As you say, 1 and 3 are good, normal forms. I like 2 as well, but wonder how it will fit with the rest of the glyphs. I also wonder if you could lengthen the descender a bit as well, at least for display settings. 1 & 2 together might give some interest for words with two gg's (eggs, for example).

4 is odd, but not unserviceable. What would it look like if the like joined the bowl a tad bit higher? (The angle of the straight edge of the sharp link catches my eye.) Or perhaps drop the right part of the loop a bit to balance.

Steve,

I think it's a very nice idea to create the gg glyph from the 1/2 variations.

I'll experiment your suggestions and post the results, as well as some words to see how my g's work among other characters.
Thanks,

BRB

MarS

Personally I feel the most for #1. I don't like it when the link extends so far out as the second one. :)

Followed by #3, but that depends if the cut shape of the link can be found somewhere else in the typeface too.

Well: I made two tests using options #1 and #2.
Try #1:

Try #2:

Actually, I prefer my original (#1) try the most:

Let me know your thoughts.

Cheers,

MarS

Option 2 does look wonky. (How about the gg with 1&2?)

Ah, the hardest [Latin] glyph!

The thing about the "g" is, I feel there's a large gulf between what the reader needs and what other type designers expect. There are very few binocular "g"s that I personally like, and there's a lot of room for improvement on the conventional forms.

Specifically:
- The closed bottom makes the form too complex - almost Chinese. It does not belong in the Latin alphabet (even though we're consciously used it to by now). I'm a big fan of the open bottom - although it's much harder to pull off. Even Baskerville's is non-ideal - too apologetic.
- The thick top of the bottom bowl should not be very horizontal, and -assuming your font has stroke contrast- should get thicker on the right. To me the conventional flat, evenly-thick stroke is a disaster*. HOWEVER, you probably cannot make the bottom of "g" entirely like [most of] the rest of the alphabet; it's better to emulate the "s". Thanks in part to Roy Preston's designer's intuition many years ago, I personally arrived at this:

* Unless maybe you have a "z" with thick horizontals.

hhp

Steve:
Only for fun purposes (though one can think a lot about it):

MarS

In context, #1 is immensely better than #2 to my eyes.

The funkiest wide-link g I know is Fenice:

Looks like a king cobra to me!

Even in that rough example, the first option –secong g has its loop narrower– works better, for me, than the second one.

I completely agree. I think the combination is rather pleasing.

See also Borges, by Argentine designer Alejandro Lo Celso. Its g has a rare wide-broken link.

MarS

Hey, Hrant:

have this rough try...

MarS

I like open tails too. The one with the non-smooth link to the bowl, number 3 is my favourite of the original four you posted. But, as Jelmar said, that kind of feature should be repeated in other glyphs or it won't fit.

Have you tried flipping the ear vertically?

What was Fenice designed for? It's an odd-looking creature all round!

Marcelo, I think that open "g" is pretty good.
It's leaning right a bit (although I think mine is too).

hhp

I like 1 and 3, although I think it depends on what you do with the rest of the glyphs--if there's a theme, then either one could be equally fine.

I like the open tail as well--you should set that in your login burger example.

Ben, Hrant, Merkri:
I'm working hard in that open loop you like. Initially I was not much enthusiastic, but I need to tell that Hrant triggered my never-answered ancient doubts (concerns) about the causes of current "too complex - almost Chinese" shape of lc closed loop g.
I can easily assume the transition from the UC to the open lc –it is very appropriate considering lc were tied to manuscript writing–, but when I had to face production, and the original design was a 'traditional' closed loop g, I felt a big confusion: the unnatural changes in the thicknes of strokes, and even the disruption between the top and the bottom ones, made me think there was some kind of undecipherable secret formula. I don't know why I gave in and went along with the crowd.
Finally, I believe my g will be open tail.

Craig, Merkri and Steve:
Here it goes a "flogger" (by the moment I cannot write hamburgefons and anyway it doesn't match my purposes) new sample of the quasi-ligature g_g, where one can realize that the first uneven solution is much better than the second (duplicated g) one. I guess it will be a good –and funny– step for futher investigation.

Cheers,
MarS

I wonder if the left g –forgive the unsolved terminal– wouldn't be less eye catching and more pleasant than the right one...

In your 'flogger' picture, the difference in the lower bowl size is distracting to me. Could the lower bowl extend further to the right side to compensate for the inward movement of the left side?

In 'toggle', I think the difficulty will be solving the terminal. It needs to stay in the style of the rest of the font, so I guess that depends on s. It may not need to be as strong a serif as the one on the right. I do prefer the left one, so perhaps it could take its lead from the terminal on the letter e?

Like Bendy, I don't like the different bowls in consecutive 'g's. Might be worth trying, in the case of consecutive 'g's, offsetting the bowls away from each other (and maybe reducing their size by the same amount) rather than what you have done in the first 'flogger'.

Ben and Craig:
Something like that?

Yes, that looks better to me. Bottoms are still close to each other, but actually I think you could simply space the letters apart a touch. I would do that first, then see if your eye still wants some narrowing of the loop.

You are right, Craig.
The quiz now will be making that open loop g fits...

MarS

It's satisfying to hear that my open "g" argument clicked. You should know however that some big names in type design do not agree, and this includes people who cannot be accused of being slaves to precedent, such as David Berlow. But perhaps you can change his/their mind with a result they can't help but like! :-)

In your post of 4:15am, the first "g" still needs polish of course, but it could work depending on other glyphs in the font, especially the "a": will it have a tapering top or a serifed one? What about the "s"? I'm guessing that will have serifs on both ends.

hhp

Hrant:
The answer to your question about the s is immediatly above your post, together with my first sketch for inserting a slightly smaller serif to get some air in the tail of the g otherwise I'd missed.
The a is still under construction.

MarS

—Daddy, what is this letter?
—It's a letter "g".
—No, it's not.
—Yes, it is. It's just a lowercase letter. A small one.
—But, what's the squiggle at the bottom?

:-)

MarS

If you go back to the closed form you can always use the open one as a horned-o-with-cedilla. :-)

I'm a member of the Open Tailed Lower Case g Society as well. The secret handshake involves grasping the hands but never closing them. But I've said too much already.

My experience with opening the tail on a g usually ended with narrowing the lower bowl a bit and/or slightly expanding the upper bowl (less often). Otherwise, the g can look like it's unraveling at large size and under 12 point can look too light.

What seems like (and is) an intriguing treatment requires whole new tricks to achieve balance and even coloring with the other letters. But it can certainly be worth it and I like the direction you're heading.

My "horned-o-with-cedilla" looks very sexy.

Where do I get a membership for the OTLCgS Xtian?
;-)

MarS

Too Cheltenham. Occupational hazard of combining architecture and type design. :-)

:->
(Still, better than photography.)

I think that "g" is good for a display cut, but maybe too dramatic for text.

hhp

:-D

I just was kidding on Craig's comment "If you go back to the closed form you can always use the open one as a horned-o-with-cedilla".
Forget about it. :-S

MarS

I've tried these two alternatives:

MarS

The second one, especially since overall your serifs are strong.

hhp

Definitely the second one, and the bottom one looks better (but that might be hinting).

My open loop g evolved to that:

—There's a new PDF for a closer inspection.

Please, let me know your thoughts.
Cheers,

MarS

That's one of the best open "g"s I've ever seen - good job!
Minor tweak: the inside of the join looks thick.

Spacing: move it slightly left.

hhp

Wow! That is an amazing g. I agree with Hrant that it should sit to the left a bit more, but I disagree about the join looking too thick.

Just to be clear: I didn't mean the point where the bottom comes out of the top (that might actually be a hair too thin) but just below the extrema on the inside.

hhp

Ah, now I see what you mean. Yes, that is too thick. (And I agree that the join I was looking at seems a bit too thin.)

