Thank you, Adien! Now I've added upper case, and some of them I can't explain myself, but they seem to work. I also changed the i and j. And I think the j might look a bit too much like a g. What do you guys think?
I wondered how you would manage to expand this one. Amazing untill this point! There are many confusing points, but i don't think the style leaves so much space for improvement. For example, since the beginning, i can't help reading your "a" as "c", but it's obvious it's the best possible "a" in such a reduced context. Personally i really like the new "j". I think you approach the limits of the best compromise here. I can't imagine how hellish it would be to make distinctive coherent numbers with all the shapes you already used !
This makes think some Nazlfrag experiments with cirles and squares, some even more impossible styles and therefore less legible. I indicate you them right now by a comment on them on the Live Page.
@Adien: Well, the little circle at the top of the j is supposed to be that dot.
@Frodo7: I know it isn't very legible, especially the upper case. But I find myself in need of some special currently impossible bricks. I'll post a picture in my next post to demonstrate.
@CMunk: Ah yes, Boolean XOR (‘one or the other but not both’). This is the exclude function in Adobe pathfinder parlance.
As you say, it shares some of the same output as Boolean OR (brickstacking, Adobe unite – ‘one or the other and both’ – which I have incorrectly identified here as Boolean AND in the past – which means ‘true if and only if both are true’, Adobe intersect).
Since we can now stack (OR) stacks and composites, I would much prefer Rob adds a subtract function (material nonimplication or abjunction, ‘one but not the other’).
Either half of your hourglass shape could be made in one pass via subtraction/abjunction; then, stacking the two distinct results would combine the ‘fins’ to form your XOR hourglass. This is possible in every case. Exclude, however, equals subtract if and only if one brick completely contains the other.
@will.i.ૐ: Yes, I can see how that would work. And exclusion would be one feature that could make a lot of new bricks. And it would even be possible to do Boolean AND since most bricks have a negative version that you could exclude from a full square brick.
I'm with Frodo7, readability is improved. I've been trying something similar (you will see the sample), but I do not like my results ... although the idea is interesting. Your glyphs are much better than mine.
@Elmoyenique : i like very much this begining shown in your sample, especially A,B,E,F,G,K,L,S which are perfect as they are in my opinion, other obviously need more work. It's good to see you're also interested in more adventurous and experimental works which escape from your usual classic Top Pickable modular games. As you often ask to others, i'd ask you to continue whith this one, definitely ! I think you have enough maturity now to explore something different, Maestro !
Congratulations! Don't worry about the numbers. Your fonts are usualy better than the punctuation that they can appears from the sharing procedure! You can be sure about that! Still over.
@ne: You know I bet for you from the beginning: I am impressed by your work, I think there's anyone in FS can do what you do with bricks. And what you build that really transcends the normal use of an alphabet and carries it to the category of Art object. I am not able to venture through your typing paths, but I will never stop defending them. Don't call me TP's collector if I try to walk mine own. This is not the time for the "desesperanza".
@CMunk: Sorry a lot, I repeat the last entry (the same text, but aranged, I beg your pardon for my bad english and my strange use of the G translator):
@ne: You know I bet for you from the beginning: I am impressed by your work, I think there's no one in FS can do what you do with bricks. And what you build that really transcends the normal use of an alphabet and carries it to the category of Art object. I am not able to venture through your typing paths, but I will never stop defending them. Don't call me TP's collector, please, if I try to walk the own path. This is not the time for the "desesperanza".
@ne: You know I bet for you from the beginning: I am impressed by your work, I think there's no one in FS can do what you do with bricks. And what you build that really transcends the normal use of an alphabet and carries it to the category of Art object. I am not able to venture through your typing paths, but I will never stop defending them. Don't call me TP's collector if I try to walk mine own. This is not the time for the "desesperanza".
@Elmyenique : Sorry if i hurt you in anyway maybe my words overpassed a little. But i persist saying i see a great potential in the debut you showed which is much more different from CMunk's than you think and has its own strong personality. But it seems to be also very difficult, considering the limited options each time. But yours has a more open structure than the quasi scientific CMunk's one and i think you could derivate to a somehow more irregular feel without loosing it IMHO. Courage !
Simple overlapping shapes, making letters.
30 Comments
Awesome!
This makes think some Nazlfrag experiments with cirles and squares, some even more impossible styles and therefore less legible. I indicate you them right now by a comment on them on the Live Page.
"I can't imagine how hellish it would be to make distinctive coherent numbers..." That sounds like a challenge to me ;)
@Frodo7: I know it isn't very legible, especially the upper case. But I find myself in need of some special currently impossible bricks. I'll post a picture in my next post to demonstrate.
As you say, it shares some of the same output as Boolean OR (brickstacking, Adobe unite – ‘one or the other and both’ – which I have incorrectly identified here as Boolean AND in the past – which means ‘true if and only if both are true’, Adobe intersect).
Since we can now stack (OR) stacks and composites, I would much prefer Rob adds a subtract function (material nonimplication or abjunction, ‘one but not the other’).
Either half of your hourglass shape could be made in one pass via subtraction/abjunction; then, stacking the two distinct results would combine the ‘fins’ to form your XOR hourglass. This is possible in every case. Exclude, however, equals subtract if and only if one brick completely contains the other.
@ne: You know I bet for you from the beginning: I am impressed by your work, I think there's no one in FS can do what you do with bricks. And what you build that really transcends the normal use of an alphabet and carries it to the category of Art object. I am not able to venture through your typing paths, but I will never stop defending them. Don't call me TP's collector, please, if I try to walk the own path. This is not the time for the "desesperanza".
@ne: You know I bet for you from the beginning: I am impressed by your work, I think there's no one in FS can do what you do with bricks. And what you build that really transcends the normal use of an alphabet and carries it to the category of Art object. I am not able to venture through your typing paths, but I will never stop defending them. Don't call me TP's collector if I try to walk mine own. This is not the time for the "desesperanza".
Please sign in to comment.