The design is mostly done. What remains for me is reviewing the OpenType features (currently Glyphs’ auto suggestions) and ensuring consistency of kerning. The build files work, but will need to be edited to comply with the new FontBakery requirements. This might also have repercussions for the info listed in text and specimens.
The repo is updated with text, proofs and email/chatlogs from Cyrillic and Greek reviews + our internal conversation. I am still fine-tuning the description of the typeface, which will be repurposed for DESCRIPTION.en_us.html.
The PDF shows the design quite well, and includes a comparison with the other typefaces we discussed. I would be more comfortable letting Geologisk speak for itself, but I don’t have any big issues keeping this in.
We have been thinking about the naming of both typeface and the stylistic axis. It is not ideal for English speakers. We’d like to propose changing the name to “Geologica”, and the stylistic axis to “Drift” (Tag: “DRFT”).
That would give the following family:
Geologica Thin
Geologica ExtraLight
Geologica Light
Geologica Regular
Geologica Medium
Geologica SemiBold
Geologica Bold
Geologica ExtraBold
Geologica Black
Also of note:
• I drew new stylistic extremes of 6/9 that interpolate with the default master. They fit the design better, IMO.
• The stylistic change has been incorporated also into the smallest details, so even the smallest comma changes across the spectre to reflect the change in letterforms
Hi Dave, Mark
The design is mostly done. What remains for me is reviewing the OpenType features (currently Glyphs’ auto suggestions) and ensuring consistency of kerning. The build files work, but will need to be edited to comply with the new FontBakery requirements. This might also have repercussions for the info listed in text and specimens.
The repo is updated with text, proofs and email/chatlogs from Cyrillic and Greek reviews + our internal conversation. I am still fine-tuning the description of the typeface, which will be repurposed for DESCRIPTION.en_us.html.
The PDF shows the design quite well, and includes a comparison with the other typefaces we discussed. I would be more comfortable letting Geologisk speak for itself, but I don’t have any big issues keeping this in.
We have been thinking about the naming of both typeface and the stylistic axis. It is not ideal for English speakers. We’d like to propose changing the name to “Geologica”, and the stylistic axis to “Drift” (Tag: “DRFT”).
That would give the following family:
Geologica Thin Geologica ExtraLight Geologica Light Geologica Regular Geologica Medium Geologica SemiBold Geologica Bold Geologica ExtraBold Geologica Black
Geologica Thin Italic Geologica ExtraLight Italic Geologica Light Italic Geologica Regular Italic Geologica Medium Italic Geologica SemiBold Italic Geologica Bold Italic Geologica ExtraBold Italic Geologica Black Italic
Gelogica Drift Thin Gelogica Drift ExtraLight Gelogica Drift Light Gelogica Drift Regular Gelogica Drift Medium Gelogica Drift SemiBold Gelogica Drift Bold Gelogica Drift ExtraBold Gelogica Drift Black
Gelogica Drift Thin Italic Gelogica Drift ExtraLight Italic Gelogica Drift Light Italic Gelogica Drift Regular Italic Gelogica Drift Medium Italic Gelogica Drift SemiBold Italic Gelogica Drift Bold Italic Gelogica Drift ExtraBold Italic Gelogica Drift Black Italic
Can you see anything else we’ve missed?
Also of note: • I drew new stylistic extremes of 6/9 that interpolate with the default master. They fit the design better, IMO. • The stylistic change has been incorporated also into the smallest details, so even the smallest comma changes across the spectre to reflect the change in letterforms