I was working on that "excess" earlier.
The child (corrected), the parent:

Better spacing:

Thanks, guys!

MarS

I think you went too far left.
But to be sure we need "ngn" and "ogo" for starters.*
Then after control strings I use adjacency frequency:
http://www.themicrofoundry.com/other/kf_adj.pdf
So for the "g" I would first look at "n" on the left and "e" & "h" on the right, then "a" & "i" on the left and "g", "o" & "r" on the right, etc.

* Assuming of course that "n" and "o" are properly spaced.

About that PDF:
1) I apologize that it's so ugly.
2) That email address no longer works.

(BTW, not "extrema" but "extremum", sorry.)

hhp

Looks like a really useful pdf, thanks Hrant, but what does 'decimal order of magnitude lower frequency' mean for the letters with asterisks one or both sides? And the hyphens?

Decimal order of magnitude lower means ten times less frequent. Maybe overly fancy language, especially considering I don't show any numbers, but it is actually a reflection of the numeric cutoffs I chose, so to some extent hopefully useful. The hyphens are sort of the same thing, so anything beyond a hyphen is really quite rare (and if that side is asterisked to boot I probably should've just dumped it). I guess I should replace the hyphens with asterisks... except that would make the thing even uglier!

hhp

Wow! Thanks for sharing that, Hrant. I was asking around for something like this recently but didn't find out about the Brown corpus.

Marcelo: There's not so much I can help or offer I think, but wanted to say I'm all excited about your new "g". Congratulations! I think it is really beautiful, and adds a lot of determination & personality to your font.

Hrant: Thank you for your valuable help with your frequency sampler. I'll need to build one for Spanish and Portuguese texts in order to adjust the font to its main intended usage.

Steve & Nina: Thanks for your support.

Nina: Do you ever sleep, girl? :-)

MarS

I've been working for a while in a Letter Frequency Meter I think may be useful.
Given a text, it counts the number of characters, their occurrence, the number of words, consontants, vowels, accented, ascenders and descenders, the word length, the letter frequency, and the occurrence of sequences of two (pairs) and three associated characters.
I'll post the web address when it becomes available.

MarS

IIRC since I made that table (by hand :-) there have been a couple of online tools that let you dump text into them, and they spew out all kinds of stats.

BTW, this might sound far-fetched, but lacking language-specific data, using data from a similar language is better than nothing. For example English and Spanish are more similar than different; and Spanish & Portuguese are brothers. Although of course if you have language-specific data (and you're reasonably sure the font will mostly be used for one language) that's much better.

hhp

I'm thinking that locating, or even making, tools to evaluate given data is likely to be much less of a concern today than first finding a data base that is comprehensive enough to make sense on a somewhat general level. Which is why I'm all excited about that Brown corpus.
Not to completely hijack this thread though… FWIW, the other one is here: http://typophile.com/node/54971

Perhaps you've got every reason on earth, Nina, but unfortunately:

1. I'm not sure about what criteria one must follow to build such a comprehensive database:
   1. Processing all words of a given language (let's say, at least 30 K to 60 K words), though... what about punctuation and other characters?
   2. Processing large amounts of relevant text written in a given language (countless books) as is, though... what is relevant at all?
   3. Processing thes large amounts of relevant text written in a given language, and its capitalized version.
2. Solved the first question, how many pairs one must consider relevant for kerning? (I assume over 600 pairs become unmanageable for both, the designer and the font spacing processor).
3. How can one discard without pain those pairs that don't need individual kerning, i.e.: "no", "on", "nn", "oo", etc.

My modest unfinished engine is just a try in the sense of finding frequent occurrences of letter pairs ("no") and neighbors ("non") by mining in the web.

When finished, it will automatically search among pages written in a given language, and then will process them in order to create an evolving (evolutive?) database of recurring associated letters, so as, for the end user, the interface will only show a sortable list of instances to research on, something like it displays once you process the entered text in the alpha version.

MarS

"I’m not sure about what criteria one must follow to build such a comprehensive database"
Neither am I!
I believe this is an issue best tackled by scientists and serious researchers (and must have been). There's a load of knowledge and brain power behind making a serious selection, and I believe that shouldn't be taken lightly.

Your engine looks interesting – what did you program it in, is that just PHP string analysis?
So it's going to crawl web pages? Cool approach. That may be highly interesting for developing screen fonts at the very least. (It would be interesting to have a comparison of words / letter combinations used in web sites and in print – I wonder how much of a difference there is.)

"It would be interesting to have a comparison of words / letter combinations used in web sites and in print"

Nice-clever consideration.

Intuitively, I tend to believe that web crawling will return much more typical pattern redundance than analyzing printed text, being the (conscious/un conscious) concision of online writing. I guess it will bring a lot of punctuation marks, as well.

;-)

[BTW, you can sort the colums of the engine by clicking on their headers.]

MarS

PS: I forgot to say that I have built a 216,555 English words pure-text-database, weighing 2.19 MegaBytes... :-S

> I assume over 600 pairs become unmanageable

Actually that's a pretty modest number these days, not even counting class kerning! Even just for basic Latin support I tend to go around 1500 "manual" pairs (and not because I'm unhappy with my "base spacing"). BTW, some years ago certain apps had a problem with over ~2000 pairs, but that seems to have died off.

hhp

Sorry, Hrant: I meant 6,000 pairs (buffering to 5,120).

MarS

"I tend to believe that web crawling will return much more typical pattern redundance"
I suspect that it's relative to a degree. If the font will be used online, then online language usage would be "typical". If it's a font for the next luxury edition of the Bible, maybe not. (Not that I'm implying it is!) :-)
But the influence of context/media on actual letter combinations may well be so minute that it doesn't really matter, at least not for locating kerning pairs. Dunno.

:-D

"If the font will be used online, then online language usage would be “typical”."

I was speaking about "neutral" flat web crawling, neither font nor content oriented (you know, "for a semantic web"). My unspecific induction is that because of the relative degree of standardization in language used in web pages, and the over redundancy of certain formula (let's say, : "home", "Google", "search"), if not filtered, may drive to quirky results.

About the Bible (which version?), there are numerous comprehensive term searching by there: surprisingly, some words one could suppose usual in it, are not.

Beginnig by the g, look at where we arrived... :-o

MarS

Here it goes the last version of my balanced g, spaced in context.

First of all, the basic "nngnnoogoo" for fixing –and fitting– a standard across the font.

Then, the beloved "login burger" (sorry, I'll release more characters soon).

Just for testing, the double g by repeating the glyph (not the gg glyph itself I'll publish tomorrow).

I realize that thanks to Hrant influence about the open loop, and following the comments and suggestions of valued critics I don't need to mention (see above), I arrived to an unsuspected g I like the most.

Thank you, guys!

BRB

MarS

It looks fantastic! Now you'll need a name for the typeface that has several g's in it, to show off your handiwork.

Looks nice! Please show it around to the open-"g" nay-
sayers - I think you'll have more of an effect than me.
Some people just need to be knocked over the head with
good hard proof; they can't just smell a good idea.

Spacing: it's hard to be sure onscreen, but I think you
need to tighten the left a hair, and kern the "g"-round
pairs tighter.

Name: Well, at least one "g" for sure.
What about "Apogee"? Or "Pedigree"?

hhp

Apogee's already taken, and Pedigree sounds too much like a dogfood. Besides, it ought to be a Spanish name of some sort. Perhaps Perigeo (it's more down-to-earth than apogee, anyway).

Finally, I can write this:

Here there are some preliminary sketches of the lowercase alphabet, just to show you the concept:

So, what's the name of the font? ;-)

Work in progress...

MarS

Jesus!

Forget the anemic y I pasted above. That's the one I drew:

MarS

Coming along nicely. Maybe those tails of a, d, and u will become the next little detail that spawns a long thread.

[double post]

Craig: Let's see the funny tail in d-tail...

MarS

PS: I must standardize the lenght of these tails if I wanna go on.

