Closed tphinney closed 9 months ago
Hi @tphinney @bghryct . I've given the ear/terminal(?) of the "r" slightly more curve.
I am thinking it needs a bit more than that. Also, the top of the “r” narrows a lot. This seems different than any other glyph? So perhaps you could move just the top right point to the right another 20-30 units, perhaps? Solve both issues with the shape at once.
Thanks @tphinney! So I experimented with your suggestion(left) but I also created a version similar to what we have right now but with a widening taper versus a closing one(right). I worry that extending the top right points to the right creates a lot of space underneath that affects colour. Looking forward to more feedback.
Well, the wider “r” affects the color most troublingly in the “ra” combination (and also “rr”)—and it happens that your test string has that combination four times in a row in the top line. I think “ra” just needs kerning, as the r sticks out right where the a retreats. But the lower lines all look better on the left, I would say!
A “normal” Latin font has a much longer arm on the “r” than either of these—this is just what differentiates the “r” as a shape from other Latin letterforms. If you are not convinced, there is nothing wrong with getting a second opinion from Mirko or one (or more) of your other mentors, though. This is definitely a judgment call, and I am not claiming a monopoly on the typographic truth here! 😃
Thanks @tphinney! I totally see how kerning solves the colour problem. We'll keep an eye on it! Thanks again!
I have some reservations about the lowercase r, when I see it in text, or by itself. I can recognize it if it is clearly an “r” by context, but if I don’t know what it is, I am not sure I would recognize it.
That said, I think the general shape/choice is bold and ambitious, and fits the typeface. Rather than a completely different approach, I wonder if it could just be given a little more curve so it arches over to the right just a bit more?