Curvilino
Share:
-
This font is an experiment using filters set at vertical 2 and horizontal 1. Any comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome! -
Info:Created on 21st September 2011. Last edited on 25th October 2011.
-
License:
-
Categories:
-
Sets:
-
Tag:
22 Comments
it doesn't have to be monospaced though
Although a large number of these glyphs are the same width, the Curvilino font isn't monospaced; for example, compare the @ sign with the exclamation point.
I appreciate your kind remarks!
If I may make a couple of minor points Dan, I would have the crossbars of the 'f' and 't' a wee bit shorter. (in the sample text look at the 'fo' of fox and the 'tz' of quartz).
I would also make the 'AE', 'ae', 'OE' and 'oe' ligatures share a central horizontal, so that they don't look so heavy.
Minor points on such a good design :)
I have struggled constantly with the problem of the f crossbar. If I make it shorter, then there will be a huge gap separating it from any letter without an ascender. The issue is less critical with the t, since its curved base takes care of that spacing issue. Even so, I have used the longer crossbar for both glyphs merely for consistency. I'm going to fix the t, because there's really no good reason for it to match the f.
As for the AE, ae, OE and oe ligatures, you're exactly right. My original AE and OE overlapped in the center as you advise. It's just impossible, however, to achieve the same result with ae and oe, because of the 2 by 1 filter settings. Believe me, I tried over and over to resolve this conundrum, but the macaroni bricks at the top of each single letter simply will not line up with a shared central line! Although I can and will return AE and OE to their prior ligature patterns, I can't find a way to fix ae and oe. So I'm left, as I see it, with two choices: either ae and oe must remain as they are, or I can delete them. At the moment, I'm leaning toward the latter solution. Please let me know what you think, and thanks again for your remarks!
Thanks so much, Ata!
As for the problem with the 'f' (this also is useful for 't' and 'r'), all you have to do is move the Letter Space in a bit (I believe this is called 'negative kerning'). below is an example from one of my old designs ...
I've tested several possible solutions for the crossbar of the f. In each of the three images shown below, figure 1 shows the crossbar at its original 2-brick length; figure 2 uses the shortest crossbar (1/2 brick); in figure 3, the bar is a bit longer (1 brick); figure 4 features the shortest crossbar again, but with negative kerning of a single brick; and figure 5 employs a new composite 3/4 brick.
First, let's rule out figure 1, the original f, in all three cases.
Example A [“fox”]: In figures 2 and 3, the gap after the f is unacceptably wide.
Example B [“fur”]: Again, in figure 2, the gap's width is excessive. Figure 3 is a little better, but still not ideal.
Example C [“fly”]: Figure 2 is fair. Figure 3 works reasonably well. But in figure 4 (negative kerning), the f and l are actually touching!
I believe, therefore, that the best compromise for all three situations is figure 5, using the 3/4 brick crossbar, which I manufactured after reading thalamic's advice regarding composites.
And now I'm completely exhausted! :)
I think C/3 is looking good.
One thing I noticed is that ascender of the 'l' has that small 'return' at the top (I'm afraid I don't know the technical term).
A) It is not found in any of the other ascenders.
B) Without it you might be able to space the 'f' a wee bit tighter.
Just a thought.
As for the serif at the top of the l, it's there to make sure this glyph isn't interpreted as a 1, which has a different type of topper. I know the other tall ascenders are topless; however, both the i and j have the same serif as the l. I used the serif on the i for spacing purposes, especially when the i is accented. And since the i got a serif, I thought the j should have one as well. :)
I've also removed the serif from the l as you recommended. Spacing remains problematical, however, if i and j lose their serifs, so I've left them as before.
I hope you approve of these revisions. :)
I prefer the 'l' and it will always stand apart from the '1' because the latter is so destinctive.
I really like the fact that your ae and oe don't rely on the distorted double curves used in my current designs. On the other hand, I prefer to maintain the rounded inner corners of these ligatures. This could be achieved by stacking the composite double curves on top of your solutions. But I've been unable to produce a pair of central notches in order to emphasize that individual glyphs have been joined. This is because of the 2:1 filter settings. I'm going to think about the advantages of your method, as well as the liabilities.
My AE and OE don't present the same problem, since stacking creates the inner curves of both A and O; therefore, I'm going to leave them as they are.
Thank you again for your suggestions!
Please sign in to comment.