> I must standardize the lenght of these tails

Not really. Standardization is a means not an end.

hhp

Right, Hrant. It was a mistake (not a mistype).
I meant to standardize the usage I did, not the length: for some reason I can only blame to my distraction, in the first "dua", the tail of the d and the a actually don't align with the stem; it is fixed in the second one and I think it works well now.
:-)

MarS

BTW, have a slightly corrected version of "dua" I guess is somehow improved.

MarS

I thought I'd return the favour Marcelo.

This is looking good. It has a touch of Slimbach about it, but that's no bad thing. I can see why you altered the g - numbers 3 and 4 on your initial post are very Minion Medium. The latest incarnation bothers me but I can't quite put my finger on the reason. I quite like the idea of the tail serif, but maybe if it was not so angled; more to the vertical but not completely.

Nick Cooke

Nick:
Slimbach? Hmmm... It's hard for me to find similarities.
Mi first post was only an attempt to catch some attention on the quirky loop, where I had a couple of uncertainties. The broken link appears in many faces. Hoever, it was not my aim to post an original new shape, but to trigger unconscious of forgotten questions, both in me and in the critics.
After all, I think I succedd in that matter.
I'll make some tries on a quasi vertical serif in the tail (actually, in my post of the 19.Feb.2009 6.20am you can look at a previous one).
Thanks for your ideas.

MarS

The UPPERCASE set @ its current state, which is to say, budding:

MarS

Those 'dua' improvements are good, I think.

On the caps, I suspect a challenge with such bold serifs will be to get them to work on the thin strokes without overwhelming them. AKMNUVWXY (Actually, the diagonal thins make it easier, as they flow into one side of the serif, so the real challenges are MNU.) Maybe cupping the serifs more will help here and will also "soften the strong hardness of the strokes," though perhaps that would lose too much of the sharpness you want to retain.

Is the slight overshoot of the left side of the tail of the Q intentional? Also, due to the concerns Craig raises, I wonder if the M shouldn't have splayed legs.

In the UC:
- "J" is too hefty in the bottom.
- That thing jutting out in the "Q" is cool, but way out of character here.
- "L", "S", "U" and "Z" are too wide.

hhp

It's nice to see your y is on a similar path to mine! :)
Did you change the bowl of lc a as well? I prefer the last two above.
I think L might be too light? And the lower leg of the K.

>softening the strong hardness...without losing the sharp look.

An interesting difficulty to solve!

Ben:
I must confess that when I encouraged you to pick the y I liked more, I was secretly validating my concerns on the bottom of mine. Anyway, I guess both are very personal and have their own character for not being related, except as "cousins in law" ;-)
Your "democratic" y leans on a slanted serif while my "republican" one is abosultely conservative and sets its whole foot on the floor.
Probably the L is more wide than light. The leg of the K needs to be more N, R alike.

Craig:
I was going and coming around the cupping: actually, my first try was a deep cupping that seemed to my eyes very distractive. I think that because of hinting (or unhinting) the current one does not look as curvy as in hardcopies (it will be a defiying matter for the display version).

Steve:
About the Q, I was kidding for a while, making time to decide if I melt the tail in the bowl or split the stroke away.
My M will be definitely legs-splayed, a decission I was lazily avoiding to make.

Hrant:
My J rised its bottom until reaching the baseline.

Thanks everybody!

MarS

J: Very nice, but I worry about the "LJ" pair (which is admittedly rare - but Ljubljana is a capital! :-). I actually prefer the descending form, it's just that the one you had was too aggressive. Or maybe make OT alternates?

Q: I'd certainly encourage you to make it as little like an "O" as possible. This might sound impossible, but it's actually achievable: use the tail to cut into the "O". Here's a design I drew long ago, but have yet to actually turn into a font (not feeling qualified yet):

hhp

In the meanwhile, let me know what you think about that couple:

• Do I fill the vertex as in my B, or
• do I extend the wedge as in my v?

Oddly I like both options. :-(

MarS

Leaving a gap (like in the "B") is much less work, and some would argue is good enough. But I personally prefer what you did in the "v" (just more of it), especially in such an organic design.

BTW: http://themicrofoundry.com/ss_trapping1.html

hhp

Sorry, Hrant: I was writing while you posted the last comments.
About the LJ, that's what happens with the J as is (my keyboard doesn't allow me to enter both Cacute and Ccaron):

Thanks for the link. The Microfoundry is always an exciting experience.

MarS

Let's see the Q.
Here I made some quirky sketches I don't know why I find interest in.

MarS

I think the first two match the character of the typeface better. (And open up the P now :-)

Having fun with the Q in context:

"And open up the P now :-)"
Sure! ;-)

MarS

Well, the "Q" can afford to be flamboyant - but of course it's possible to go too far, and I think the 4th one maybe does. Or not. :-) The first one can work, but that gap is too tentative - you might try curling the right stroke inward. The second is of course safest, but maybe too safe - a lost opportunity; but if you go with it you might try pointing the terminal upward, moving the cupping to the right side? If that works, you might try that on the first one too.

As you might suspect my favorite is the third - but it needs work: the lefthand join is too abrupt, and the tail needs weight and definitely stroke contrast, most likely in the form of making it increasingly thick (and then tapering quickly).

hhp

I guess I'll walk on this Q design to toe the line of my font:

Nevertheless, I'll keep my faithful to this alternate one (may be even shy a bit):

I personally think the Q in REQUEST is rockin'!

I have to agree with Steve (especially for all-caps setting).

hhp

Or I'll add another alternate Q:

BRB... :-)

MarS

[Must not abuse OT features]
MarS

"I personally think the Q in REQUEST is rockin’!"
Do you mean it's rocking gently from side to side as a boat? ;-)

I think that will be the main Q of my font, with minors optical adjustments.

MarS

I mean rockin' as in Soda Stereo. :-)

Your Q from 2:01 would be interesting in a Preissig-style typeface. (Keep track of these ideas for future typefaces!)

I don't know if this is intentional, but the Q (and the O too) is leaning to the left. :P

I find the 2:01-o-clock "Q" strangely intriguing. It looks like it's going to jump away. :-)
Though the one you have now is really nice I think.

I don’t know if this is intentional, but the Q (and the O too) is leaning to the left.

That's typical of Garalde letterforms.

"I don’t know if this is intentional, but the Q (and the O too) is leaning to the left. :P"

Jelmar, actually, the counter in curvy shapes is intentionally rotated 3 degrees to the left, to keep some calligraphic taste and to avoid "hyperelliptization".
Though it's more noticeable in the O and Q, you can find the axis is also slanted in the C, D, G, b, c, d, e, g, o, p, q, for example.
Usually Humanist (Jenson Pro by Adobe) and Garalde (Caslon Titling by Monotype) faces share this feature; I somehow prefer the criterion adopted in Jenson, while Caslon has the counters rotated inversely, that is, 3° to the right.

MarS

It looks like it’s going to jump away.

Yeah, I thought of this guy when I saw that tail.

Must be cartoon week on Typophile. :->

[Don't tell anybody, but I hate when, after reached 80 comments, a forum is split in pages, losing some usable features (new comments are no more marked with the red-backgrounded "NEW", clicking in the "xx new" links in the forum doesn't bring you to the new, but to the start, and so on), and making it hard to go to the intended place. Even the RSS feeds don't work as they are supposed. Or may be it's me? :-S ]
MarS

Same here, Marcelo. At least it's back to 90 or so; up until recently the page split happened at something like 30 posts to a thread. I think it's a server performance thing, but it's still kind of annoying.

Yeah, I thought of this guy when I saw that tail.
Must be cartoon week on Typophile. :->

My Queuekachu is ready to jump the queue. So, what?!

MarS

After refining the animé, here they are, numbers:

I'll need a name, sooner or later.

