worry about that. ;-)

Re "böig": Dunno, I must admit I really like my umlauts low like this. But I'll try raising them a hair and see what that does. It might still be a bit unbalanced.

Ben, with the "t", you might be on to something:

I'm not sure, I think the second one is more harmonious, but maybe also a bit more boring? Reminds me of the handle of an umbrella. ;-) But spontaneously, I like this a lot more than I thought I would. Although of course now I don't want to spoil Craig's new favorite glyph. :-)

"I’m looking forward to the caps and numerals too."
Somebody save me from myself. I made my first ever OT feature today (because I was running out of other keys to stick alternates on, so I figured I'd just make a salt feature), and now all I'm doing is playing around making funny cap ligatures. :-{
Anyway, I think I'll be able to post some caps soon! Cheers.

Yes, perhaps it is more boring. I don't know. Both work for me. I don't know at all.

>now all I’m doing is playing around making funny cap ligatures. :-{

Ahh. Yes, I had a phase of creating useless silly 3-letter ligatures in Eternal at one point. Later I went through and realised they had to go. I think I've still got an f ligated to an eth in there! ;)

Re the “k”’s arm seeming droopy, do you think bringing it closer to the architecture of the “r” might work?
Yes, that's just what I was thinking of suggesting.

The change to 't''s tail doesn't make me fall out of love with it (it's actually the Clarendon-like top that I fell for). Both look great, but the asymmetrical one may work better with your 'e'.

Yeah, it's weird with this new "t", it's almost too harmonious. Too friendly; somehow I don't trust it yet. Going up on the wall.
That's pretty cool that you fell for the *top* of it, Craig! One feature that had me pretty desperate. I'm no big fan of Clarendon, so I'm not sure it came from there, but I do like it too.

"I think I’ve still got an f ligated to an eth in there"
Priceless. :-D
(Try pronouncing that!)

I know, it's idiotic! :)

LOL. That is priceless. :-D

What can I say?! I got carried away! :D Beware the dangers of whimsical ligatures...it's a slippery slope!

Hmm… here's a curious dilemma. I'd appreciate some opinions.

Looking at the "A" alone:

…the left hand one definitely looks better to me. I tried not to like it (I'm not generally a fan of head serifs on "A"s), but it seems fitting. I think the other one looks too naked, and kind of bland too.

However, as soon as I add diacritics and stuff:

…now the head serif is completely too much, and in the way. Except in the "AE", which seems to look stupid without the serif. :-\

Question: Do you guys think I could get away with putting a head serif on the basic "A", but then dropping the serif as soon as diacritics join the fun? Or is that confusing / a bad idea?

If the "serifage" should be standardized: Would you agree that it's most important that the basic "A" looks good, even if it cramps the "diacriticized" "A"s a bit, rather than the other way round?

I could also of course just leave it as is, which is the head-serifed one as the standard, and a stylistic set for the head-serif-less "A" and friends. But I don't want to do that just because I'm not able to *decide*. :-)
Opinions?

Your 'A' looks a bit wide to me. I realize that's not what you asked about, but changing the proportions might change the way these options read.

My two cents on the question you did ask: I think dropping the serif when adding diacritics is on the same level as making 'f''s terminal into a tittle for an 'i' in a ligature, or removing an 'i''s dot to add a circumflex; that is, I'm good with it!

Well I share the same opinion. The head serif looks good on the plain A and the AE, but looks crowded on the others. Did you try making a smaller serif there? Though that may look like an undecided halfway point. I reckon the shape can be different too.

I think the height is pretty good, perhaps it could go up a fraction but I'd have to see a pdf to be sure. I like your ER and Y.

Cheers Ben. I didn't think of a smaller serif. I'll try that.

About the "A" serif: I guess I worry that when one sees an "A" (with serif) after a couple of say "Ä"s (lacking a serif), one might then spontaneously mistake the head serif for a diacritic of sorts, since one gets used to those little bits up there carrying meaning, but then the head serif doesn't. I certainly don't want to cause any confusion just because I think the serif looks good. I'll need to test that.

