I like it overall.
However, especially in the light weight, it seems that the angularity makes the design unbalanced and it doesn't harmonize well with the non angular glyphs.

I like the way you think. Imbalance can indeed be risky, but somebody's gotta rock this boat.

The glyphs that stand out to me as needing the most work are the Bold* "g" and the Regular "a". And don't be so shy with the ears of the "g"s.

* Which is more of a Black.

hhp

While I think that it does harmonise, I do want to put more of an obvious corner in the counter of o in the light (more like it is in the b now). I think I was trying too hard to get it almost monoline in that weight, and keeping that interpolatable with the *black* weight has made for some lumpy looking strokes in certain glyphs. Hrant, g and a were my main concerns before. I'll have a play around with them and post results soon. You're right, of course, I've definitely chickened out on the g ear.
PS. just noticed, looking at the image now, that the blend fonts function in Fontlab seems to have smoothed some nodes that are meant to be corners. The s for example should be much more angular than it looks there.

update

I feel like the arm that works for k might not be so appropriate for K and x.

I especially love the numerals, and I doubt I can even articulate what makes them so great.
But the black zero seems a little bit too narrow.

I was kind of thinking that about the K, but I quite like the x. Thanks for your praise of the numerals; I always find them some of the hardest glyphs to draw - especially 6 and 9. These are tabular figures so the zero can't go much wider without increasing the advance width of all numerals, including the light, which makes the spacing a bit too loose IMO. I'll likely have proportional figures too so that zero might be a touch wider.

I feel like the heavy weight one looks a bit more condensed than the light weight.

Coming back to this after being on holiday... do you mean the number one or the whole black weight looks more condensed?

Been struggling to get enough weight into the g and s. When I thought they looked fine in light and black, the interpolated weights came out too light. I think I'm just about there now.

They are. Now that you mention it, black /g/ could stand to have its top counter widened slightly on the left side. In-between /g/ looks fine. At first I thought I could see what you were talking about with /s/, but I think what's missing might not be not weight but size. /s/ may need a touch more overshoot, top and bottom, in the whole weight range.

I tried extra overshoot on the s, but it just made it look way too big compared to say, z, so I put it back to where it was. Then I thought maybe there's too much overshoot overall, so tried reducing it. Even slightly reduced overshoot looks like not enough overshoot. One moment I look at it and think the overshoot is too much, the next moment, too little. So I'm hoping that means it's juuuuuuuuust right. Anything next to a z looks big though. I need to find some way of putting overshoot on the z!

I'm thinking h n u and m could all do with having their legs pulled apart a touch.

Yes, h is definitely too narrow in the bolder weight.

Maybe for the s you could think about adjusting not height but aperture.

I think your /g/ has a split personality: top bowl is smooth and elliptical, while the rest is more bumpy. Perhaps a similar dissonance in inside vs. outside contours of /s/.

Nice.

Related: http://typophile.com/node/94168

hhp

Thanks. That thread is what made me remember I'd started this font in the first place. I have a lot of started fonts. Not so many finished ones...

Looking good, Dave.
/v/ looks like it is riding high on the baseline.
/w/ looks taller than its neighbors.
Perhaps the humps of /m/n/h/ could be a touch taller. Loop of /k/ too.
That inside contour of /n/ (etc.) on the right side seems like the most tentative drawing.
Maybe the counter of /o/ could be tilted toward the italic angle more.
That form of /g/ works very well here. /z/ and /y/ are awfully nice too.

A few small changes, mainly as per your suggestions Craig. Glad you like z and y, they were my favourites too.

Can you get more white into that counter within the loop of /k/? That bit still looks cramped to me.
I would lower the bottom right of /m/n/h/. Optically that stroke is not sitting on the baseline like the flat-bottomed stems before it.

I think the problem is the left bottom. It's not horizontal - the leftmost point descents below the baseline by the (general) overshoot amount. I'll try both making it flat on the baseline, and lifting the right hand side of that stem up a bit to make it a more angled terminal.

Looking at /h/ now next to the /T/, I imagine you'll need to both raise the one /h/ stem and lower the other a smidge.
The fun challenge of a design where almost no letters set the baseline & meanline!