MarS

> actually, the counter in curvy shapes is intentionally rotated 3 degrees to the left, to keep some calligraphic taste and to avoid “hyperelliptization”.
Though it’s more noticeable in the O and Q, you can find the axis is also slanted in the C, D, G, b, c, d, e, g, o, p, q, for example.

Yeah, I did see it in those other characters, but it isn't so apparent. The O and Q do jump out a bit. I just thought I'd point it out, but apparently I'm somewhat ignorant about the fact that it is normal for Geralde typefaces. :)

"I’m somewhat ignorant about the fact that it is normal for Geralde typefaces"

Well, as said, it is not only common in Garalde letterforms, but also in modern serif fonts (i.e.: Greta or Reminga), especially for text (printing) sizes –6 to 12 points– at regular weights, being it won't work well in screens because of aliasing (hinting for display is quite harder). The aim is to resemble some calligraphic gestures –by the other side, usual in wood or metal types– to escape from visual monotony and annoying grays in large blocks of text, beyond keeping alive the soul of writing in production.
Naturally, the O and the Q, being both are almost absolute shapes in terms of symmetry, make it more apparent. When working in context, and if well spaced, letters become sinergically balanced and rhythmic.

MarS

> Well, as said, it is not only common in Garalde letterforms, but also in modern serif fonts (i.e.: Greta or Reminga)

I see. Interesting. :)

Although the examples you mention seem to be leaning to the right instead of the left. But I guess that is a matter of choice.

0 - quite narrow! Maybe it just results from rotating ellipses, but that high extremum on the right outer side bothers me.
2 - consider ways of closing up the top counter or opening up the bottom one. Something about the relative weights of the top (near the serif) and the diagonal seems a little off, too - could you establish the weight you need with just the serif and let the stroke thin a little more?
3 - at the top, see 2
4 - some nice little details here!
5 - curved stroke gets too fat at the top, or gets fat too fast. (compare thickness to the six right next door)
6 - seems to me too sudden of a break between a gentler full-height curve on the left (like parenthesis) and the quicker x-height curve on the right (like 'o'). as a result there's an awkward bend at the lower left
7 - falling right but that may be okay
8 - curves are nicely drawn
9 - see 6

You may want to make the counters of your 5 more even (lower the middle part) and/or make the counters of your 8 less even (raise the middle part).

Although the examples you mention seem to be leaning to the right instead of the left. But I guess that is a matter of choice.

It depends on the angle of the pen, and, for sure, on a personal choice :-)

MarS

Craig:
Nevermind: I posted my numbers late night. Now I see them like a "boutade". I'm reconsiderign some odd criteria I adopted when drew them by hand, because they had nothing to do with the entire face. I'll upload the new version ASAP.

MarS

After sleeping for a while, I drew these sketches:

Let's try this one:

MarS

4 looks a little dark; 3 looks a little too fat in the middle.

Some adjustments ahead:

I'm posting before I decide to edit changes ;.)

Also, an experiment on an open P:

Now I'm trying opening 6 and 9 ;->

MarS

Now I’m trying opening 6 and 9 ;->

You could open the 4 easily, and the 8, although that's less common.

(In fact, this could be an interesting experiment in a well-crafter, seriffed, "stencil" typeface.)

"You could open the 4 easily, and the 8, although that’s less common."

Probably I'll leave 'em as alternate glyphs, at least.

MarS

Having fun with numerals, there I post some simple alternates.
This is my current 4:

The Argentinean writer Jorge Luis Borges wrote a short story called "The Garden of Forking Paths". I think I'm walink on such kind of labyrinth.
;-)

MarS

The open 4 is too open, which is why it seems unbalanced.

You're right, Steve. Now it looks nicer:

I'll definitely quit the serifs.

MarS

You might want to try angling the top of the stem for the 4 and see if that looks even better.

The diagonal and the vertical of the open 4 have such geometric regularity. Steve's idea for the stem is worth trying, and you might consider some kind of terminal, taper, or bend that would soften the diagonal, too. You could afford a little weight towards the top of the glyph in any event.

Tell me what you think about those alternate 4:

Going to sleep now.

MarS

Well, after some rest, here we go again.

This is the complete lc set at its current state, which is still unrevised.

I added here a sample text PDF for better examination.

BTW, I'm missing some critique... ;-)

MarS

The ascenders are pretty short (especially with those long descenders).
What size is this for?

hhhp

I don't really have much of a meaningful comment except for "yum!" indeed! This is looking very cool. I know I said at one point I was missing some personality in this, and I'm officially taking that back!

Except maybe this: I know we've been talking about the "g" a lot, but at text sizes (also depending how much smaller than the sample you want this to work), I wonder if the white space in the "g" is looking a bit cramped in places? Dunno if you might try lowering the top of the tail by a tiny fraction of a hair maybe? But that's more of a question mark in my head really…

Newspapers body text, it is, 6-8 to 12 pt.
Though I realize they are very short.
I'll expand them.

MarS

Actually, if it's for ~7 point, I'd keep those
ascenders and make the descenders shorter!
(More work, I know. :-)

hhp

LOL!
MarS

Perhaps:

MarS

I wonder if the white space in the “g” is looking a bit cramped in places? Dunno if you might try lowering the top of the tail by a tiny fraction of a hair maybe? But that’s more of a question mark in my head really…
I was thinking of a lot on this matter –my concerns were strong, for sure– and made some tries:

MarS

> I left the “g” as it was

Newspapers often use zero leading, so you should avoid leaving one extender (especially such a wide one) hanging lower than the rest. But I just measured it and it's not as low as it appears* - it's almost there with the rest. If you decide to shorten it I would make the diagonal less steep, the lower bowl flatter, and the tail serif shorter. If you do all three each will only have to change a smidgen.

* Because it's so wide.

This is where my favorite paradox kicks in: in a text font, especially one for very small sizes, the "g" must feel a little cramped, otherwise the balance of compromises isn't ideal. Ugliness isn't something to shun, it's something to assimilate.

hhp

Marcelo, you've convinced me – that small sample looks good indeed.

"in a text font […] the “g” must feel a little cramped"
Wow.
Text face design truly is head-exploding stuff! ;-)

[This should be under Marcelo's post with the small sample so I edited it again]

> Ugliness isn’t something to shun, it’s something to assimilate.

Wow, another great quote, Hrant! :)

The y seems unnaturally narrow but maybe it's intentional or maybe it's me (because I'm working on a wide font at the moment).

How is j looking now?

The y seems unnaturally narrow but maybe it’s intentional or maybe it’s me (because I’m working on a wide font at the moment).
How is j looking now?
Ben: I prefer to keep a narrow "y" –I mean, it's intentional– as in my previous "yum!" sample.
About the j, here's the pair:

MarS

I think you've done the right thing shortening the descenders rather than lengthening the ascenders. The previous j looked a bit long and dangly before; now the proportions are spot on. :)

“in a text font […] the “g” must feel a little cramped”
Wow.
Text face design truly is head-exploding stuff! ;-)

As somebody said before, probably we are assisting to a Hrantization of type design. Personally, I like these kind of challenges.
;-)

MarS

At your service. :->

hhp

:-) That's funny. Do you remember who said that, Marcelo?

It was Steve, his exact words were "We call that hranting..." (anyway, I prefer my neologism), but probably you won't like to visit that thread again.
MarS

Hmm, to be honest I read that remark quite differently (I think "hranting" is a fixed term in Typophile land ;-) ). But yeah, yours is nicer.

Argh, Marcelo, could you please close that "strong" tag? I feel so bold today. :-p

Everything in my screen became bold.
Let's see if it works...

Got it!
It was an unwanted "Iphonization" of the thread (Zeus, how persisten it can be).

MarS

Oh, "hranting" is different - it comes from "ranting". :-)

hhp

Let's see how "bdpq" look:

That's how the new "g" works with other descending sisters, say, the new "y". Still you think my "y" is narrow, Ben?