"I think the height is pretty good, perhaps it could go up a fraction but I’d have to see a pdf to be sure."
I'll post one soon-ish. I was thinking of maybe making them a *hair* higher too, but it seems like a good idea to steer clear of the ascender head serifs (say in "Th").

"I like your ER and Y"
Wow, what a strange selection. :-)

>since one gets used to those little bits up there carrying meaning

Maybe you could use language features to use the seriffed A for languages like English where we don't see diacritics, then have the serifless one for languages where it'll be used in text with accents?

>steer clear of the ascender head serifs
I agree.

>strange selection
I like the way E has no serifs on the crossbar, the rather wide bowl of R and the neat proportions of Y. I think the vertical serifs on L and T could be longer.

OK, here's a pretty major update, including caps and 3 sets of numerals.
New PDF attached up top: Ernestine_v3.pdf.

***

Caps: Still rather rough, so I'm all ears for proportions and weights that are off, etc.
I think I've pretty much settled for the short and wide overall proportions, I think it fits the font quite nicely.

"A": I've decided for the head-serif-less one at least for now; it does seem to be more "usable" / less problematic.
"L", "T": Ben, I made the vertical serifs a hair longer. I think I did. But the ones on the "T" quickly run me into collision problems (tittles, x-height stuff).
"M", "N" etc.: I've found that I'm having to do a lot of optical corrections (trapping, thinning of strokes, &c.) on some glyphs. Please let me know if this works for you; I don't quite trust my printer.

***

Numerals: also still rough, irregularities in weights.

*

***

Some minor tweaks done to the lc too. Craig, thanks for pointing me to the arm of the "k"! I've made it less droopy, and it seems much better. I also made the "w" narrower, and I think I'm getting close to figuring out the "s" (which does involve slightly smaller ball terminals, and a more symmetrical curve).
Don't look at the germandbls – that one's still under heavy construction.
Oh, and spacing is *still* rough. :-\

***

BTW, Ernestine is nearing its first public use on a book cover. It's pretty scary!

Anyway: As always, I'd be most happy for feed-back. I'm looking forward to pushing this further.

-Nina

Exciting progress!
Some notes from my once-over:

- ft combination (in "Fifty") is just utterly lovely!
- exclamation point is nice
- center vertex of M is too fragile.
- placement of Q's tail seems somewhat arbitrary, "tacked-on." Would starting it more vertically as it comes off the bowl mesh with the "perpendicularity" of the slab serifs better? (Or would that sap it of energy?)
- I know there are encroaching neighbors to consider but could you give yet another hair to the vertical serifs of E/F/T/L/Z? (perhaps 2/3/7 too)
- too much contrast in arms of Y, and maybe X too. Or are my eyes playing tricks on me?
- inconsistent stroke widths: (cap) Z's diagonal seems slimmer while (lc) z's diagonal is thicker
- maybe enlarge the counter of the ring diacritic
- strengthen the middle arm-and-serif (the one at the right, at e-crossbar height) of the ampersand
- the overhang of proportional one's flag over the bottom serif looks goofy to me in the big specimen, but in the text context not so much.
- did you try some kind of taper on the base stroke of tabular one?
- I might lower the middle vertex of all the threes
- I'd try a serif (maybe an upward slab) at the top terminal of your fives
- I'm totally on-board with your foot-seriffed sevens
- wide, offset form of eight looks good - maybe make the bottom bowl a touch rounder (less squarish)
- I agree that you should consider your k fixed! :-)

