fs Penmanship

Click on the stars to rate this FontStruction.
Balanced Rating: 8.36
Average Rating: 8.41
Click for more information about this rating. 8.36 29 votes

by thalamic

219 178417

< = alt. x
> = alt. r * = alt. 8
Info:

Created on 27th February 2009. Last edited on 22nd July 2009.
License:

All Rights Reserved. No download available.
Categories:
- Display
Sets:
- Lineal
Tag:

17 Comments

Comment by thalamic 1st march 2009

Very inventive and original. Thoughts:

- Any reason the 'j' dot is angled?
- 'x' is awkward.
- 'z' is brilliant.
- '8' needs help.
- ? and ! should be one height.

Comment by Stephen Coles (Stewf) 1st march 2009

Thanks, Stewf.

If you notice there are only four basic shapes: o, n, l and s. All other shapes are derivative of them. The mishmash and awkwardness are there to show a somewhat inconsistent hand, as, maybe (hopefully), in actual writing.

I keep hoping for OpenType standards to evolve so that multiple alternates of each (or certain) glyphs could be provided in a font that the OS would randomly select at display time, making the font seem less, er, cohesive(?)/consistent(?)/digital(?)/automated(?)/mechanical(?)/etc.

I'll add alternates for the glyphs you pointed out.

Comment by thalamic 2nd march 2009

Perfectly balanced with the distinctive thalamic 'm'
Favs - 'a', 'f', 'k'
Worst - 'r' (looks like a v)

Comment by djnippa 2nd march 2009

Great work. I love the m, n, and z. I'm not sure about the 8, but given your constraints, I'm not sure what to do to it.

Comment by aphoria 2nd march 2009

Thanks NCD|aphoria.

Added alt. x and 8. Still thinking about how to readdress the r.

Update: Added alt. r as well.

Comment by thalamic 2nd march 2009

Done...I think.

Comment by thalamic 4th march 2009

An ironic tribute to the lost art of handwriting, which seems to be ever displaced by texting and emails.

Savory samples. Thanks for the shout out. I'm quite fond of the lowercase. I would have approached some of the upper case differently to match the lower. I'll see if I can whip something up to show what I mean if you're interested.

Comment by geneus1 4th march 2009

Of course, Gene. I'm not particularly happy with the uppercase. Any help will be appreciated. I'll turn the clone on to make it easier.

Comment by thalamic 4th march 2009

Thanks for the shout out in the sample. I was so busy admiring the letters themselves that I didn't even notice my name for several minutes!

I'm digging that x.

Comment by aphoria 4th march 2009

Thanks for enabling the clone. That's some pretty advanced work going on there, Ata. I thought it would be much simpler. Your final output looks so simple, but its complexity can't be appreciated until checking the bricks. Impressive. It's going to be a little harder to adapt to that 'structing style.

Comment by geneus1 4th march 2009

another amazing additional to your library. this is modern and edgy yet fluid and graceful. i think also techie but still very human. thanks for the shoutout. i'm honored to be listed with such a remarkable group of designers. like geneus, i took a look at your grid. it's always interesting to see the method someone uses, but the mystery is still there. it's that x factor that makes all great art and u got it! :)

Comment by funk_king 6th march 2009

Comment by funk_king 7th march 2009

@geneus1: Thanks for looking into it. I didn't think it was particularly complex but whatever complexity there is was just a necessity. There are only three angles of bricks: vertical/horizontal, 45° and the 26.57°/63.43° ones. The square brick is, well, square so the thickness of vertical and horizontal lines are the same. Not so with the other two angled lines. The somewhat advanced technique was used just so that all the three angled lines appear to be roughly of even thickness.
---I am pleased to know that the result looks simple. It is always my intention to hide the creativity because to the user my creativity or complexity of my design is irrelevant--what matters only is the functionality (or beauty) of the outcome. Therefore my designs are only as complex (or simple) as necessary. I appreciate you noticing the effort that went into hiding the effort. Thanks.
---PS: I would be equally happy to receive just sketches of glyphs that you were envisioning differently.

@funk_king: I have been cloning your fonts to observe your technique for quite some time. Glad I could return the favor. Did you notice some of your own style reflected in these bricks?
---The frequency of 'x' usage in English language is only about 0.2%¹, yet we all love the character. Now I know why. Thanks.

-----
¹ p19, The Code Book

Comment by thalamic 7th march 2009