The new Wesnoth logo and the Loyalist sigil

[Sgt. Groovy]

OK, here's another refinement of the central boss reflections.

Here's the updated shield with the text moved a bit toward the centre. Also, there's a steel/silver version, which has a bit more contrast to the background, but imo the benefit is rather marginal.

Also if the word "for" is expanded to this proportion: Image it could avoid having the text confusing with the engraving.

Please note that your example is from a completely different version, with the whole text much bigger in relation to the shield.

[battlestar]

Yeah, I was trying to say that maybe try different font sizes for the entire text in relation to the shield, to see if it makes any difference.

By comparison, the gold letters stands out more. Anyways, thanks for trying my suggestion, art production is a lot of trial and error to me.

[kitty]

Nice to see things progressing!

I still see some problems with the glyphs which I'd like you to address:
- The "T" is unstable, the stem sits a tad too far to the left. Also the curve of the bar isn't very elegant and rather choppy. And note for the stem that you aren't bound to your digital nib, in analog calligraphy you are able to turn it and create lines of different widths! If you bind yourself too much to your digital tool's rules the result will be stiff and less fluent.
- the "h" is too wide and open, its weight is unevenly distributed.
- I've got a problem with the basic shape of the "e". Somehow it's like a cute baby with a giant head. I recommend a more traditional blackletter construction for it.
- The "B" has quite a nice shape but it's about to stumble and balancing on its poor little tip… Give it a bigger lower lobe! And get rid of that strange hook at the stem's top.
- The "a" is out of proportion with nearly everything else. Don't forget that making a font is also about creating a nice even grey value. And your a is too wide and too light.
- Those kind of carolingian "t"s are too foreign and attract too much attention. Just give them nice little terminals. Also their finials make them seem to slip - in most cases (and in this one most definitively) letters need to stand!
- The "l" gets the same instability critique as the t. Also its ascender is rather boring.
- The "f" seems very uneven. Trim down the gigantic hook! Also the rigid crossbar could use some spicing up.
- The "o" has a problem in the construction and due to that also in stability. You created the outer shape perfectly symmetrical and the counter leaning to the left - but you need the outer shape to lean slightly to the right in order to make up for the counter's direction!
- Similarly to the strange t I don't think that the special "r" is a great idea. It isn't very readable if you don't already know what the text is going to say. Ordinary blackletter forms are already beautiful, no need to get inventive!
- The "W". Probably the only crit that is mostly based on gut feeling… But that just isn't a balanced shape. And it has that strange hook again. I strongly recommend sitting back and drawing a whole series of Ws to see what you can come up with.
- And finally the "n" has a similar problem to t and l, it doesn't stand…

Overall the lettering could benefit from additional contrast (as in make the bolder parts even bolder)



I attach a sketch on how I'd improve the letterforms.
(I just realized that my english typographic vocabulary is way worse than I expected. Meh.)

[Sgt. Groovy]

I have been reading up on typography myself lately, and I must confess most of your technical points are spot on. On the other hand, your criticism also contains much that simply boils down to differences in personal preference. As your own version illustrates, you clearly have quite different vision of what the general style should be. Your version is not a revision of mine, it's a complete redesign, bearing a clearly different style. You have taken it closer to historically accurate blackletter typeface, which is not bad in itself, but this was never my intention in the first place. My font is supposed to be a modern derivate of the blackletter, with simpler shapes, less detail and more visual consistency across the alphabet.

The problem with your design is that it introduces a whole mass of complexetity in shape and detail, when my simpler design was already struggling hard to make itself legible against the complex and highly detailed background.

And get rid of that strange hook at the stem's top.

What exactly is so strange about it? It probably could look more graceful, but hooks and loops are not uncommon endings for such swashes, and your own design contains two of them (though in different letters).

The hooked swash is intended to be a constant design element in the capitals (the ones that do have such a swash).

The "a" is out of proportion with nearly everything else. Don't forget that making a font is also about creating a nice even grey value. And your a is too wide and too light.

That's quite true, and "a" is the one I have had most difficulties with, I'm still not sure whether I would prefer a single or double story one. (It actually used to match better with "o" in grayness, but not after I scaled down "for" and narrowed the "o" in "Wesnoth").

Those kind of carolingian "t"s are too foreign and attract too much attention. Just give them nice little terminals.

I'm still sitting on the fence on this one myself. I originally chose the Carolingian form precisely because it's not what you would expect in this context. But then, the long crossbar of "tt" does look rather boring without the terminals. On the other hand, the Cyrillic and the Greek versions must use the wider, flat-topped shape, and I kind of like the idea of visual consistency across language version where possible.

The "o" has a problem in the construction and due to that also in stability. You created the outer shape perfectly symmetrical and the counter leaning to the left - but you need the outer shape to lean slightly to the right in order to make up for the counter's direction!

That's actually a very good point, and it would also help with other letters with similar bowls.

Similarly to the strange t I don't think that the special "r" is a great idea. It isn't very readable if you don't already know what the text is going to say. Ordinary blackletter forms are already beautiful, no need to get inventive!