This is VERY exciting to see! :)
It's looking wonderful and neat already.
I'm going to be picky!
The caps are really nice. I think I mentioned before the ERY being my favourites. I think G could have a longer crossbar. J is pleasant. The curly arm of K looks slightly weak somehow, like it's not quite sure it should be curling like that. I think it needs more weight on the NW corner of the terminal?
On M, I think the centre vertex should have a narrower bevel, bringing the bottom of the join down a few units. N seems maybe wide a little.
I agree with Craig about Q. Is the tail past 6 o'clock? I actually think a tail like on Lubalin Graph might work well.
S works well. The arms of T look like the serifs need more, but appreciate they might start interfering with other letters. On X the offset looks a bit too great.
LF: I like the goofy 1! The 2 and 3 work nicely. 4 I'm not sure. The crossbar looks maybe a bit high. Try a serif on the top of 5. Did you try ball terminals on 6 and 9? They're nice shapes but maybe balls would fit well too. I like 7 and 8. The foot serif on 7 works nicely. 0 looks eggy. I'm wondering if your brackets are too roundy...but would have to see in context to be sure. The diacritics look good to me.
I really like the OSF, they work especially nicely in text. The stem of 7 looks maybe a bit heavy. It could taper slightly towards the top. Otherwise I can't fault them!
ACtually I haven't been able to print today so these comments are based on the large sizes on screen, so perhaps they aren't so relevant for small text sizes.

Wow, thanks for the detailed comments guys!

Since you both mentioned the "Q", here are some previous variants, which I found less fitting than the one that's in there now:

*

Craig:

"did you try some kind of taper on the base stroke of tabular one?"
I did try to make it sort of an extended serif. It looked positively weird (since it got so long that the angle got really close to horizontal so it looked like a mistake); though the taperless bar does too. Hm.

"I’d try a serif (maybe an upward slab) at the top terminal of your fives"
An upward serif! Wicked idea. I'll so try this.

"ft combination (in “Fifty”) is just utterly lovely!"
Thanks! It's my favorite glyph combination so far. I've tried ligating it (see here), but I'm not sure that makes it better.

Ben:

"I think G could have a longer crossbar"
That might just be what's wrong with the thing. I couldn't put my finger on why it's looking so strange.

"Did you try ball terminals on 6 and 9?"
Hm, no, I was worried they'd get too congested. But I'll see if it might work.

"0 [zero] looks eggy."
That's intended. Does it look stupid?
Weird story: I got that idea from the Swiss licence number plates. I've always liked that zero (example from Wikipedia):

*

Thanks again, this is very helpful. I'll be feeding the to-do list and let little E rest for a few days.

Not stupid, just a little surprising when the other letters are geometric.

I think Q #5 has potential - I can see it working well with your K - though its sounds like you're not planning to return down that road.

I've realised Q is a horrible glyph to design. Good luck.
What would your third version look like with a vertical serif on the end?

Guys, just to be clear: do you think there a problem with the current "Q", meaning that it doesn't really work that well (beyond the "uncertain" join of the tail)? Or are you just curious about exploring alternatives?
Because I like the current form, and am not sure yet I see a cogent reason to head back down into the bewildering depths of "Q" land. But if there is one, I will.

Craig, #5 isn't "bad" formally; it just seems so dramatically oldstyle in the context of Ernestine's wide, slabby "simpleness" that I found it almost comical. Almost as wrong as the rather disturbing mental image of… Ernestine Swash. :-\

For me, the existing Q looks like something is missing. It somehow looks a bit blank or bland and uncommunicative, like it doesn't quite know what to do with itself. It's not a bad shape in itself, I just don't think it fits with the other shapes which are more developed with serifs and balls. That's just my feeling, I don't have a reason except what my eyes tell me. Remember the salt :)

I think the head serif on J might need to be wider.

Otherwise, wow, good good stuff. The eggy 0 is growing on me. I'm amazed this is your first font! Yum :)

Thanks Ben :) I think I see what you mean about the "Q". Thing is, I can't really put a terminal on the tail if I keep its shape this way. Guess I'll detail-fiddle with it some more and try to make it work better.

"J": I'll have another look at the head serif. But I'm surprised nobody has complained about the curve (what is that thing called, the left/curvy part of "J"?). I'm not sure I like it at all. Hmm. Maybe it could be more tense/energetic?

"I’m amazed this is your first font!"
OK, OK, I'll link to this again:
http://typophile.com/node/54857
;-)

I did feel the J tail looked less polished...but couldn't decide why, so thought it wouldn't be constructive just to complain about it :)

I hadn't seen your first first font, but as this is the first serious font, it's still very cool :)

I’ve tried ligating it (see here), but I’m not sure that makes it better.
Nah, the fit is just right unligated.

