Download disabled
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.
Hi, there!
We (the place where I work) are attempting to brand ourselves because our field is getting a bit too crowded and we don't want to get lost in the clutter. In the process, we are exploring a lot of different styles. Not that we are unsure how we want to proceed or what our positioning will be, we want to ensure nothing obvious is overlooked. In the process, a lot of ideas are generated, some discarded outright while others —as long are they support the planned positioning— are pursued long enough to recognize if they are worth exploring further...or not.
Some letters from this font were developed as part of one of the proposed wordmark. Overall, it works without breaking any of our internally established rules. The problem is one of extensibility and adaptability for unforeseen future needs which this font is prone to cause owing to its personality. The logo work was done in Illustrator, of course. However, to see if the typeface has potential beyond the few glyphs of the wordmark (and not in small part due to its modular nature), I worked out the remainder of the letters here in the fontstructor. :-)
I'd appreciate it if I could have your constructive criticism on each or any of the glyphs and how they could be improved. Specifically, I am trying to avoid awkwardness in the coming together of any two letters. As you can see, it's very much a work-in-progress.
Danke, Merci, Thank you, Shukria.
18 Comments
I give it a 10/5.
The few bits of critique I can offer:
• As far as letter pairings, i’s long foot seems to make for slight kerning difficulties throughout.
• Likewise, the full-width and strictly modular r creates gaps when any glyph follows it. You know this limitation of fontstruct well, of course.
• f works quite a lot better than I expected, yet still poses a legibility issue by being too similar to t. They read quite well when placed together, but not so well with a solo f.
• I love the broken scripty stencil bits! I also love your s, though it comes across a bit darker than the other glyphs. Can it somehow take a break like the others?
• Numerals are quite lovely, except the ambiguous 5 hovering close to s territory, and the 7 leaning left and not flowing as well at the break as the others.
• Not sure about the slashed 0. Could you simply imply the slash (while differentiating it from o) by adding spur-like remnants of such a slash to the outsides of the glyph?
• m feels just a wee bit top-heavy (compare with n).
I hope these observations help. Again, beautiful work, Ata! :)
I love the 8.
5 and 7 need some changes, but not sure what.
For the 0, what about disconnecting the slash from both sides? Take the left half and mirror it to the right, like a diamond?
@will.i.ૐ: Reworked the t to distinguish it more with the f. s and 0 got the substraction treatment to reduce heaviness and imply the diagonal, which propogated to x, 2 and 8 as well as h, k and 4. Reduced the i and l feet and modified h, k, m, n and x. 5 and r got reworked with just up point arms. 5 and 7 still look awkward, methinks. Your observations always help. Thanks.
@aphoria: What do you think now?
Great work, Ata! Can’t say that enough. And great work, fontstructors! :-)
@elmoyenique: You should not abandon your project. Yes, it is also blackletter, and somewhat similar to "fs WIP". Yet it looks different enough, and it is based on your interpretation of medieval letters. We had many times this magic syncronicity on FS, when similar, but independent ideas had arisen within a short period of time. Please, continue.
A crazy blend of uppercase now complete. Not happy with some. critique still welcome.
Please sign in to comment.