Type Design — comparison of fonts with competitors and others|
On the left is DMCA Sans Serif (publicdomain), on the right are commercial competitors by LucasFonts.
On the left is a [REDACTED] font, on the right is the upcoming Custom Font ttf 5.0.
Here is a comparison of a professional document typesetting in DMCA Sans Serif and Riglos.
DMCA Sans Serif:
Even though Kreative deleted all issues, I still have the relevant images. The red text is targetted to all type designers.
In TrueType, you cannot exceed the font height vertically, or else it will get clipped. The perpendicular line cap might seem cute, but it gets clipped: Do NOT assume you can ever draw anything above or below the font height boundaries (in FontForge, those are WinAscent and WinDescent).
The "Modular Font Elements" are actually FontStruct tiles, and they can actually be flipped horizontally and/or vertically and/or rotated at an angle of 90° or -90° even though such possibilities are not in [REDACTED] square. The exact order of tiles is most likely under copyright. Therefore do not blindly copy the order.
The diagonal fill patterns are chequer patterns in [REDACTED], therefore the direction is uncertain. This is not the case in Full HD [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] square. Do NOT hit the Nyquist limit (switch every other pixel) with diagonal lines. Also be sure to ensure it tiles properly because the 2:1 diagonals don't tile in Full HD [REDACTED].
The 1FB81 character is not composed correctly. It doesn't matter that Kreative is a verified authority of the proposal, it doesn't match the character name. Also Kreative is one of the owners of the proposal, not of Unicode. Defined blocks are critical and should be taken literally. The name suggests defined blocks. They should be done horizontally from 0 to advance width, and vertically from WinDescent to WinAscent.
The left/right quarters (that are chequered) are inconsistent with top/bottom eighths (that are rounded). Chequering lines does not make much sense. Instead, try to round consistently.
The superscripts in Unicode and in private use are inconsistent. It isn't a private use issue though, as it is the Unicode superscripts that deviate in [REDACTED]. If you intend to make larger superscripts, change all superscripts.
The Legacy Computing diagonal fill patterns aren't 1÷2 of the area, even though the canonical representation (Full HD [REDACTED]) of the characters suggest a half area. Make sure your fonts ARE consistent when you design them to be.
The intersection in the mixed tables in ╫ and ╪ is useless. It doesn't matter what the majority of the fonts do. Do NOT blindly copy the majority of fonts, it only leads to clusters of very similar fonts.
This is what the character tables would look like if there was a table for every style, except there isn't — only the Regular exists. If you're documenting characters of your fonts, document EVERY style if they're not straight transformations.
Contact Piotr Grochowski below if you want to request a comparison of any of the fonts of Type Design with your (whether publicdomain, opensource, freeware, all rights reserved and/or blacklisted).
Here is a comparison between Custom Font ttf and Riglos in the Subset2 character set:
Here is a comparison between Fairfax and Riglos:
Here is a comparison between Riglos Mono (monospaced) and Riglos (proportional):
Name: Piotr Grochowski
Widget is loading comments...