|g| looks unnecessarily compressed, given how much descender space you have.

Hm, I think it works quite well here, but it's definitely a problem when I use it at a smaller scale.
The a, e and w also have a different level of grey when I use it at let's say... 12p. So that's still something I need to work on.

And I meant to say that it's definitely -not- something I scrapped together in one session obviously.

So I thought I'd post an update, since it's about two months since I posted those previews. I did some minor changes and added capitals. I'm still unsure of what it's name is going to be, but I'm thinking of "Sibra". Cap height is a little lower than the ascender.

Feedback and critiques are very welcome.

I have to say, even if I know it is hybrid, that when I'm looking at this font I'm confused. I can see some concepts in it, but no one is actually the main one. Some quick ideas:

- /a and /s with large aperture - /c and /e with small aperture , why not the same?
- /t without tail is not gonna work in small, can be confused with /lslash
- /h, /n, /m, /u and /b, /d, /p, /q are usually with same idea
- /s seems the upper part bigger, usually it's reversed
- /S weird middle part

- These small serifs are there why? Do you have any system for putting them on the letters? Why is on the stem of /k present and on the tail not?

Can you put some texts here?
Jan

Your /R and /P have very small bowls - they look the same as the top part of /B, where normally they're larger. In the /R especially this results in an unusually long leg that looks awkward to my eyes.

The upper counter in /A is also a bit cramped IMO.

The spines of /s and /S look a bit pinched in the centre; in most fonts this is optically the fattest part.

It's good to be your first one!
/a /h /n /m /u /s are wide compared to /b /c /d /e /o /p /q
/C /F /L /S /W /Z are a wider than the other caps.