I have a concern about my "a". Ain't it quirky? I'm not convinced about it. Perhaps the bowl needs to be less vertically slanted.
The "j" is fine as is, I guess.
I like the unstable balance of the "z".

I'll need to start working on spacing, better sooner than later.

MarS

Spacing...good luck ;)
I find y a bit narrow, yes, but if that's what you like then stick with it.
Did I already say how much I like your s?
I'm not sure which way you're thinking to slant the a's bowl so will wait to see what you come up with.
z is a good, strong shape but not too pointy. The bowed thins really work well.

Did I already say how much I like your s?
Thanks! It's an economical one. It would be more if I curve the inner of serifs, but at the cost of losing character.

MarS

Make sure to put explicit inflection points on the spine at the end.

hhp

Do you mean that, Hrant?

MarS

BTW, take a look at these:

MarS

The inside of E's main stroke looks naked top and bottom. See how the inside contour of the bowls of PRB comes down before the corner, and how that motion is a sort of twin for the serif on the other side of the stem? Could something like that benefit the E?

O is looking a bit light? R and B are looking great. There's something a bit confusing in the right foot serif of R though. It looks somehow droopy.

> I was just being rough to find the shape I really was sure with.

OK - I was just checking. :-)
In fact inflection points only harm easy
development if they're included too early.

hhp

How they look now?

I love the pinch on the ampersand, but the main leg gets a bit thick visually where the tail crosses it. I also wonder if the leg of the R wants to start at the end of the P counter.

Steve:
I thought the same about the "R" (though, actually, their bowls differ in size and height), and immediately tried that early solution:

I prefer the previous R, with the sticky-out bit. The foot is much nicer.
B is a great shape, but next to E it looks narrow doesn't it? Maybe that's normal. Wish I knew more about proportions!

I like the new R, although the gap is perhaps a bit large. The new & also looks much better.

Bendy, you should read Catich's The Origin of the Serif, which looks extensively at the Trajan column inscription. There you see that the E is relatively narrow.

Some minor updates:

The leg of the new "R" leg looks like it's trying to trip the next glyph. ;-)
I think I'd pull it in a bit, but maybe that's just me!

You're right, Nina.
While I was trying to fill the gap at the left side, she was seducing the ampersand by the right :-o

MarS

"She"? :->
Funny, I think this is rather masculine overall.

That new "R" looks great I think!

Maybe I'm the only one, but I kind of liked that R of the "16.Mar.2009 6.39pm" post. And I'm not sold on the ampersand's pinches. There's also something awkward about the curves at the bottom of the ampersand leading up to the lower intersection, but I can't quite put my finger on it. And middle arm of F looks too short(/light?).

Should the top serif of a have a little more weight?

The alteration to those inside corners of E works well to my eyes, and on other letters too (like F and L) but I'm not as certain about T.

Steve, I'll check out the book recommendation. Thanks :)

The thinner E looks good with the B!

I'd agree with Craig about the E and T. T looks weird like that.

I'd have to say this is a 'he' rather than a 'she'!

Hey Marcelo mate

Ive just astarted skimming this thread and i have to say that all the advice youv've been taking turned a nice start with teh "g" into a total trainwreck. SOrry mate!!! get rid of that stupid open g and put in one of the first ones ya drew.

>>>Ugliness isn’t something to shun, it’s something to assimilate.

for the love of swwet jesus, this is just rubbish! why are you taking advice from people who dont design fonts?!?

oh well, its your font and you can do what you like I spose.

-----------------------
Chopper Reid says "Harden the **** up".

Um. Does this happen a lot?

Without actually expressing what you don't like and why, it's hard to take this kind of comment seriously.

> why are you taking advice from people who dont design fonts?!?

My clients must be hallucinating.
Well, as long as they keep paying I guess it's OK.

hhp

Calling Marcelo's open "g" "stupid" and a "trainwreck" does not really help anything.

"people who dont design fonts"
Hey, I wonder how Patria et al. came about. Must be the type design version of immaculate conception.

Funny, I think this is rather masculine overall.
Sorry, it's a translation mistake; I was talking about the leg, and in Spanish, leg is a feminine noun, beyond the masculine behavior of mine :->

I’m not as certain about T
I noticed it later. I was trying to be consistent along caps, but certainly my original "T" doesn't deserve that alteration.

...get rid of that stupid open g...
Sorry, man. I bought it to myself as is, stupidity included.
BTW, you should quit that clever mustache before speaking: it makes your words sound very entangled to my ears.

Should the top serif of a have a little more weight?
Let's see...

MarS

Here there are some tries on the new "a", in search of making it consistent with, say, "c", "d", "e", "n", "u", "z".

Subtle adjustments to the "BPR" trio.

MarS

Marcelo, how does it look at text sizes? Of course the smoother "R" from before looks more aesthetically pleasing close up (at least I think so), but I wouldn't be able to tell from looking at this if this little "spur" you've got here might be beneficial, or distracting, in text.

>>>>Without actually expressing what you don’t like and why, it’s hard to take this kind of comment seriously.

it's flaming hard to take all the 'helpful' adive youve all been giving seriously as well!!

>>>>>My clients must be hallucinating.

Are they matee!??

>>>>>>Hey, I wonder how Patria et al. came about. Must be the type design version of immaculate conception.

What the hell is a Patria?? i tired to search for it but zlich about fonts came up?

>>>Sorry, man. I bought it to myself as is, stupidity included.
BTW, you should quit that clever mustache before speaking: it makes your words sound very entangled to my ears.

thats just corker mate! it's not actually me, maybe you think bendy is a green alien squiggle as well??

>>>>>Here there are some tries on the new “a”, in search of making it consistent

why dont you make it 'open' like the g. While you're at it open the e as well, then theyll all match and stand out like a sore thumb in text.

you've relly turned what could have been a nice text face into a group of fussy letters that don't mix well at all. I spose this is ok if you trust the wisdom of 3 different people!!

Good on ya mate.

-----------------------
Chopper Reid says "Harden the **** up".

Thanks, Nina!
I needed just a little push to make my decision. Yours was enough :-)

MarS

Murray, I'm certainly glad to see you're passionate about letterforms! But just because you disagree with somebody doesn't mean that person is just pretending to have an educated opinion. Patria is a font of mine that I sell on occasion, case by case. It has won a couple of awards (if that matters). However -mostly due to a distrust of the retail market- most of the type design work I do is commissioned (and mostly in the non-Latin field) so you don't see it floating around too much. Anyway, enough about me: exactly what do you think is wrong with an open "g"? Or an open "a"? :-)

hhp

Thank you for encouraging me, "muzzer" (or whatever is your name, fake pictured buddy).
I cannot realize Ben is not green... Isn't he???
Why do we talk all that puta mierda instead of type design?
Ain't it a Critique/Serif forum?
Fortunately, fuzziness (oh, and humility) is what makes us capable of being designers.
In my modest language, opinion and disdain use not to be the same thing.
At the risk of being an absolute idiot ("you may say I'm a dreamer"), I tend to trust a polite well founded critic instead of a gut guided prophet (did you try Zoloft?).
Design can be good or bad, precise or vague, efficient or not, but "stupid" seems not to be a disciplinar category.
I won't go further on that matter.
Just hope garbage don't tarnish that nice space where one can learn a lot if is humble enough and prone to (BTW, I came here for that).
Probably a good sample –and not the only one, for sure– of helpful critic behavior is the first comment on that thread (Steve, 18.Feb.2009 7.01am): clear, fair and concise, though not condescending.
Halt. I'm tired. Time is gold. Don't wanna apologize for anything, please.
Like or dislike, that's what I think.

MarS

I'm still going to argue for the "16.Mar.2009 6.39pm" form of the R. There the "spur" piece complements nicely the foot serif, so the leg in its massing almost looks like a smooth, tilde-like s-curve, but in actuality retains the hardness that is characteristic of this font.

