These glyphs are very geometric which makes some very unstable and visually uneven. Take /s/ for instance which seems as if top half is bigger than the bottom half.

Glyphs also seem of having different weight. Look at word /often/ in the second line. /e/ seems much lighter compared to neighbouring /f/ and /t/.

You will have to change bowl of /a/ because it seems as if someone is pushing it up on the left.

But otherwise... With some work this monospaced font may be useful even though lately there's tendency for readable shaped monospaced fonts. Imagine developers reading and writing code all day long. It's easier to read all that code when font is much more legible. "Consolas" for instance (which is a modern monospaced font) is a very good example of such font. Non-legible monospaced fonts are otherwise too much strain and tend to make people tired after using them for hours.

Since you're a technical writer, I'm guessing your plan is to use this font to set code in your books... Since I assume your primary goal in writing such books is to convey the content to readers (as opposed to express your desire to design fonts) what I would ask first is: what do you find lacking in existing monospace fonts you could use?

BTW, if you like Consolas, also try Inconsolata. :-)

hhp

I little background info is appropriate: I dont imagine developers to use this typeface in their consoles. There are enough good fonts designed for that purpose.

Then why did I designed it?

Monospaced typefaces have a certain charm, that makes them appropriate for a number of occasions, such as for headings in any computer and technology-related book or magazine(or user documentation) and also in comment forms such as the one that I am using right now).

Thancks for commenting, any other opinions are welcome

> Monospaced typefaces have a certain charm

Indeed!

What I might suggest in this case is a reliance on fewer "modules" to make up the letters. To me there's too much variance and unevenness, making the result more "messy" than "fun".

hhp

It seems like a good advice, but I cant understand it good enough to make use of it. Can you give me samo details?

Too many unconventional shapes are competing. One "trick" per font is plenty!

hhp

I'm not convinced you must reduce yourself to only one "trick," but I do agree with Hrant that there is... well I'd say "too much going on."

Also, the bold really needs some different treatment of how curves join straight stems, because they look pretty clotted. Any one or more of these options might help:
- optical compensation (thinning the curved strokes a bit before they join)
- changing the letterforms so they don't usually extend past the join (like at the bottom of a "b" for instance)
- increasing the angle of the joins
- reducing the weight of the bold

Cheers,

T

@Thomas,

Thanks for your advice on the curves.

@Hrant Thomas

Can you name some specific characters, that look messy, or/and don't fit in? I attached the character set of my typeface (look at the top of the page.)

The ones that don't fit would depend on which trick(s) you keep.

hhp

@hrant I'm not sure @Alex understand what you mean by tricks. Explain in plain English so he will know for himself which letters are problematic. Or tell him which aren't and why.

"Trick" wasn't a very good word anyway... What I meant I guess is deviations from conventional expectations of form/structure, whatever hazy thing that is.

hhp