That's not my invention, it's "r rotunda" and it was used quite intensively in medieval scripts, it was included in many blackletter typefaces, and for many, it was the only kind of "r" there was. It's true that it's not particularly familiar to modern readers, but I'm counting on the increased word recognition value of prepositions, which is even higher for fluent speakers (this is the English language version, after all). Ordinary "r" will also exist, that can be used in other language versions, if the context would not not help with recognition.

The biggest risk of misrecongition would be for it to be read as "œ", which is familiar to many people, but I think It's different enough in my version. Also, I've changed it to look more like "R" in shape, the "r rotunda" often looked more like "2".

The "W". Probably the only crit that is mostly based on gut feeling… But that just isn't a balanced shape.

Wha..?

There's probably lot you could criticise about the "W", like it looking like an upside down bra, but balance should be least of its issues. It consists of two rather similar shapes, arranged in symmetrical way, standing firmly on two upright legs. How on earth could it be more in balance?

I strongly recommend sitting back and drawing a whole series of Ws to see what you can come up with.

You know, critcising work people have presented is fine, but when making such flip assumptions about the amount of work they have or haven't done, you really risk coming off totally arrogant.

FYI, I've spent two days browsing through fonts, only to study their Ws for inspiration and to get inside that letter. I have drawn whole series of them, trying out very different ways of putting a W together, I have drawn a whole series of this particular letterform in order to refine it. I have several different reasons for using a "VV" consturct, instead of an "UU" or nv" one, that are more usual for blackletter fonts:

• I want the letter also to be able to be used as such as a symbol or mini-logo for the game. For that, it needs to be instantly recogniseable as "W" and have an original, memorable design. For modern audience "VV" is most familiar.
• I want it to have a narrow base, so that it takes less vertical space as a part of a word.
• Some language versions spell "Wesnoth" with "V". If the "W" is made as a "VV" construct, a fairly similar (in general style) "V" can be made. Not so much for "UU" or "nv". I intentionally constructed my "W" out of two rather similar components, so that I could use only one as "V".

I have put lot of work and thought into the "W" (probably about as much as all the other letters combined), so you are going to have to come up with something more precise than your "gut feeling" if you are going to convince me it's not good enough.

Overall the lettering could benefit from additional contrast (as in make the bolder parts even bolder)

Possibly, but the legibility, particularly in this context, might suffer. Very high contrast may have the effect of breaking the letters apart visually, especially with the metal effect that highlights the thick lines and darkens the thin ones.

[Great_Mage_Atari]

I like the shield design a lot. The only thing is that the sceptre's flames stand out a lot (maybe too much?) below the lettering. It also looks plain. If it were shaped with more curvature it would look perfect. The best part about it is the blue (leather, I presume?). It ties it all together and makes the whole thing a masterpiece.

[Mountain_King]

Say, if you are developing a whole font, what can we expect for support of diacritics? Ya know, letters like á é í ó ú and ċ ḋ ḟ ġ ṁ ṗ ṡ ṫ? Inquiring translating minds want to know.

Best Regards,
Mountain_King

(yes, I'm back)

[Shinobody]

Thread about this font.

There's no reason why a self-created font couldn't support UTF-8 encoding, or any other. As for language coverage, I already said that I will start with the ASCII set, and extend from there as the translation needs require.

[ancestral]

Is the sigil finished at this point? It looks like most of your efforts have been on the font lately.

[iLeeT_PeeP]

Def. Nice... The one with the Gold Letters looks very good.

But the symbol isnt really visible...

[Sgt. Groovy]

I've been experimenting on the font regarding kitty's critique. Here's the "o":

wesfont-blackl-2.png (2.64 KiB) Viewed 6998 times

The left one is the old one, and the right one the new. I've skewed the outline horizontally 5,5 degrees so that the top point is now to the right of the bottom one. I've also skewed it vertically the same amount so that the right extreme point of the side curve is higher than the left one. A new counter has been created in similar way as the old one (scaling of the outline).

I must say that the shape has been greatly improved. Even though the aspect ratio of the glyph as a whole is the same, the counter is now less elongated. The skews of the counter and the outline balance each other out and the glyph seems to be standing straighter. Also, the thin and the thick sections of the lines are in better balance. It's amazing what a difference such small changes make (you can compare them better if you tilt your head 45 degrees).

I'll try and work out the rest of the flaws kitty pointed out while trying to stay as close as possible to the general look and feel of the old design.

[rmj]

Each of the letters look to be a single object, except for the capital T. It seems to be a combination of three objects.


The shield looks great, but I feel the bottom shading on the center gold doesn't quite match the shading on the leather to the left.

[Sgt. Groovy]

I feel the bottom shading on the center gold doesn't quite match the shading on the leather to the left.

Do you mean that the metal has lots of light while the leather is completely in shadow? The reflective properties of the materials are quite different, and the leather mostly only reflects the primary light source, while the metal reflects several light sources and also dark areas of the surroundings.