'Muzzer', this is a place where people can listen and learn from each other, and give their suggestions in a constructive way. I'm not sure what you're doing here.

I'm agreeing with Craig on the R. The longer spur. Sorry :>
(And I don't pretend to be wise, just observing what I like.)

Hey, I like the "R" with the little "spur" too. My point was, do we have a PDF showing the two "R" options at text sizes?
I'm not trying to be obnoxious (or wise). I've just found that comparing detail variants in actual text settings at least for me tends to yield slightly different results from what I'd think would look good when examining the glyphs up close. YMMV though, of course, and all that.

Muzzer, why don't you join the discussion in a constructive way? I'd be curious why you're so upset about that "g". And if you don't like the feed-back we've been giving to Marcelo, the best way to help him would be to try and do better. :-)

Craig, Ben, Nina:
BRB with my feedback to your comments.
Thanks,

MarS

I'll upload a PDF on that variant:

MarS

Here is a sample PDF for better judgement of last changes.
Gonna sleep, now. ;-)

MarS

While muzzer's critique is a bit harsh, I'm afraid I have to agree with him on the g. The open shape is an interesting experiment, but personally I don't think it works very well. Especially if you compare it to the g's in your opening post...

>>>>>>However -mostly due to a distrust of the retail market- most of the type design work I do is commissioned (and mostly in the non-Latin field) so you don’t see it floating around too much.

Whats not to trust mate?? are you afraid or the Pirates! what does Patria look like?

>>>>>>>Anyway, enough about me: exactly what do you think is wrong with an open “g”? Or an open “a”? :-)

nothing is wrong with an open 'g'---meta and Baskerville are flaming hot ones! Its this one here is just so bloody wrong for the rest of the face!!

>>>>>>>>’Muzzer’, this is a place where people can listen and learn from each other, and give their suggestions in a constructive way. I’m not sure what you’re doing here.

I am giving my suggesrtions in a constructive way! What dont you understand about that?? The g was great to start with then it got worse and now it looks stupid. not sure what you don't undestand about that mate!!

>>>>>And if you don’t like the feed-back we’ve been giving to Marcelo, the best way to help him would be to try and do better. :-)

Righto then, i'll bugger off and leave you all to it!

>>>>>>>>>>At the risk of being an absolute idiot (“you may say I’m a dreamer”), I tend to trust a polite well founded critic instead of a gut guided prophet (did you try Zoloft?).

well mate if you want to end up with a commitee camel rather than a horse then take all these opinions and go on forever without trusting your own eyeballs.

>>>>>>>Like or dislike, that’s what I think.

I dislike it thats what I think but it could be better!!

>>>>>>>While muzzer’s critique is a bit harsh, I’m afraid I have to agree with him on the g.

thanks mate you know what your on about

bfore I bugger off there is this that I found by Hrant somewhere else:

>>>>>>Typophile: the sacred cow abattoir.

I agree but it seems like everyone wants to slaughtr everyone elses cattle but their own is to precious to take the knife to!!! have fun being veggos!!

-----------------------
Chopper Reid says "Harden the **** up".

There are a lot of different styles of communication on typophile. It's better to accept that variety & look at the content of what it said about the letters and completely forget about any consideration of how somebody is feeling about you or your design. Some of the best crits I have had or read here & elsewhere were given in a harsh manner.

>>>>>>Muzzer, why don’t you join the discussion in a constructive way?

Constructive on Typophile mean don't hurt anyones feelings and tell them what they want to hear. Sigh.

That 'g'... yeah, hmmmmm.

H

So after this long process in this long "g"-titled thread, what's up with people only stepping up now that Muzzer has ripped the new "g" apart to say that actually, they agree?

>Constructive on Typophile mean don’t hurt anyones feelings and tell them what they want to hear. Sigh.

I don't agree. It's possible to disagree with a design choice and give advice without hurting someone's feelings.

It could be that they follow Muzzer's comments. I often read a thread only after somebody I am following comments on it. Also that's the nature of dialog isn't it?

>Constructive on Typophile mean don’t hurt anyones feelings and tell them what they want to hear. Sigh.

>>I don’t agree. It’s possible to disagree with a design choice and give advice without hurting someone’s feelings.

Well of course it is.

Just when its done here people have a sad. Makes for Love fest' critiques. It gets interesting when someone cuts through the wall of cuddles and hits the mark.

Fair enough. I wouldn't want a 'wall of cuddles' (like it!)about my work either, that's not helpful either. But equally calling a piece of work a 'train wreck' doesn't quite hit the mark for me.

...and completely forget about any consideration of how somebody is feeling about you or your design. Some of the best crits I have had or read here & elsewhere were given in a harsh manner.
Wow! After all, we are talking about communication, ain't it? How, matters. Manners, matter.
I won't be hurted but that kind of loud-voiced apes, nevermind. I think all those who made comments in this thread disagree with me and my designs in several ways. BTW, nobody agreed my very first work, and most of my tries were objected. I accepted critique in order to improve.
It's only that overacting, overexclaiming, overarguing, bothers me, annoys me, makes me feel sick. When the sole argument, the only word you have to criticize is "stupid", God, it's you who's in trouble.
Sorry, I don't wanna lose more time struggling against arrogant people. May be that's the Australian way (I mean, "some" Australian, it's not the first time I hear them). Go on. Shout and cry. But, please, not in my ear.

MarS

Sorry, Marcelo. Back to the letters!
I think I'd prefer B and R to have larger bowls on the top. K looks dark. I'm also wondering if the inflection in the top of BDP and R means there needs to be a little more overshoot as they look a bit short?

> what does Patria look like?

http://themicrofoundry.com/ad/CR.pdf
Check out the "g" you non-believer you!

> what’s up with people only stepping up now that Muzzer has
> ripped the new “g” apart to say that actually, they agree?

Now THAT is a good question.

> Makes for Love fest’ critiques.

Wow, you make this place sound like Flickr - but it isn't, is it? I hope not. And actually, I for one am not known for being nice (at least not online). But I do try to back up my criticism with more than just raw emotion.

hhp

"Love fest critiques"? On Typophile? I dunno.
FWIW, I value the critique boards because discussion tends to be about type.
Not about making people feel all warm and fuzzy inside; but also, not about
attacking them.

> So after this long process in this long “g”-titled thread, what’s up with people only stepping up now that Muzzer has ripped the new “g” apart to say that actually, they agree?

I think I was the only one that agreed till now, so you can just say so. ;)

As to why, I have not followed this thread that intensively. I already had my doubts about the open g, but had not posted it. When everybody pretty much burned Muzzer at the stake, like so often happens on Typophile if someone is even slightly harsh in their language (even if the critique isn't directed at them), I decided to post my opinion about the g too. I think the g doesn't look right.

And Nina, using strong language isn't attacking somebody, eventhough strong critique might feel like it. Muzzer was slightly harsh in his wording, but I do not think it was an attack.

> When everybody pretty much burned Muzzer at the stake, like so often
> happens on Typophile if someone is even slightly harsh in their language

?
Maybe things have been softer lately, but I've been a member since the beginning and I can assure you that is not accurate in toto. I happen to know not least because I've done a very big chunk of the attacking myself. I've even attacked entire design schools, accusing them of superficiality. In fact I did so once pretty recently. But I don't expect others to behave like me.

I must say however that people's familiarity with much of my stance in type design (thanks to mondo keystrokes on my part) allows me to conduct fewer repetitive attacks these days. For example I'm not really a big fan of this font of Marcelo's (it's too chirographic) but I think that other people will like it a lot, and I just want to help him arrive at a good terminus. There is no perfect font anyway - if I can help him make the "g" better for example, I feel good. And I think that is one reflection of Design versus Art. Here's another example of what I mean: http://typophile.com/node/54841 Note Ben's reaction to my first post.

> I do not think it was an attack.

