I think #5 (the thickest) has the best chance. I think the light versions would need to be spaced out a quite a lot more. there are quite a few unnatural angles in the typeface, though it may work well like this as a display type. I also like #4.

lots of interesting shapes, though.

Thanks for the comments.

What do you mean by

Thickest weight is the best. You did this in 1986. Wow that was really ahead of its time. I think it may be worth developing but it would need to change a bit.
I would suggest all horizontal lines be 90% thickness of the verticals.
See Alias's (Gareth Hague) Metsys. I think you may notice a few similarities. counter in "e" needs to be more open, you hgave a similar problem with the "a" open it up.

I goofed. I meant #4 has the best weight and not 5. The problem with 5 (closed counters) is not as evident in #4.

Thanks for your comments. I'll take in count your comments and I'll try to pursuit with that

I would use Freehand MX. Another choice would be Adobe Illustrator,
You will also need Fontographer or Fontlab to code it into a font.
You can actuallty with just Fontlab but I would not recommend it as it's tools are a bit harder to use.

I will take in count of your suggestions. I already work with Illustrator since 1988. As I understand, I would be able to draw each glyph in that software and import in FontLab to code thoses into a font.

Is it also possible to give me an advise over my

I start my 1986 project. A advise would be really appreciate to know if i am in a good way.

I made some sketches to see some letters in light weight. I modified a bit the

Sorry for the last post, the file was too large. Some glyph was cutted.

Here the good 1986 sans project.

I also think of a serif version of this type.

I did thoses letters with Illustrator I do not start yet to work with FontLab of an other type of software.

Here the project

Other questions

got g? Which one is the better one to use with my Graphice typeface?

FYI, two attempts at replying to your [personal] email failed.

I think this font could result in something really nice, but it would need to change in some ways.
I'll try to elaborate later.

hhp

First of all, the new stuff (starting in mid-December) is very different, and seems to have a terminally confused character... In contrast, I think the original (1986? Wow) has promise - it just needs a lighter touch: refinement, and a less "literal" approach (like don't be afraid of going against the flat-base "module" if needed). It might be useful to point out that the "g" is right on, but the "a" is unhappy.

And I agree with the other guys about the dark weight having the most potential, but I also think a very light weight might click nicely.

I guess work out all of the lc and let's see what you get!

hhp

Probably I misunderstood the comments I red or I was to close of my project and I was'nt able to see the future of Graphice project. That's why I drew somethings different (freitchbalgor).

With your comments I am encouraged to continue and to realize all the lc of 1986 graphice.

Could you precize the critique you've made?

In any construced (or I guess more broadly, Modernist) font there's a very strong urge for modularity, for applying "rules". The problem is that a font needs to be more organic than that (at least strucurally, if not necessarily in finish) in order to be harmonious for text, as opposed to just a bunch of discrete shapes. So basically the "rules" have to be a means, not a master - you have to know when to bend them, or even break them outright.

hhp

Very clear explanations. I will work in that direction and I will show the progress of my work.

Thanks

Andre, I have been studying the original drawings from your 5 and 8 December posts. First allow me to echo what the others have: 1986? Wow. I was learning pen technique in an architectural studio then...

Hrant's point about rules being the means not the master is probably critical in developing Graphice. To begin though, I would lean very heavily on these rules to outline all the glyphs.

To my eye the essential character is the bowls and arms of these glyphs describe the sides of an uneven polygon or hexagon. It can look really nice in letter combinations like the g-r-a-p-h in number four on 5 Dec. It feels dynamic in a way many formal unmodulated faces don't. (I would start building the glyphs around this weight).

I think there will be a real challenge for you in obtaining a consistent form that doesn't appear to wobble or zig-zag up and down across the top of the letters. I also suspect that you might not want to make your glyphs too wide (like the 'c'). When that happens the top arms or top of the bowls really looks like its crumbling to the baseline.

I'd also not pursue the directions indicated in you 'freitchbalgor' drawings as part of Graphice but keep them around for future development because the double storey g of 17 Dec is really nice.