I think there's a better reason than formal UC harmony* to make the feet flat: especially looking at the Roman** this is not a "normal" font (to me a good thing); your second sample looks like yet another polished contemporary Italic (even with those sharp arches). You don't want that, at least not here.

* Which can only be taken so far anyway - the two cases really are different animals.

** And things like the "2".

hhp

There does seem to be a slight optical illusion happening in 1 which makes the right hand side of the flat-to-baseline stem look like it's dipping. Think I'll try a very subtle angle somewhere between 1 and 2 (but closer to 1)

New optically corrected version

Wondering whether pursuing this more italic form of the uppercase K and R is worthwhile...
Original

I like it! Especially |K|. I find |R| has still some trouble in the centre.

Thanks. What kind of trouble?

Not sure about the downward slope and/or the bar-like look (I’m sorry to not being able to better articulate it).
But please ignore it. It was just a superficial first impression.

Should X do the same? And if X, why not A? Where to draw the line?

Italics: I like the /R/, it has an original, distinctive shape, there's no need to tweak it in my opinion. It's lowercase counterpart /r/, however, is clearly too wide. It gives the impression of falling forward. /Q/ is wonderful! I'm not sure about the top right of /x/. The top right serif of /K/ could grow more to the right.

Roman: The last sentence also goes to /k/. /k/ is also too wide. The serifs of /u/ in the light weight are too short. In the bold and regular weight /e/ has a "big nose". To fix this bring the terminal nearer to the eye's right end (horizontally, of course). You may compare with the italics, where this problem is unexistant. The weight of the different serifs in /t/ and /x/ is unbalanced. I would definitely keep working on /g/. It reminds me of an intestine :-) which doesn't mean it's badly drawn, just that it's not what you're looking for.

In my opinion, you could improve it by taking into account the following:
- In practically all text fonts the blue area has an even thickness.
- The blue area normally slopes downwards or stays horizontal, and doesn't necessarily has to sit on the baseline.
- The thin-thick transition in the red area is "uncertain".

Personally, I would dispose of one of the two right crooks. /g/ has a very complex structure in comparison with the rest of your alphabet, not counting that it itself is the most complex constructed letter.

Hope it helps ;-)

Thanks
I agree with most of your points on the italic. I don't mind the |x| though; the serifs relate to the |s| and (to a lesser extent) |r| and |c|.

Roman
k - yes I suppose it was slightly wide, but it's a toss up between width and counter size and I erred towards getting the counters more in keeping with the rest than the width. I've trimmed it slightly since then and it's now the same width as the h.
e - you're right, I'd already changed this but have yet to post updates as concentrating more on italic.
u light - It's not just the |u|. I'm going to extend the serifs throughout the light weight, and perhaps loosen the spacing slightly as I do it.
t and x - I agree some problems with light |x| but others I think are ok. I've thickened bottom right of |e|, |c| and |t| since last images posted, so difference between crossbar and bottom is not as big. I like the left of the crossbar looking thicker than the right. I don't know why, just feels better to me that way.

g - in most recent iteration, the 'blue area' is closer to horizontal, and the red area is more clearly thin, and joins the blue area with a corner instead of a curve. It probably still looks like an intestine to you, but I like it...

Not wanting to just disregard objection to the |x|, I've tried a top right serif more closely linked to the |r|.
Thoughts?

I like the idea but it makes it a little too heavy as drawn IMO.

#1. looks better.

I'm going to extend the serifs throughout the light weight

Thumbs up for that!

/R/,/K/,/X/ and /A/ are more interesting with a curved diagonal. As Riccardo said, especially /K/ profits from it.

Where to draw the line?

Which line? You mean it figuratively?

An idea/temptation: If you slanted the crossbar of the italic /t/ (which looks good to my eyes), why not also the descender-serifs of /p/?

Which line? You mean it figuratively?

Yeah, figuratively. Need to be more careful with my turn of phrase!

If you slanted the crossbar of the italic /t/ (which looks good to my eyes), why not also the descender-serifs of /p/?

Honestly, I didn't try this because I looked at similar fonts which also didn't do this. Here's what they'd look like (on |q| too).