I don't know about anybody else, but saying that I don't make fonts was (and was in no way constructive - it was just defamation). However you will note that I did not strike back, I only defended myself. Not because I don't believe in fights, but because I need a much better reason to muster that energy. Sorry Muzz.

--

I'm curious, are there other creative fora where people are regularly harsh, while still providing useful feedback (as opposed to simply venting)?

hhp

"I think I was the only one that agreed till now, so you can just say so. ;)"
I was wondering about the overall effect, more so than wanting to criticize you in particular. When I posted the above comment, disliking the "g" seemed like a growing sentiment, with Höfe kind of chiming in too. I think the pattern, while human, isn't helping.

I'd still not agree Typophile is too cuddly but I guess we want different degrees, or definitions, of cuddliness.
In my eyes, when somebody comes barging in, ripping the previous process to shreds, calling the people he doesn't agree with "people who don't design fonts" (when with a minimal knowledge of Typophile, it's pretty clear that Hrant does design fonts) and at the same time, not trying to be clear and helpful to Marcelo's design process (which I think this thread should be about), then call me too cuddly if you will (and maybe I'm being a girl), but I think that is unfair.

[I hope this wasn't too garbled, I'm on my first early morning coffee over here. :-)]

It could be that they follow Muzzer’s comments. I often read a thread only after somebody I am following comments on it. Also that’s the nature of dialog isn’t it?

Curious definition of the nature of dialog, I think. But, perhaps it's me and my Japanese mind mapped concept. I'll re read Plato.

...turned a nice start with teh “g” into a total trainwreck. SOrry mate!!! get rid of that stupid open g...
...While you’re at it open the e as well, then theyll all match and stand out like a sore thumb in text...
you’ve relly turned what could have been a nice text face into a group of fussy letters that don’t mix well at all...
... nothing is wrong with an open ’g’—-meta and Baskerville are flaming hot ones! Its this one here is just so bloody wrong for the rest of the face!!
...The g was great to start with then it got worse and now it looks stupid.

Well. I just consider it all a clumsy digression, "mate!!!".
Now, I hopelessly wait for your arguments.

MarS

Out of thread: I personally get upset a lot when, in written language –regard of the words– people tends to overmark (say, by unnecessarily uppercasing, repeating signs, quoting each single term, and so on). Eloquence –and character too– does not rely on how loud your voice is, or how emotionally populated your text is, but on the clean, economical, precise and moderate use of words.

Ben:
After considering your comment, I guess "BDPRK" look more balanced in height, weight and overshooting, the same as "D".

About the "a", perhaps it's getting a better equilibrium, thouhg I still haven't found the shape I'm looking for.

Oh, the "g". With my "s" in mind, I'd add more weight to the serif in the tail of the loop. Do I do? ;-)

MarS
God belong to religions.
Idols belong to tribes.
Doubt belong to the rest of us.

Here I go with the new "a", and updates to the "d" and "u".

Oops! And a new open ampersand, too.

MarS

The original "&" and the alternate:

MarS

The right one.
The left structure is an unintelligent anachronism,
quite like the closed binocular "g" (sorry Muzz :-).

hhp

> Maybe things have been softer lately, but I’ve been a member since the beginning and I can assure you that is not accurate in toto.

Well, I mean discussions like the one we're having now happen quite often (with the same subject), hijacking threads. Also I wasn't particularly aiming my comments at you. :)

> I don’t know about anybody else, but saying that I don’t make fonts was

Yeah, but that was just ignorance on his side. Not worth it to react to, because everybody knows it was a false statement.

> disliking the “g” seemed like a growing sentiment, with Höfe kind of chiming in too. I think the pattern, while human, isn’t helping.

I think it is helping. What isn't helpful is when everybody agrees how nice something is (Flickr-style).

> I’d still not agree Typophile is too cuddly but I guess we want different degrees, or definitions, of cuddliness.

Typophile isn't cuddly, and I don't think it should be. Whenever someone uses harsh language or 'attacks' you, you should just ignore it or just 'distill' the message and discart the language.

Sorry for my poor English, I'm kinda tired. :)

"The left structure is an unintelligent anachronism"
Hrant, would you mind expanding on this?
(Or pointing me someplace where you did?)

Jelmar, just to clarify: I didn't mean that disagreeing, per se, isn't helping; of course it is (or can be). I would've just thought it'd be nicer if people who disagree don't only step up in the shadow of somebody big and loud shouting out that it's crap.
But I'm tired too. :-)

Most people follow established forms without reconsidering them. The closed binocular "g" for example is clearly flawed in my mind (see earlier in this thread) but most people just think that their pappy did it so it must be OK.

"Eat moose. 50,000 wolves can't be wrong!"

> it’d be nicer if people who disagree don’t only step up in the
> shadow of somebody big and loud shouting out that it’s crap.

In the same way, many people contribute something worthwhile to a discussion only if they're publicly challenged.

That's why I've been known to state:
Public speculation is a very efficient tool in data mining. :-)

hhp

"Most people follow established forms without reconsidering them"
That's clear. So's the case of the closed "g" (I was arguing this point myself earlier today). But I'd be curious about why you say the classical closed-top form is "unintelligent"? I'm sure you'd have a reason to change it besides the old form, well, being old, and established.

Nina, please let me know if my first post in this thread
needs clarification - I do have some further elaboration
in my head (but I've spewed that stuff out at least twice
on Typophile previously).

hhp

And a new turn on the stupid "g":

MarS

One thing about the g, seeing it in the latest pdf (which I've now printed), is that the right side of the tail should come up more. En masse on the page, it looks a little droopy now.

And congratulations on the new ampersand. Very nice!

I agree on both points.

Hrant, I realize now my post was probably ambiguous, and I apologize.
Indeed what you said on the "g" does not need clarification (at least not right now, though of course everything is always intensifiable, and you know I'm always wanting food for thought); but in this case I was wondering about the ampersand, whose closed structure I believe you referred to as an "unintelligent anachronism".

The ampersand's case is pretty close to that of the "g" actually. Having the top closed, and then making the "stroke" continue into the bottom is just noise; it makes the glyph alien (without the benefit of pulling it away from anything else). That structure comes from ease of writing, which is pointless in type. Having a beak on top is more salient, and allows the top counter to participate more. In fact, I have previously tried getting rid of the arm coming up from the bottom as well! There is one font that does this*, and quite well, but I haven't managed to do it properly myself yet.

* http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/agfa/script-mt/

All that said, this does not mean that every font must have an open-top ampersand - because functionality is only one factor (although perhaps the primary one, in my book). Patria for example has features that intentionally lower its readability, but contribute to its atmosphere.

hhp

[...] the right side of the tail should come up more [...]
I thought of it. I was avoiding that unconsciously, perhpas afraid of matching the ordinary horizontal stroke. As you say, it looks (and behaves) droppy.
I have a previous unpublished alternative, here on the right side:

MarS

"Having the top closed, and then making the “stroke” continue into the bottom is just noise; it makes the glyph alien"

Alien? To what? To the structure of the Latin alphabet?
I'm assuming you're not using the word as opposed to familiarity. I'm not subscribing to Emigre's maxim either (you know I like Patria). But while the closed loop is indeed not "pulling [the ampersand] away from anything else", does it not matter at all that it's probably closest (I'm surmising), for the reader, to some abstract notion of "what an ampersand looks like" – and I'd think, a bit more crucially so than the issue of the "g"'s tail being closed or not?* So this open ampersand needs to overcome a (small) initial threshold of "newness" for the reader, no?

* I agree that the design of type should be largely independent from ideas (ideals) of strokes and writing. But I'm not quite convinced that people (as in, normal end-users/readers) don't think of lettershapes, even when they're printed, in terms of "how they'd write it" – which would make a difference as to how they will perceive a non-chirographic shape. And in the open ampersand, you actually break the stroke ("the thing they may think of as a stroke") in half. Whereas in the "g" you basically only change the ending, which is less brutal to a chirographic "reading" of type, and therefore maybe less noticeable?

