The designer of this FontStruction has chosen not to make it available for download from this website by choosing an “All Rights Reserved" license.
Please respect their decision and desist from requesting license changes in the comments.
If you would like to use the FontStruction for a specific project, you may be able to contact the designer directly about obtaining a license.
14 Comments
This is a new addition to the Gimli family. The basic concept is the same as of the other Gimli fonts. I experimented with an all lower case font so as to explore the white spaces between ascenders and descenders.
This looks crazy complicated. It must have taken days to to create. This is the work of a very patient person. It shows mastery of the Fontstruct program.
Extended Latin set added. Still need some work. I'd like to get some feedback on diacritical marks, and the ß (Eszett).
Cyrillic set (for Russian) have been created as well. However, the fontstruction, already big, became too large for FS to handle. It could not be rendered in the preview window. Therefore, it will be pulished separately.
@La police de caractère: Thank you for your kind comment. It took me longer than a few days, but I wasn't working always on this project. Crazy complicated? That was not my intention. Actually, I wanted to create a beveled font with minimal design. The only major challenge was to make sure the white gaps between the elements were always the same width, regardless of their angle. I had to scale up the letters in order to work with very small fractions. I think, I have succeeded to get a good approximation. The difference is imperceptible for the human eye even at large font sizes.
I meant to write "crazily complicated", not that the font is crazy. It makes me want to stop all my work and only Fontstruct to learn about the possibilities and make fonts.
Hmm . . . The diacritics look fine. As for eszett . . . given the design of the font, I can't think of how else to construct it. It works, however.
@TCWhite: Thank you for your comment. Well, I've changed the ß. It's now by the books, but a monster.
Would designing it as a simple "ss" be acceptable?
@Umbreon126: Well, typing ss is more elegant, of course. I merely gave more options to the user by adding the ß glyph. It is not my fault this particular glyph, a vestige of medieval German script, is as large as a capital B. It's a ligature, actually, and only has lower case form. Still, I am very fond of eszett; I seldom miss an opportunity to design one for a new typeface.
I had a thought of doing the eszett as a digraph, rather, making the glyph a combination of the sharp s + s, i.e., not having them connected.
Okay . . . I like the new design. The capital is in Latin Extended-Additional—if you were unaware, that is? :)
@ TCWhite: Yes, I have tried the digraph for the ß glyph. It was OK, but not much smaller. I am content with the new design, too.
I know, there is a capital eszett glyph in More Latin at the end. What I meant, the capital version is not really in use. It is a recent addition to the German alphabet designed for text set in capitals, chiefly. In practice, they use SS instead. However, that solution has problems too: triple consonants. In words like Maßstab, Mißstand, Paßstraße, Schloßschule, etc. you end up with SSS.
Thank you for your thoughts; it made me do more research on the subject.
You're welcome. I often tell people to research if they consider adding glyphs they're unfamiliar with. Half of my time spent designing is actually doing research. The unicode images associated with a ton of the glyphs are actually wrong, as are a lot of the names.
Please sign in to comment.