Here's what uppercase diagonals look like with very slight curvature. Any more than this starts looking really forced.

Here's what they'd look like

I can't see the difference besides perfectly vertical serif borders :-|
I meant something more like this:

Is the ampersand too weird?

That's kind of an oxymoron.

Thought that's what you meant. I did try the bottom of the q the same as the bottom of the l but I didn't like it. I think there need to be some horizontals peppered throughout the lowercase or it starts to get a bit too blackletter (for my taste). Whether to have the serif edges on p and q slanted or upright, I have no preference, so if anyone can offer a decent argument for one over the other, I'll go with that.

x like the r but not as black as before

Some letters in the Roman have ink traps, but in the italic I haven't added any yet. I'm indecisive about whether they are worth putting in or not. Here's the Black Roman with and without traps. Do they add anything that seems missing from the italic, or would I be better just getting rid of them from the Roman?

I would trap (and the "v" needs more). I recommend you use the Trapping Flower (which is what Nina and I did for FF Ernestine).

* http://themicrofoundry.com/ss_trapping1.html

hhp

Tried with and without trapping. Used a variation on your trapping flower, Hrant, but I think it looks better without ink traps. Anyway, nothing's set in stone yet and I might change my mind on that, but for now, here's how the four styles are looking so far:

I like the italic much better than the roman (and the bold better than the monoline) so far. My sense is that the roman hasn't entirely figured out what it is like the italic has. Could the italic success guide the roman more (could the roman be almost a restraightened italic?)? If a broader overhaul isn't in the plans, certainly the roman bold /k/ arm and /x/ have problems.

I kinda liked the trapping but you should be adding that at the end if at all to save yourself headaches.

Italic /m/s are too wide, and probably /w/s too.

Tittles on the lighter cuts look low to me.

I agree, and maybe an upright italic is something to think about, but as well as the roman, not instead of. Definitely right about the tittles, I always seem to make them too low and never notice!

Before you make a so-called upright Italic, make a slanted-Roman.

hhp

Ok, working on getting the roman and italic right before doing any other styles. I've changed |k| and |x| in the roman - you're right, Craig, that arm wasn't working. Raised tittles in light weight, and narrowed the |m| and (to a lesser extant) |w| in the light italic (I thought the black italic was ok as it was).
In the light roman, I've brought down the junction with the stem in letters like h, n, and b, and brought it up in letters like d, q, and u. I think this makes a big difference - getting closer to the look of the italic. Don't think it's needed so much in the black italic, so I left them alone.

That light roman ampersand is looking down a bit. gotta change that.

Thinking about numerals. Top is original, just slanted version of roman, bottom more italic feeling. I can't decide if one version is better than the other, or just different.

Here's how the light and black look with the more cursive numerals. Made a few changes to light too while working on black.

I can see it working to keep the first line as lining figs and convert the second to osf's.

I was thinking the same thing! Well, hybrid osf's anyway. I think zero, 6 , 8 and 9 are better in the more cursive row than the sloped roman row. I might swap them in. The black zero is slightly too slanted isn't it?

Here's old style figures in text

They're a bit hefty in running text. I think narrowing is the first step to take.

hhp

Yeah, and that 1-height looks too big.

That's a feature, not a bug: numerals like that (most often called "hybrid") strike a great balance between size and distinctiveness in running text.

hhp

Yeah the x-height of osf's (there should be some proper terminology for that!) is meant to be higher than standard x-height. I was thinking this would also be the small caps height if I make any. It could probably stand to be (very) slightly lower, and I agree that they are too wide. I'll probably only have proportional osf's instead of proportional and tabular. They are already looking too wide at the same width as the tabular lining figures (which work fine IMO with the caps).
Anyway, update coming soon...

Would you post another pdf soon? I'd like to see the changes you've made, preferably with some paragraph settings. I love the more cursive numerals with the more interesting modulation, and the italic is certainly going in a good direction. The regular, as Craig mentioned, feels a little undecided.

Spacing needs some work, and it looks a bit tight I think.

Counter of bold 4 (upright) could be bigger. Link of the /g/ isn't quite working for me, but I like the square tail loop a lot.

Proportions: solid.