Though of course the ampersand is probably the prime example of a glyph that's open to interpretation. And I'm not arguing against this open form, for the record. I see your points, and I actually quite like the shape. I'm just trying to see the pros and cons (in terms of functionality; of course there's always aesthetic considerations).
FWIW, that ampersand from Script MT does seem to get pretty close to the limits of being identifiable as what it is, at least for me.

FWIW, that ampersand from Script MT does seem to get pretty close to the limits of being identifiable as what it is, at least for me.

MarS

I agree, very close to the limits of being identifiable as what it is.

I think the general shape of both your ampersands is fine. The problem I have with both is that the joins are treated differently--the top much more pinched, which to me looks unbalanced. You can get away with differences if they are at different angles, but these are more or less the same...

You can get away with differences if they are at different angles, but these are more or less the same...
Yeap, but the upper comes from an inflection, while the lower does not get into one.
Probably it's yet unbalanced, being it's just born. I'll work on joins closer.
In the meanwhile, I just can offer that:

MarS

Can we get a new pdf with the new g in text? I'm finding that to be the only way I can judge the refinements.

Nina, you're reminding me of me!

> does it not matter at all that it’s probably closest (I’m surmising),
> for the reader, to some abstract notion of “what an ampersand looks like”

I think two things tugging at a glyph are: belonging in a visual dictionary; and being decipherable. And while the former seems pretty literal/formal, the latter is pretty nebulous (meaning that deciphering a glyph involves recognizing enough hazy bits). So maybe something like that ampersand structure that I favor "belongs" very well while still exhibiting all the necessary hazy bits. But honestly I'm not pretending this is a highly robust argument with solid evidence; my stance derives in a large part from instinct: the closed binocular "g" and the old-fashioned ampersand simply seem pointlessly complex, alien.

> I’m not quite convinced that people (as in, normal end-users/readers)
> don’t think of lettershapes, even when they’re printed, in terms of
> “how they’d write it”

I honestly have to think that during immersive reading there's absolutely no room for a reader to consider the ease of writing of individual glyphs. Our reading system cannot be bothered by such irrelevances - it is like a hungry wild animal.

And really, who ever writes like any font anyway! We don't reproduce serifs, stroke contrast, etc. Could we really be extracting and evaluating numerous "skeletons" in a fraction of a second at 10 point? Nevermind that 2/3-rds of the field of vision is in the blurry parafovea.

hhp

I'm finding the tail serif of the g is angled too tightly into the curve and could perhaps follow a shape more like the tail serif on s. Does anyone else think that?

I love the idea of the missing-armed ampersand, but wouldn't it look totally weird in a font like this?

I much prefer your new open one. Good work :)

Hrant :-) Thanks! That was a highly interesting elaboration.

I was probably stuck in the skeleton model to some degree as far as character recognition goes (that "abstract notion" of what a given character "looks like"). But you make some excellent points! The model of a "dictionary" of somewhat fuzzy shapes that a (more often than not, also "blurry") glyph is matched up against, does seem a lot more plausible than anything involving abstract skeletons.

But, what is in the dictionary? Isn't that where the factor of familiarity comes in?
I realize this might be splitting hairs, but with not a huge lot of open-topped ampersands around, I'd assume the reader might still have a tiny little threshold initially to "amend the dictionary", so to speak? (Though the ampersand is probably a bad example, since that particular dictionary entry is atypically broad and fuzzy anyway.)

Hope Marcelo doesn't mind this lil' tangent.

I’m finding the tail serif of the g is angled too tightly into the curve and could perhaps follow a shape more like the tail serif on s. Does anyone else think that?

That would be more daring, certainly. As angled now (and especially as tightened closer with the most recent edits), that serif approximates an unseriffed, barely-open loop (like Baskerville's 'g'), which "normalizes" the open structure. An 's'-like serif will be truer to the rest of the font but I suspect might make the 'g' stand out too much. But I think it's worth a try.

(How many 'g's can we get Marcelo to draw!? :-)

Making the serif come too close to the body is exactly the
sort of the Baskervillian apologism that we don't need.

> But, what is in the dictionary? Isn’t that
> where the factor of familiarity comes in?

The way I use "familiarity" doesn't mesh that way with the
idea of a dictionary. To me the former works at the level of
bouma* recognition (something formed over years of reading
a lot of different fonts) while the latter works at the level of
a given font.

* Noting that letters are special-case boumas.

hhp

I've found that beginning by the "g" is not a bad start, though I wonder if ending is reachable ;-S
MarS

After a short break, I'll post a PDF. Until that, I imagined another "g":

MarS

New PDF for Typophiles. Hope it'd help.

MarS

Hrant, old patterns of thinking sure take force to overcome even when the conscious mind learns and understands! :-/

BTW, you might like this cool (if top-heavy) bottom-arm-less ampersand:
http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/insigne/pauline/

***

Marcelo, for what it's worth, the sample looks good to me. Personally, I might make the tail a tiny bit more open (possibly just shortening the serif by a hair) – but, apart from the fact that you know I'm not exactly a pro in this, I think the important thing is: Does it look/feel right to you?

I'm not meaning to be unhelpful by any measure. But I'd humbly suggest this: Once you feel it is good to your eyes, and right for the font (and this might still take you a little bit of time to find out), I think you shouldn't obsess over getting everyone here to agree on the placement of every node. If you do, I suspect this might merrily go on until 2012 or so. ;-)
I know it can be hard. FWIW, I'm currently at this point with my "g": I was told it doesn't work. But I know the basic shape is right for me; so I won't question it right now. That helps. BTW, I think it also helps to know/argue why.

Oh, BTW, my “q” lost a serif...
I wonder where that comes from. ;-)

Thanks, Nina!
Actually, I'm stealing some ideas from Fontana's Andralis, where I'm digging in search of strange solutions to letterforms (BTW, look at his Ampersand), though my cuasi-models are italic.

MarS

Oops!
It seems that last maintenance tasks erased some pix.
Right above that, it should be seen this one:

MarS

Pics shouldn't be erased, they will reappear when they are cached again.

[edit] I see they already reappeared. :)

Pics shouldn’t be erased, they will reappear when they are cached again.
Actually, they don't appear in the server anymore.
Say, http://typophile.com/cms/files/quirky_6534.png (the picture I needed to replace), produces a 404 server error: "The content you are looking for is likely here, but no longer at the URL you specified".
So, it's not a caché problem, I guess.
Thanks, anyway,

MarS

I like your open ‘g’!
Go on with that!

Stefan

PS

Very good font, it seems to me!

Thank you, Stefan!
Here it goes an overview of its current UC/lc state:

Looking good.
Should you spread the bottom of W wider? I'd look at that (maybe particularly moving that right lower vertex rightward). It will look more balanced and will probably fit better with the next letter, too.

The bar of the "e" is too light.
And the bar of the "H" as well.

hhp

Should you spread the bottom of W wider?
Good point. I'll make some tries on that.

The bar of the “e” is too light. And the bar of the “H” as well.
Absolutely light. I was trying to make them curvy... started by punching on the original bars, and forgot to replace them by the alternate results. Actually, a bad mistake. Thanks, Hrant. Those are the results:

MarS

I've been working on the "W" in order to unify criteria.
That's what I've made by now:

About the acute encounters and inktraps, I've faced a transitional solution that will change into my "v"'s counter vertex:

Thanks for your help in advance.

MarS

Hey Marcelo,

what happened with this beautiful font?
Did you sell it?

Would like to hear about it.

Best wishes
Stefan

I want to know as well. I just Googled your name and I can't find any releases. Is this your first typeface which got to this stage? Why hasn't it been released yet? It's one of the most powerful serif designs I've ever seen so naturally I would love to see this released.