Yes, Ben's descriptions fit my feeling about the Q, too. Did (or would) you consider having the tail loop around from the right stroke, something like this?
(pictured only for structure, not proportions or placement necessarily)
Might allow for a ball terminal, be a fresher solution, fit in with your signature 'g'...

THAT is Popeye! :-D

Curling from the right side didn't occur to me. Dunno, maybe I should explore some such options. I don't want to purposely make it "special", or curly, or cute; so maybe it would be too much. But I'll have to try and see.
Thanks for the input, will need to process it :)

As I eat my Quiche I ponder your Q. I hope this isn't rude of me, and maybe it's too cute and/or twiddly:

Mm, quiche :)

That would be funny in an animation with Craig's. It looks interesting – a bit more determined, I like that. Hmm.

Popeye's fist strikes again. :-)

To semi-wrap up this looong thread, my type design class formally ends this weekend, and I'll be presenting the state of my design. I had a little specimen booklet printed*, which really is quite the feeling (and I'm trying, at the moment, not to focus too much on seeing the mistakes…)

* There are a couple of pix on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ninastoessinger/3595003139/

The booklet of course includes a big thankyou to you guys. Typophile has been a major driving force behind this.

Ooh, how exciting!!!
Well done and congratulations! The specimen looks amazing. I'll certainly be e-mailing for a copy!

Hrm. Can't edit previous post.

Does this mean you'll be working on another font, or taking a break from type design completely?

Thanks Ben! Yeah just send me your addy :-)

"Does this mean you’ll be working on another font"
Nah, there is no other font. The thing is, I've got tons of other work piled up, and I'm leaving for a vacation in a month, so I'm not sure how much time I can put into this font until then. Plus my eyes, I think, could use a little break.
Although "taking a break from type design completely" does sound very, very sad… I'll probably do little things; just not work on it intensely for the next weeks.

Overall though I'm all set, and have my plan laid out for the next few months.
I'm looking forward to doing some sketching of other weights, and the italics :-)
It's going to be exciting. But I need more time.

* Gratulation! * … Sehr schön!

Dankeschön! :-)

Hi Nina. Ok, so I finally got around to giving some crit on the specimen booklet you sent (thank you again!) and here are my opinions. I think I've said some of these things previously and you may have investigated my suggestions before, I don't know. Remember the salt!

At large sizes, G looks like the crossbar should be wider, extending more into the counterspace. The bowl of J looks like something pulled its SW curve outwards a little. I wonder whether the vertical serifs on L and T should be longer; I think usually these are more pronounced than horizontal serifs. Q...you know what I'd do with its tail. I think this is the glyph most needing work. I love R (and BDP)...somehow I find these shapes really hard to draw and yours have a nice poise and tautness. V...the contrast works really well, it's almost unnoticeable. Y as well. Did you try a higher midpoint on the W? Z: longer serifs? Looks like the lc z has larger serifs than the uc.

Lowercase. These are really beautiful. I really admire them. I like the way there's the balance between quite rigid shapes (a, d, h, x) and unique elements (g, k, s, y). I like the way the a and c have slight tapering towards the terminals...the curves are nicely placed so as to be not too curly and cute but not too sharp and straight. I'd like to see similar inflection on the hood of the f, which perhaps looks a bit too curved before the ball terminal. I wonder if that might also resolve the s in a more satisfying way, I know you weren't quite happy with the s. I think the descender of j could need a tweak. Now, with k, I'm afraid there's something distracting at small sizes where the eye notices there's something going on but can't quite tell when reading. I'd make the bar shorter so as to not be noticeable so much when small but can be a feature at large sizes, perhaps. The join might also benefit from being lower down the stem. The letters I haven't mentioned I think are actually very good, lovely.

