Could you show the hybrid nums within mixed-case text?

hhp

I hope this is sufficient. I have the letters in Illustrator so I have to build sentences letter by letter.

I personally think the hybrids work well but I might have to scrap the oldstyle.

Actually in the context of that funky "a" I'm liking the OS nums.

What about the hybrids though?

hhp

Those are the hybrids. The oldstyle numerals are taller.

?
Conventional OS nums have bodies that are x-height,
while "hybrid" nums have bodies that are taller.

hhp

Seems I made the wrong kind of hybrids then. These are the sets I made:

1 – Caps numerals
2 – Oldstyle numerals (= x-height to cap height)
3 – Hybrids (= slightly taller than x-height)
4 – Small-caps numerals (= x-height)

OK, I guess #1 is lining (all nums same height) with the caps.
What you're calling #3 is fine (although I personally prefer
it more than "slightly") but what you're showing above has
nums exactly the same height as the lc x-height...
And #4 is normally called OldStyle.
As for #2, I don't understand what they look like.

BTW, in your original sample I'm actually seeing two flavors of hybrid! :-/

hhp

#1 is indeed lining. #4 is not oldstyle though; those are more like lining numerals for the small-capss/lowercase (the small-caps are x-height size; call them 'petit caps' if you will).

As far as I'm aware it's common for the oldstyle numerals to fit within the x-height with ascending numerals at cap height and descending numerals at lowercase descender height, like I did in #2. They were too unstable for such a mechanical grotesque in my opinion so I designed these quasi-lining lc numerals (#3), hence 'hybrid'.

Should I also design a set of hybrid numerals for the capitals? Initially I wanted to scrap a few sets of numerals but I actually don't mind having such diverse sets.

> BTW, in your original sample I'm actually seeing two flavors of hybrid! :-/
What do you mean? Which original sample?

To clarify, in the text sample (Garafont was born in 1963.) I used the hybrid #3; not the oldstyle #2.

Man I'm confused.

I think part of the problem might be the way
we're talking about height, as in the overall
height versus what I call the "body" height
(which is like the bottom of the "6").

hhp

I'm still not sure what you refer to as body height but that's fine.

As far as I'm aware the default numeral sets for a typeface to be included are #1 (lining) and #2 (oldstyle). Oldstyle wasn't working for the small-caps and lowercase so I designed #3 (call it small oldstyle if you want) and #4 (lining numerals for the small-caps).

So, #1 is designed to work with the capitals, #4 to work with the small-caps and #3 to use in longer texts. #2 (oldstyle) is there just because I consider oldstyle to be a standard numeral set, even though I honestly wouldn't use this one myself.

Now there is room for one more numeral set which I think is what you were calling 'hybrid'. These will essentially be like #3 but at capital height; a cross between #1 and #2.

A little example from an existing typeface might help:

Thank you for doing that!
With "Oldstyle" = "hanging".

BTW, for completeness we might add "3/4 Lining" to those four.

hhp

Thanks for the image. That's all I've been saying though, however my hybrids are smaller, hence I called them small-cap hybrids.

Would people find it useful if I make another set of numerals like the hybrid in the picture? I think then I would have the full range of possibilities of the numerals.

Any words on Celcius?

I just submitted two PDFs. One contains the main UC and LC letters in thin, regular and black. The other contains the numerals and small-caps in regular.

Get rid of the double story /g/ and the alternate /U/.

/m n h and alikes/ look too dark on top.

Some minor stroke thickness inconsitensies in the light.

Cheers!

Why get rid of the /g/ and /U/?

m, n, h etc. are darker on top on purpose. I don't want it to look too geometric. Those are the humanist influences, which I think become more apparent in the thin. Perhaps those are the minor stroke inconsistencies you're speaking of?

There's something "weird" about the "a" of the regular style.
When I look it on the thin style, it works well, the reading "flows".
But when I read the word of above "temperature" there's something that bothers.

See that when you write "I'm a scientist", the "a" still works, because the reader can't see the loop of the eye, which the regular has.

Why don't you try a more simple "a"? like http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/linotype/din-next/pro-regular/glyphs/536654/66

Or maybe, if you want to keep it with that "oval eye", find another way. Right now I believe it's the letter which looks most informal. It needs to be just a little more geometric...
Maybe there's a little too much air above the "eye" of that "a".

That's my opinion, hope it helps!
Best,
Lian.-

I like the hybrid numerals. Also your word spaces are really rather wide.