In the Roman-Bold the "2" is cramped at the bottom and the "4" is too dark; in the Italic-Bold the "4" is too small.

hhp

I will sort out new pdf soon-ish. In the meantime, here's another idea for the link in the g, so the middle counter echoes the bottom counter a bit more. I think I prefer it already.
old g:

Hmm, it's getting a bit more normalised like that. I think I'd try a sharp corner on the outside of the link, as you have quite angular outsides on the /a/ and the /n/ for example.

The nums are better, but to me at least the new "g" isn't.

hhp

Threes and fives may be a little too wide at the bottom.
I think I like the new /g/ better but it's not there yet.

trying to get the g working... Top is original, next two more angular versions.

I've added another pdf to the initial post

It might seem -relatively- boring, but I like the middle one.

hhp

I was coming round to that way of thinking myself. I liked the idea of the g being one stroke rather than a bowl and a tail, but in practice it just looks too awkward. I think the link as it is in the middle one works best as it corresponds more to the pointed arches of n etc.

Ben, you're right about the spacing. I like to get rough spacing down to dictate the design of the glyphs, but fine tuning and kerning I prefer to get help with. I know there are differing opinions about using services like iKern, but I was very happy with the results on Vulpa, so I figure why spend ages doing it (badly) when I can get someone else to do it quickly (and well).

Here's some accented characters. Also loosened the spacing a touch.

Second thoughts on the cedilla:

The terminals of the Regular's "a" and "y" are slightly too heavy.

hhp

Funny you should say that, I've just been working on them. The a has changed quite a bit.

Bowl counter of thorn looks too big.
Thins of bold /x/ are too skinny.
I wonder if /c/ and /e/ are a tiny bit too wide.
Lighter question mark might be too narrow. I like the bold one quite a bit.
The "shouldered" letters /n/m/h/r/ remain, to my eye, not entirely satisfactory. Maybe they head down after the kink a bit too quickly?

And I do like the newer cedilla, which is what you were asking about! :-)

I think that's a nice improvement Dave.

Agreed.

hhp

Thanks! I've been battling with the |a| a bit more. Especially in the light weight I've not been happy with it. Here's as it stands now in text, along with shrunk eth. Ignore the acute positions, I've not sorted them out yet!

The Bold "a" is decent, but I can't say I like the Regular one.

BTW in the Bold "g" the middle join is too close to the head.

hhp

How about this |a|?

I don't understand which part of the g you mean, but I think this one is a little better:

On the /a/, would it make any sense to have the kink at the left rather than at the bottom of the bowl, and the straight section be the top of the bowl rather than the bottom?

I can't see the "a" difference. The "g" is better.

hhp

The bowl is shorter and slightly more angular. I have tried the a with a straight top and corner on the left, but it's too much I think, and doesn't relate as well to the other letters.

It's definitely an improvement to the prior (regular weighted) /a/. The construction seems fine to me as you have it now. The proposition of Craig is worth considering, though. ITC Galliard has a beautiful /a/ ;-)

What has to be corrected is, in my opinion, the shape of the white space of /a/'s bowl.† Now it doesn't suit the other white spaces very well. Look for example at Albertus.

A second observation would be that the top of the bowl (still in the regular weight) gets thicker in the middle, while in the bold weight it thins gradually towards the joint.

I also agree with hrant about the /g/.

† Naturally, reshaping its white space implies reshaping it itself.

I think I might be getting somewhere with the 'a'. With a completely sharp point on the left of the bowl, it looks bad. This is an attempt to reflect the treatment on the eye of 'e'. Top is new, bottom old.

I prefer the lower version, it's more unusual. Hoping to have time to come back to the pdf for a fuller critique, sorry dissertation is taking over my life for the next couple of weeks!

Really? I prefer the top one for black and the bottom one for light! The more I tinker with it the more it feels like I'm going round in circles.

Hey Ben, any idea when the Reading MA work will be put on the internet? Really interested to see it.

Should be in the next couple of weeks, I think. In case you haven't already seen, you can get a sneak preview on the Mota Italic gallery website, where we're currently exhibiting, along with the KABK students.

Wow, some really nice stuff there. Looks to have a bit more varied personality than previous years (both schools) in my opinion anyway!

