I think this is sufficiently original to warrant finishing.
I don't like that second Italic though.

hhp

I agree with Hrant: in its current state the "Super Italic" looks a bit half-backed.
Other than that, in regular H seems pretty wide, a's stem will need some adjustement.

Wow! This is beautiful! Make it into a complete family (with weights and such) amd you've got yourself a succesful typeface! I agree with hrant and riccardo that the second italic needs work, or just forget about it.

Regular:
- bowl of /a/ is too large
- Bottom left of bowl of /b/ curves up too much.
- /c/ and /e/ are leaning backward
- terminals in /s/, especially the top one, curve inward too much. Make them slightly 'flatter'.
- Bottom of /t/ curves up too much and is too wide.

italic:
The thin joints are too thin.

Keep going!

To all: could you tell me what you don't like about the "Super Italic"? I admit it needs some work but I like the concept myself. Obviously it wasn't meant to be used just like a regular italic. It's a bit more like a script written in marker.

Riccardo: I made the |H| quite wide on purpose. Dagon is quite humanist in regard to letter widths. I suppose it could be a little bit more narrow, but then I should do the same to |M| and |N|, shouldn't I?
What specifically needs work in the stem? The subtle weight build-up above the lower joint was done on purpose.

Jasper: I'm just working on the basic weight right now. When I'm done with that (the basic letters at least) I will start working on Extra Light and Black, provided the construction of the typeface allows such extreme weights.

a - I disagree about the bowl being too large (the typeface is supposed to be quite open) but I'm curious why you think so.
b - Another humanist element, though I admit it might look more stable when I bring that joint down more.
c/e - You're right! I will fix that.
s - I think the top terminal could be a bit more subtle indeed. I didn't want the |s| to be too open though. I want a few subtle quirks in there.
t - You're right. Thanks!
italic - Strange I didn't notice that; I optically fixed them in both the italic and "super italic" but apparently not enough in the italic.

Ahh I just realized the problem with the thin joints in the italic. I remembered fixing them optically because I did. The pictures with the colored backgrounds are older versions. I believe version 6 while I'm at 10 now (the images with the white background are v10 and v11 will be uploaded in a moment). That was my mistake for not mentioning that. If you look at the picture with the lowercase letters you will see that the joints in Italic are equal in weight to the Regular.

Don't force your designs to be chirographic.
The Roman and first Italic are nicely rational.

hhp

I agree with that, however I don't think the typeface feels forced. Apparently I'm the only one who seems to think so though. I would be interested to hear how you would approach this concept and improve the design; otherwise I suppose it's best to just get rid of it.

For the arches, maybe make the rising sections (coming
out of the lefthand stems) constant thickness. Dunno.

hhp

Funny, my impression about the “super italic” is the opposite of Hrant’s. I think it looks too rational, just a “concept”, as you say.
As for a’s stem, maybe big white on red isn’t the best way to judge it. In fact, looking at the linked pic (smaller black on white), it could work.

Maybe we're saying the same thing, since I'm actually see it as too
ideological. Remember, I don't consider chirography "rational". :-)

hhp

I understand what both of you mean. If it's nothing more than an interesting concept I don't see a point in continuing the "super italic" except for personal reasons, but I don't have that kind of time to waste.

First make the 'normal' italic work. Than you could perhaps start thinking about the 'extra' italic.

On the 'normal' italic:

The curves in the shoulder and the joint of /m n u h/ are simply ugly. They look hastily drawn and overly quirky. That same area in is better in /a b d g p q/ but still not there. It has to look fluid to the eye, not forced. The harmonizer from RMX tools will help your curves look better.

On second thought, the thin joints in both the regular and the italic are too thin. Try adding 5-10 units and you will probably see a much more even colour + better legibilty.

Cheers,
Jasper

Try adding 5-10 units and you will probably see a much more even colour + better legibilty.

Perhaps (especially about even colour), but I, for one, like the stencil-like effect.

> The curves in the shoulder and the joint of /m n u h/ are simply ugly.
I wanted to give it a sense of a serif italic, but in hindsight I think the thin part is too long; the weight needs to be distributed more so the shape can be a firm bow like in the regular.

> On second thought, the thin joints in both the regular and the italic are too thin. Try adding 5-10 units and you will probably see a much more even colour + better legibilty.
You don't seem to get the concept of this typeface. I'm giving it this extreme contrast in the joints on purpose. As riccardo says it creates a nice stencil-like effect. That's what it does at display size, and at body copy size it melts so much together that it just flows and reads well. Admittedly I'm not quite there yet with the italics, but that's the general concept, purpose and effect. Adding weight to the joints and I almost see no point in doing this typeface anymore.

Try it. 5-10 units won't make it a different typeface. It'll just make it feel a bit more stable. The thing with that stencil effect, is that it doesn't shine through in letters without joints, like o, making them stand out. You have to find a balance between the stencil effect and a coherent texture and even colour. It's your baby. Your choice. I'm just givin' you my opinion.

Cheers!
Jasper

> 5-10 units won't make it a different typeface.

That's very strange...

hhp

Can anyone help in the following forum post? Greatly appreciated!

http://typophile.com/node/67304#comment-494617