What I really like about Roxane is that its design is analytical - something very lacking these days. But Gluth is not so analytical that it prevents him from taking a leap of faith - and that's even better.

On the other hand, the good methodology and intentions are largely marred by a misguided foundation. His main mistakes are that:
1. He ignores the essentially bouma(word-shape)-based nature of immersive reading.
2. He needs to consider conflicts among letters, not just the letters themselves.

What this adds up to is that Roxane hits its target in terms of legibility (where individual letter clarity is paramount), but not *readability* (where word clarity is central).

Even so, it would be great to have it as a fully finctional font. As for FontFont, they only review fonts twice a year during a TypeBoard* meeting; but once they do, they let you know of their decision very quickly. He should still get a confirmation that they actually got his specimen, but he might have to ask for it.

* http://www.fontfont.de/fffstuff/f_submit.html

hhp

Thanks for posting this article. It's a nice read and an interesting hypothesis. Interesting the way he highlights counterspaces as the primary factor in providing contrast.

//joe