@djnippa: Actually, when I released my Bevel'sAdvocateMono font, you were the first person to ask if I intended to create a non-monospaced version. At the time, the limits of the FontStructor were strained to the max, and I was very reluctant to try another huge project like this one. Since then, however, the continuing stream of FS improvements began tempting (or daring) me to make this proportional variation, so here it is.

@p2pnut: A positive comment from you never fails to make my day much brighter. Thanks, Ray!

@Frodo7: Yes, you certainly did tell me so! Incidentally, some people dislike that phrase intensely, but not me. I use it frequently. Thanks, Frodo7!

@thalamic: The angle joints of K and k were some of the most difficult to achieve when I created my original Bevel'sAdvocateMono font. Fortunately, I was able to use the same solutions here.

As for the V vertex and X, they weren't planned in advance. I've stated before that I'm not an artist, and that I have never made preliminary sketches of any glyphs before starting a FontStruction.

It's absolutely true, therefore, that most of the angle connections and the beveled illusion were merely happy accidents that showed up as I plodded along, trying various ways of joining the parts of each character. This fact makes your gracious compliments even more gratifying, Ata!

I struggled for a long time with the legs of R and r. Every time I tried to maintain the diagonal all the way to the baseline, there seemed to be too much space between the R's bowl and the next letter. Your suggestion, seconded by Ray, caused me to try again. The elusive answer was so simple: I just needed to increase the width of the bowl to match the base of the diagonal leg. And for the sake of consistency, I have also widened the bowls of B, b, P and p to make them equal to those of R and r. I don't know why I didn't figure this out at once.

Thanks for encouraging me to improve my most intricate font!

@p2pnut: Once again, I appreciate your support, Ray! You truly are a gentleman.

Thanks for echoing Ata's constructive criticism concerning the diagonal legs of R and r. I hope you like my solution.

@elmoyenique: Maybe I'll try a variation with a real lower case, rather than small caps. I'm glad you like my font!

@thalamic: I don't think I've ever seen any criticism from you that wasn't 100% constructive, and I'm not talking about just my work. To me, you seem incapable of making mean-spirited remarks!

I've decided to return the bowl widths of B, b, P, p, R and r to their former dimensions. As for R and r, there will just have to be a tiny bit of extra space between their bowls and the letter that follows. If I employ your method of allowing the diagonal legs to straddle the green width line, there will be a spacing problem with any glyph whose lower-right corner is vertical; this includes A, B, D, E, F, H, K, L, M, N, P, R, W and X, and maybe some others. After all, nothing's perfect, right?

@thalamic and @p2pnut: I really appreciate the fact that both of you are spending so much time trying to make my font better!

In my original R and r, each diagonal leg started a couple of bricks to the right of where they are currently located. I decided to shift them to the left a bit when I followed your advice about maintaining the diagonal all the way down. This was done to minimize the inevitable gap before the next letter.

To my eye, this is the best compromise to deal with this issue.

@meek: Thanks so much for the Top Pick, Rob! It's always an honor to receive your stamp of approval.

@xenophilius: None of my fonts have ever been selected as the Featured FontStruction, so I doubt that your prediction will come true. But thank you for your vote of confidence!

@p2pnut: As I responded to xenophilius, I don't think it's going to happen. But I would be absolutely thrilled if my design became a Featured FontStruction!

@elmoyenique: I appreciate your kind words. And I like the new nickname you've given me!