I like the top "a"s!

A good number of this year's MATD designs are very interesting (most of all Ben's). At the KABK only Minima* does anything for me.

* http://www.flickr.com/photos/ninastoessinger/7482436752

hhp

I prefer the top one for black and the bottom one for light!

That's my thought too.

Well, I'm nothing if not willing to compromise. I've made a light 'a' roughly half way between top and bottom, and I'm using the top 'a' for black.

At the KABK only Minima* does anything for me.

A bit harsh, Hrant! There's one grotesque that I'm not feeling and a fairly boring Devanagari, but I think there's something to like about most of the stuff there.

I shouldn't get into my issue(s) with KABK here.

hhp

Ok, I'm thinking about f-ligatures. At the moment I've not made any but I have made an alternate f which would be substituted via calt feature in front of letters with ascenders on left-hand-side and 'i's (bottom row in image). My problem with this is A LOT of end users don't have calts on as default (nomatter how hideous the results!) whereas most do have ligatures on by default. I'm forced to make fi and fl ligatures, but should I make all the others with the alternative f, leave combinations like fh to be kerned if calt is not turned on, or make 'proper' (ie. joining) ligatures for the usual (ff, fi, fl, ffl, fh, ffb etc.etc.)?

Whereas in the italic joining ligatures seems to be the way forward, and maybe the 'stuffiest' image above only suffers from the ligature being badly made (too spread out).

A LOT of end users don't have calts on as default

Is this true? Of the font-license-buying public?

My eye says narrowed for the roman and joined for the italic works well. No reason the solutions can't be different in the two cases.

Is this true? Of the font-license-buying public?

You'd be surprised. It's very noticeable to me because the calts in my fonts so far have mainly been for endforms and more seamless connections in script fonts, so when the end user doesn't have them turned on, you can tell very easily. Why they can't tell is another matter; don't even get me started on tracking script fonts!

Anyway... I'm working on connected ligatures for the Roman now to see if they can look ok.

Well, here's standard fl and fi ligs in the Roman. I prefer the alternate f look here but I think I'll include both options (liga and calt) in both Roman and Italic, so I've got all bases covered.

Cap sharp S. I think this pointy style is the best fit for this typeface.

A little bit too much separation between the two halves - try to make them flow together into one thing somehow.

hhp

Like this?

Or there's this one still with the sticky out bit but with it more like a wedge serif than a stick:

And here with the serif jutting out bit more in keeping size-wise with the other serifs:

I think the spur is nice and maybe even needed, and I think converting it from a full "stroke" to a serif seems like a good solution. BTW you might want to remove the inside serif on the left stem - or at least do with it something like what you've done on the inside of the leg of the "R".

The "fi" and "fl" are too dense in the roman.

hhp

Good idea. Here it is with a similar bottom to the right stem of |n|, and the more spacious f-ligs.

a descender is a stupid idea, right?

For a capital, yes.

In my book, even for an lc (although "stupid" might be too strong).

hhp

You won't like this then ;)

Small caps are in progress - for the italic, they are mainly a slanted Roman (Q is like the italic) but I'm wondering how to deal with the more lowercase-like UC glyphs (A, K, R, U and X). I think the kick at the bottom which works well with lowercase doesn't work so well in all caps (or small caps if I changed them too) settings. I was thinking of reintroducing the more standard slanted roman forms of these uppercase letters, but I'm undecided about where to put them. Standard as default and lc-like as salt or stylistic set, or the other way round, or with standard forms in CASE function (and probably in smcp too).

These are the two possible cap styles in different settings:

I'm leaning towards having the standard as default and the lc style as stylistic set, but I fear that alternates just end up unused.

PS. please ignore spacing issues for now!

No, it's nice. Just non-ideal. :-)

hhp

I've got a new pdf to upload, but I can't seem to edit my first posts at the moment. I tried starting another thread for it but it seems to have been lost in some moderator limbo. Does anyone know of a website I can upload pdfs to to link to?

Might be worth messaging an admin. Will be interested to see what the latest version is looking like, and will get to some critique next week hopefully.