Numerals. 7 usually has a heavy top stroke and less weight on the diagonal, doesn't it? Or a thinner part near the top widening out to the baseline. I think there may be slightly too much weight on your downstroke, only a hair. And I'd make the hanging-down serif longer. I find 4 a bit pinched at the apex. It looks like it starts with a lovely curve at the crossbar then turns a bit flatter as it approaches the apex and the overall shape (counter) is a bit narrow looking. Maybe this is just my taste. Should lf 3 have a lower midpoint? The egg-shaped zero puzzles me.

I originally thought 10pt was the best, now I'm seeing it works very well at 8pt too, perhaps best. The general colour, spacing and proportions all look marvellous. The remarks above don't apply so much, though I'd still make the vertical serifs longer. It looks good in all caps. I like the fi lig, the fl one sticks out a bit slightly perhaps (is that a contextual alternate or a discretionary lig?)

Diacritics...I'm no expert at all at all but tilde looks a little shy and flat. I like the idea of the Polish acute as a language alternate...how do you write the feature code to do that?

@ is very nice. I like the cover!

Dagger might be too detailed/too small. Is there a double dagger? Quotation marks seem to be right handed or straight but no left handed? Curly brackets...maybe curve more round at the top...seems there's not enough 'backbone' compared with the tautness of the alphabetic glyphs...get a shape that harmonises with a perhaps.

£ could have a wider hood, looks a bit mean and overbitey. # and Yen are very nice.

Spacing. a needs a notch less on the left. r_t lig is a bit tight. lbar_y looks great. There's something very odd with ak and nk. rn might be a bit close, see in 'Ernestine'. Other than that, I'm afraid I'm space-blind, so I won't comment. It's a hard, hard thing, good luck!

Hope this has been useful...as you always say, it's good not just for the person who drew the type but for others who are learning how to look for things and how they work. Thanks! :)

Wow, thank you! You know you didn't *have* to do this – but I greatly appreciate it. I hope I'll have time soon to continue working on this. Then I can get back in more detail.

Just these 2 things for now:

The "l" in "fl" is a contextual alternate at the moment (like in "fb", "fh", and "fk"). This is mostly for German where these can't always be physically ligated (there are grammatical rules). That said, I may well make an additional "fl" lig that's similar to the "fi" in concept.

[Q] "I think this is the glyph most needing work."
Really? I dislike my "j" much more (and am considering some rather unorthodox measures to make it work).
Actually, I still like my "Q". Hm. This might be a case of having to put it away for a couple more weeks & then maybe I'll be able to see what might be wrong with it…

Aah, I get the fl better now. Does German also use ligated fl, and how would the font know when to use the calt or the liga?

An unorthodox j? Sounds delicious!

It might be an idea to ask others about the Q. To me it looks coy and slightly bashful, like (do you remember?) the black f I originally drew in Eternal. When I showed the Ernestine booklet to my housemate (who doesn't know very much about type), he thought the Q stuck out as different. I think a ball terminal is the way to go, but there may be better solutions. These things are so subjective. I'd definitely put it away for a couple of weeks and come back to it with fresh eyes anyway...have a nice break from type design!

I wanted to crit, it's a good process of learning to see and learning to articulate and in fact learning to draw too, so you're more than welcome! :)

bravo!
und das "k" ist doch gut :)

Many, many thanks to all those (here and elsewhere) who have lent their sharp eye and alerted me to things to look at! I'd [finally] like to address a few points here (Ben, sorry for doing that soo late!).

*

One thing that's often criticized is the shortness of vertical serifs in the caps. There's a reason for that: My caps are very short; and if I make the vertical serifs any longer, subsequent lowercase letters will start crashing into things like the "T". Kerning things under those serifs is already pushing it now; so I'm reluctant to make them longer, although I'm wondering if this might be another nice application of contextual alternates.

"At large sizes, G looks like the crossbar should be wider"
How about at small sizes?* I'm not sure about that thing – when I make the crossbar longer it looks stupid too. I'm beginning to think it's good the way it is.
(* Ben, you can check that in the specimen, on the page that has the large lowercase alphabet, there's a "G" in the bottom right.)

