This is my first attempt at designing a (very rudimentary) typeface.
I've used a simple system where each letter is based on the letter "o" – although I'm aware that such a rigid approach is problematic to say the least. (I've tweaked only a few letters so far.)
All feedback on further alterations I need to consider, etc, would be much appreciated, thanks.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| type-A-Z-new-black.jpg | 657 KB |
This is a classic approach. See, as reference:
http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/cheapprofonts/geometry-soft-pro/
http://www.bowfinprintworks.com/BauhausFaces1.html
What could be interesting in your take is the varying width of the stroke.
riccard0, thanks for your reply.
As you say I think that the varying width is the potentially interesting aspect here.
Any comments on specific alterations to individual glyphs / the overall typeface would be appreciated.
It all depends on how much you want to stick to the purely geometric construction. Otherwise, optically, s is too narrow/unbalanced, u and k are too wide, etc.
Thanks again for the feedback: this is exactly the sort of help I was hoping for. I don't really understand how one makes decisions about glyph width, etc, etc. Are there specific rules? Is it done purely by eye?
I'd be happy to sacrifice the rigidity of the geometric system in an attempt to create a much more subtle typeface, although I don't want to lose the overall geometric feel. I will try making some alterations and upload the results soon.
You could start here:
http://typographica.org/2010/on-typography/making-geometric-type-work/
Varying the widths will give you much more flexibility. The lowercase k in particular would benefit from being more narrow
Captured from web.archive.org on 15 Apr 2015. view this capture
