Interesting. It isn't very wide, but it feels wide.

y - the tail seems a little thin
t - the cross-stroke seems a little long
g - the bottom bowl looks squooshed
g - not sure about the ear
d - the bottom of the belly seems pinched.
b - the notch where the stroke and stem meet should be more defined

b & d - maybe the bowls need to be a little more square?

Still pretty readable at small sizes. The wide spacing helps with that.

s - I can't decide if it is squooshed or not.

Dear Eric please rethink the name as I have already designed a font called 'Markant' as you can see here: http://www.typefacedesign.org/2009/

@Claus Sorry about that. I will think of a new name. It seems like the good names are always taken. I definitely don't want to compete with Markant, as it looks much nicer than this font; I think it utilizes Dwiggin's Marionette theory very well!

@Tiffany Thank you for taking the time to point out these issues. The diagonals in general are difficult to judge after too many attempts at minute adjustments, but you;re right about the y tail. I think the b & d need more as well. I will produce some variations for all of these suggestions and jpg them on this thread.

-Eric MacLeod

Here are the changes made in y,t,g,b,d, & s. I will change the name of the font to "Marquardt". That's the name of the street next to a triple-train-track crossing on my way to work; probably the most annoying section of my commute.

The change in the bowls/bellies and counters in d,b are slight, but I think they are the necessary changes. The counters in the g have been balanced a little more. The s has been adjusted some more...I think the spine was too fat before. I've included several g's here, but I have visited some of the ear variations before and I still feel like the ear similar to the inverted b belly-stem connection is the most successful. I'll have the pdf updated by tomorrow.

-Eric MacLeod

Hi Eric,

That second to last 'g' is pretty interesting. I like what's happening with the top bowl; have you tried giving the lower bowl a little of the same treatment? I wonder if, instead of the lower part of the letter being a single looping stroke, it instead had the "constructed" feeling of the top bowl, maybe with a teardrop-shaped counter. I have a feeling that if you get this letter to a place where you like it, it might inform the other letters as well -- and this is a good testword for working these ideas out.

Good luck!

J

Thanks for the comment, Jonathan! Here are some totally new variations based on the idea of giving the lower bowl a "constructed" feel. I applied this g's Infinity-like upper-left bowl-stem connection to b & a.

Seen are some other variations:

fig. a. original

fig. b g. with new lower bowl, a & b changed as well; angled ascenders

fig. c–e. experimenting with opening the weak connections

fig. g–l. experimenting with giving g tail connection relief.

fig. f. a full fledged stencil font perhaps, using 110° angle

Can I get some more feedback on these variations? Input from non-Type-Superheroes also welcome :)

Hi Eric,

I just couldn’t resist your last ‘Input from non-Type-Superheroes’ call. I am still smiling about it. I liked ‘Marquardt’ very much from the first time I saw it. It emanates a subtle elegance.

Structurally speaking you have two options:

1. To design a regular typeface without unexpectedly innovative character shapes (like Frutiger, Scala Sans, Syntax or to put it better; like Futura after the Bauer craftsmen took out all the ‘odd-looking’ like characters of Paul Renner), The Standard version for Body Text.
2. To design a typeface with 80% normal and 20% novel-looking like characters, The Alternate version for Display.

Maybe you could make a No. 1 as a standard version (and even so, it would still display many very nice characteristics as it already does) and a No. 2 as an alternate version and see how it goes.

The last image with alternate versions of the word ‘badge’ that you posted concentrates on restructuring the overall style of ‘Marquardt’ according to the shapes that the letter ‘g’ might take.

Trying out different ‘g’s is quite OK, and of those I like the ones in b, c, d and e. Altering all the other letters in the word ‘badges’ didn’t quite work out as these letters in your original version are already quite nicely drawn compared to the new version.

I am posting you some alternates for the letter ‘g’ just in case they might interest you.

Cheers
Boris