I wanted to make a typeface that was pretty standard but quirky when you get close to it (we see ourselves in everything we make, right?).

It was a really gradual evolution. In each of the above phrases i changed something pretty minor. When we started this project I found something online where a type designer made very small changes in his typeface and showed how it looked set in a whole body of type. I thought this was a good way to work, especially when one pixel really makes a difference.

I like how you can focus on the negative spaces and feel a consistent pattern. I tried to pull the strokes towards the right-bottom so that it had more of an even color overall. The extra pixel in the bowls serves as sort of an arrow that points that way. I think.

I still hate the X. I'm sorry about the profanity, i just really thought it was appropriate since the X was so frustrating. Who ever uses x's anyway? For fox sake, not me.

shirly.

Hey CB, nice job. I like this font a lot - it has a Curious George type feel - bouncy and mischeivious. It has a great weight and rounded friendly feel.

Overall - all the letters look great together except for the X and the E. Somehow the part that crosses back to the main swoop on the E disappears and breaks up - I think because it's on a diagonal - and I'm not sure what to recommend as far as fixing it. I wonder if an additional pixel can thicken up the color. My suggestions for the X would be to make it more symmetrical and remove your funky pixel from the base slabs or shorten one leg - rather than have it asymmetrial. Maybe?

Good luck if you try those - but I like your face a lot!

Jess G.

I'm trying to provide more insightful comments than "I like it," but let's start there, shall we?

If you really set out to create a "standard" typeface (which I read as 'conventional'), then fortunately you've fallen short. But quirky, definitely! I appreciate your approach in trying to change things slightly, and think you've very near mastered the subtlety of pixel shifts — most notably with the 'a', 'o', 'g', and 'q'.

Your 'x' is a little 'wonky', I would agree. Maybe you just pulled the pixel the wrong way. Perhaps the mid-pixel should join up with the heavier right side. For fox sake, I have no idea either.

This typeface holds a lot of interest to me, for some reasons that I can't even articulate very well, but for those that I can: good contrast between heavy & thin strokes; a beautiful pattern that really stands out at actual size; and a sense of mongolian worm-like movement through the angles you're suggesting in letters like 'm', 'n', 'i', 'l', 'w'.

shirl, i actually like the swooping, off-centered quality of the original 'x' and 'e' -- if i'm reading the revision order correctly. be nice to see the latest stuff in text to compare tho. otherwise i think this is nifty, whimsical face that's working well. in terms of an even color, i think you're pretty successful, with a few off spots -- the 't' and 'j' throw their weight to the upper left, rather than the very nice lower left / upper right axis you set up with the 'm', 'w', 'h', etc.

Hi Cheryl:

I don't know how much more I can say along the lines of individual characters that hasn't already been said. I will say that I think your face reads reasonably well at a small size, and perhaps the only thing that bugs me a bit is how the "rounded" vowels (a,e,o) seem to be a bit too similar at a smaller size, in the top one. It appears you've attempted a fix for this already, however...whether that was your intend or not :)

I really like it, though. It reminds me of writing with a fat permanent marker. I also think you did a good job of distributing the "heavy" parts of the letters so that no one part of a given sentence feels too heavy and black for the rest of it.

what's most interesting about this is that you've completely inverted the most common mistake a young typographer makes. usually when folks start out, the indivisual letterforms are wonderful, but when you set up a line of text, it's a car crash because there's just too much personality.

what you've managed to do is make it work best as text first, but remain almost completely illegible on a character-by-character basis.

i think you've done some exemplary work here and made a new sort of text face that works in a completely unique way.