A small departure on technique: For what it's worth , you may find that relying heavily on the rules (of which Hrant spoke : the form of your module and the width of characters say) is critical in creating a first draft of all the major glyphs. Then set the rules aside and think only about why you made the rules in the first place and set about adjusting modifying and unifying the letters to suit that objective only.

I hope you have a really nice Christmas/Whatever, I'll check in soon.

Jon

I will carrefully read the analysis you've made. I appreciate the time you spent to do so.

I will be back after Christmas.

Have a nice Christmas too.

Hi everybody

First, I wish all of you a happy New Year.

I start my work regard my Graphice typeface. I'm still in sketch process and I tried to take in count the goods comments I recevied when I made thoses letters sketch. Before to move foward I would like to receive your critique.

Thanks in advance

Hi Andr

I agree with Hrant and Randy. The stuff in your first post has the most potential. Your most recent attempt is good too (for text), although it looks quite 'generic'.

In your first sketch, the shapes are too rigid and geometric; follow Hrant's advice and make them more organic, but do it subtly. See this link.

Interestingly, I think the rigid forms work best in the oblique version than in the roman.

I worked on the project trying to keep in mind the suggestions I received.

Comments are welcome concerning this new attempt.

Thanks

Andre,
I think you are now getting somewhere in your most recent post that can be used as text. Your earliest drawings seem more aimed at display. The ones in the middle (Dec. 16) were more textlike but less dynamic and totally different than your first concept. I think you now have to make some small text sized printouts to see if (as I think) there will be dark spots at some of the joins. You can try thinning the horizontals a bit or tapering to the joins more. Another way is to cut a notch at the joins. This will keep the geometric qualty more than tapering. It won't be so visible at text sizes but it will help even the color. I am uploading a crude sample of what I mean by notching. It is not well drawn so don't take it too literally. It may look silly when reduced so don't feel bad about abandoning it.

I like the inslant of the "h" working with the "c". I think you need to now work a bit on spacing and sidebearings. This will help you see if your proportions and relative glyph widths are working. You may then see that the "c" may need to be narroed to appear like the optical width of the "e". Personally, I am a strong believer in doing things by eye instead of by ruler. If it looks right, it is right no matter what the ruler says.

Keep up the good work.

ChrisL

Chris,

I really appreciate the retouch you've done on my Graphice project. You gave me a great help to pursue. I felt like I was in a dead end. By now, I feel more confident.

I will be back with new sketch soon.

Thanks

Andr

I work on my - a - lc. Is it possible to get any comments concerning my first letter and her terminal, the contrast, legibility and so on. Your comments will help me to go on.

Graphice a Graphice_a.pdf (93.9 k)

Thanks

Andr

Andr

Drew

Thanks for your comment. The bottom glyph is also my preferable for his legibility. I also find the vertical terminal is more suitable with the rest of my lower case I have already made on sketch paper. This lc a gave me a big challenge and I am not satisfied yet.

By the time I post this test I worked on the bottom bowl of that lc a and it change a bit. I will post soon the most recent a I've made with some other glyphs to be more easier to compare.

Thanks

I let my work away for a while. I would want to see if my graphice project still had interest for me. He still has interest for me. Finally, I did lots of sketches and I start to learn Fontlab. The next step would be the kearning.

Today, I need an advise regard the way I give to graphice. I still want a sans serif but with a special terminal. I draw two shapes one with a smaller contrast and the second one with a bigger contrast (my favorite). Is there a problem of readability or other kind of problem if I choose one or other contrast. BTW, an advise on the graphice as a typeface would be very appreciate.

Thanks

I don't understand why you changed it so radically. And you have already posted 4 or 5 different ideas to this thread.

You're right Eduardo, I changed radically. After a lots of sketches I felt more confident with the new shape I've made. Maybe my little experience in drawing typeface bring me far away of my first idea. What do you suggest to me now?

Thanks