Thanks, Ben. I've messaged them. Didn't know if it was only me having that problem or not.
The pdf is basically a showing of the proposed weights. Here's a smaller jpg version

I think the middle three weights could do with being slightly bolder than they are now

Indeed.

Remember, weights like to work in pairs. For each weight, is there another that plays with it well? Equally-spaced weights are not necessarily functional.

hhp

Yeah, the pdf showed light with medium, regular with bold and medium with black, which is what persuaded me the middle weights need shifting. Regular with bold - good. Light with medium - not quite enough difference. Medium with black - too much difference.

Does anyone know of a website I can upload pdfs to to link to?

If you are OK with French: http://www.fichier-pdf.fr/

PDF is available for download here http://ge.tt/6nVt5PO/v/0?c

This is coming along well.
A few suggestions to take or leave:
- roman /f/ appears to lean rightward, moreso in the lighter weights. Extending the bottom right serif might help. (I don't know that the lean in itself is a problem, but extending that serif will help with spacing at any rate.)
- roman /g/ I think that corner at the northeast of the bottom bowl is yet too angular for my eyes, but maybe you have it where you want it. Could the ear take a tiny bit more weight?
- is roman /c/ a little light?
- small caps could be a touch darker in every weight. I like the stemmed /U/!
- /m/ is too wide I think, certainly in italic at least.
- the (illusory) upslant of the italic /f/ and /t/ crossbars may be too strong.
- in the lighter weights, italic /g/'s counters look out of balance, with the lower one looking pinched. Keep the structure for sure -- it's great -- but consider tweaking the proportions.
- loop of italic /k/ looks pinched, too.

Thanks, Craig
I've extended /f/ serif slightly on light master. Tried a more curved corner to the bottom bowl of /g/. I think I like it. Put a touch more weight on the ear but I don't think any more is necessary.
The roman /c/ was light (in black weight anyway). I'd already thickened the bottom (and bottom of /e/ too) a bit but I agree with you that it still looked light. Hopefully this one's better.
I disagree on small caps. I do think they look light in darker weights but this is a spacing issue; I just need to track them a bit tighter.
I like the /m/as it is, and the /f/ and /t/ crossbars I quite like as they are.
I agree with you on italic /g/ and I've balanced it a bit better in the light weight. I think I was too caught up on keeping the top counter in line with the /a/, but I think it's much better now.
Tweaked /k/ slightly.

The texture is great. But: charset, dude!

hhp

I'm just finalising diacritic positions in italic then I'll put up what I've got.

I really do think that italic /m/ is too wide. Maybe cleaning up the spacing (which still looks quite rough) will help judge.

Ok mind the salt ;)

Arched letters too wide in the italics? /u/ and /a/ and /h/ look wide to me. /k/ also.

Interesting italics, I like the choppiness, but proportions may need slight tweaking; overall a bit wide.

Open up the spacing on the light.

Comma's head is too roundy. Look at something like Dolly?

Bold lining 5 may be too wide. In fact, all the 5s are slightly wide I think, may be worth checking.

/P/ and /R/ look a bit high-waisted, is that intentional?

Cap /J/ is interesting, I'd have to see it in a word to tell if it works. The tail is very clipped. That could be quite cool.

Sterling, why is the crossbar not passing through to the left side?

Cap /M/ in all weights perhaps too wide?

/v/ and /w/ in the bold seem to align at different x-heights. (But rasterising differently when I zoom in, sometimes the v is taller, sometimes shorter)

Italic /Q/, yes!

4 looks narrow, are these tabular figs?

Overall, caps feel less relaxed, especially /BCD/ and /G/, I'd pull them wider.

Hope to return soon ;)

Hi, thanks for the critique and sorry for my lack of response. I've been busy moving house and soon to be moving country. Once settled, I'll get back to this!

It's been difficult to get a decent enough internet connection here in Thailand to keep this going in critique, but I have now *finished* the typeface. Watch this space...

Released now over at MyFonts. Thanks for the help everyone!
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/schizotype/range-serif/

Congrats! I'm glad I helped bring it out of hibernation. :-)
http://typophile.com/node/94168#comment-513724

hhp

I'm glad too! Cheers.

"Currently #32 in Hot New Fonts"
Way to go! :-)