My numerals deliberately follow a "romanized" contrast scheme, hence the foot serif on the "7" – and the heavy downstroke. But, I did thin its top join a little.

*

I officially suck at making tildes, commas, and curly braces. The tilde I'm still procrastinating on, and the comma's being worked, but here's a new attempt at braces:

Good good stuff Nina. I'm happy you're back on with Ernestine!

Ok let me dig out the specimen!

That G, yes, I'd say it's true at small sizes too. I checked the other 10pt Gs in the specimen too — not sure why I specified large sizes!

Regarding vertical serifs on the caps, it should only be F and T that could crash into lc glyphs, no? Fe and Tr look like they still has room for a longer serif (though I don't think you had kerning in the specimen I haveI didn't find any others that looked in danger of crashing. Did you space the caps with caps or lc?

>I officially suck at making tildes, commas, and curly braces.
These are *really* hard for me too. Maybe try giving the nose-point a bevel and open up the inner sides; you don't have sharp points on other glyphs.

£ is a good shape. I'd bring the crossbar down to make the top and bottom counters more equal. (It won't match the E crossbar.)

I'll look forward to seeing your new j up close in a pdf.

>Thinking about a “Q” with a tail in the vein of the “j” and “g”.
You mean like Bookman? What's your current feeling on the original Q? (I mean don't just change it on my account!)

I can't really comment on eszett for readability, but I like the shape.

Thanks for the link; I still don't quite get it, but will make an effort to get to grips with it when I start coding features into my fonts (so far just have the very simple ones like liga, dlig and calt). Har.

Nice nice nice :)

Is there a PDF of the booklet I could look at?

EDIT: 100th AND 200th posts on this thread!

Craig, I don't really want to put that full specimen online, especially now that it's out of date. But I'll gladly mail you one if you give me a ground address to use. And I'll likely post a new, updated PDF soon. But some things (like that "j") are just too early to seriously put up for crits.
(Oh, there's also going to be a new print specimen, as the Very Final Extra-Late Additional Presentation for my type design class will be on in three weeks. If you want one let me know. I'll probably get a few extra printed.)

I'll look at that "G" again Ben. You think "Tr" still has room? I had to kern "Tu" recently and that was No Fun. But maybe I'm being too cautious with my baby font. BTW that specimen doesn't have any kerning at all, as far as I remember, or maybe only "Ve" and "Vo" and a couple of obvious things like that.

The curly braces have bevels, but I guess they're still too sharp.
Thanks for the pointer on the pound sign!

"What’s your current feeling on the original Q? (I mean don’t just change it on my account!)"
You weren't the only one; it's now a small crowd that doesn't seem very convinced about the "Q". I can see where the criticism comes from, although frankly now I'm just not sure what I think.
Bookman? That looks a bit like what I have now. But yeah, like the tail of the "g" mirrored perhaps? A bit curvier than now, and possibly with a ball. I'll need to play around with it, it was just a thought really, not much node-pushing done yet.

Returning here to finally announce that FF Ernestine has just been released by the awesome FSI:
https://www.fontfont.com/fonts/ernestine

Some surprises in there for those who don't know yet. The glyph set has grown a lot, including an Armenian companion that Hrant has drawn. There's an Italic, a ton of other stuff, go have a look :-)

I've made a micro site with some showings and background info:
http://ernestinefont.com

Fantastically good work. Love it. Congratulations again!

* * * HERZLICHEN GLÜCKWUNSCH!! * * *

BRAVO!!!

Wonderful to see! You should put a thread in the Releases forum too.

Congratulations! And congratulations to Hrant too, he must not be forgotten. May Ernestine make you both rich and famous.

Thanks guys! And thanks most of all to Nina for trusting in me.

hhp

Thank you all. I'm pretty overwhelmed right now. Thanks especially to Hrant who has been a super designer and person to work with.

Craig: Good point! Trying to make a Release thread but getting server errors all the time. I'm working on it, I guess.

Nina,

I think Release notification threads need approval by one of the moderators. They are all on West Coast time so their day is just beginning :-)

Bravo to you. too, Hrant!!! That is super looking Armenian!