Each of the letters look to be a single object, except for the capital T. It seems to be a combination of three objects.

That's a good point.

[jacobolus]

If you’re going to design a font or even just a logotype and you want it to work well, I really would recommend starting a discussion about it at typophile. You’ll get much better critique there than you will here (no offense to kitty et al – for real, the guys and gals over there know their stuff).

http://typophile.com/forum/1

[Iris]

ancestral wins for posting the link first.

[kitty]

Thank you for your detailed reply! Those are some quite interesting points!

About the style: Ok, so you want to draw a modern interpretation of blackletter. Meaning one with less detail and simpler shapes. To have such a clear statement and vision is great for this kind of endeavor! Of course my paint over (and it was a paint over - I really drew on top of your letters in order to preserve the rhythm and proportions) was more historically inspired. Most successful and interesting "contemporary" interpretations of blackletter I know rely heavily on grids and merge this 20th century principle with historical and calligraphic shapes (great reading on that and a lot of examples are to be found in the "heavy metal lovers" edition of the slanted magazine, unfortunately it is in german but the pictures can really speak for themselves). But that doesn't seem to be the way you want to go (or are you using some kind of modular system I'm overlooking?). Just to understand your way of working: Your approach is still calligraphic, just trying to create simpler forms but still drawing not constructing the letters?

What exactly is so strange about it? It probably could look more graceful, but hooks and loops are not uncommon endings for such swashes, and your own design contains two of them (though in different letters).

I apologize for phrasing things so broadly and unspecificly. With "strange" I tried to say that they seem to just hang down, they have no own flourish but are simply pulled down. And due to that they are too big and long to just be flags but not designed enough to be decorations in their own right.

That's quite true, and "a" is the one I have had most difficulties with, I'm still not sure whether I would prefer a single or double story one. (It actually used to match better with "o" in grayness, but not after I scaled down "for" and narrowed the "o" in "Wesnoth").

As far as I know a single story one is the typical blackletter choice. As I tried to show you can boost its grey value by changing the shape of the shoulder and having it curve slightly inwards.

I'm still sitting on the fence on this one myself. I originally chose the Carolingian form precisely because it's not what you would expect in this context. But then, the long crossbar of "tt" does look rather boring without the terminals. On the other hand, the Cyrillic and the Greek versions must use the wider, flat-topped shape, and I kind of like the idea of visual consistency across language version where possible.

Actually letters should first and foremost look like what you expect them to look like - that's how they work… And while consistency with greek and cyrillic would be nice, I would argue that first finishing a coherent working set for one language and then derivate the others is easier than thinking of all of them at once.

That's not my invention, it's "r rotunda" and it was used quite intensively in medieval scripts, it was included in many blackletter typefaces, and for many, it was the only kind of "r" there was. It's true that it's not particularly familiar to modern readers, but I'm counting on the increased word recognition value of prepositions, which is even higher for fluent speakers (this is the English language version, after all). Ordinary "r" will also exist, that can be used in other language versions, if the context would not not help with recognition.

Your historic argumentation is interesting - I thought you wanted to create a simpler and more modern kind of blackletter... I know the shape and find it quite legible but I have a lot of doubt about that for less type-affine readers. Also the shape feels out of place in comparison with the rest, due to the little upper lobe your brush's angle creates a wider (and due to that blacker) stroke. I think basically my question is: What is the unbeknown form's benefit in contrast to the risk of confusion (or even misinterpretation?)

You know, critcising work people have presented is fine, but when making such flip assumptions about the amount of work they have or haven't done, you really risk coming off totally arrogant.

FYI, I've spent two days browsing through fonts, only to study their Ws for inspiration and to get inside that letter. I have drawn whole series of them, trying out very different ways of putting a W together, I have drawn a whole series of this particular letterform in order to refine it. […] I have put lot of work and thought into the "W" (probably about as much as all the other letters combined), so you are going to have to come up with something more precise than your "gut feeling" if you are going to convince me it's not good enough.

Oh my. It is great that you have invested that much effort in this letter! - But how on earth should I know that you did just that?! This (and one very slight variant) is the *only* kind of "W" you posted in this thread. If you try out a lot of things or want us to know that there was a lot of deliberation involved in arriving at this shape - why don't you post this process? I can not read thoughts (much less through the interwebz), if you expect somebody to have knowledge on your way of working/thinking/designing you need to tell about it not just expect that one can magically guess that you spent days browsing and drawing…

But on to the "W" itself

There's probably lot you could criticise about the "W", like it looking like an upside down bra, but balance should be least of its issues. It consists of two rather similar shapes, arranged in symmetrical way, standing firmly on two upright legs. How on earth could it be more in balance?

Balance doesn't only happen horizontally. Yes, your shape is generally symmetrical. But only generally - because of your nib's angle all your letters are balancing on their left tips and you need to create counter weight. But in this case you added even more weight to the left with your really big hooked swash. Which creates the (visual) danger of the "W" toppling over to the left. Also the counters aren't symmetrical at all, one is round while the other is much more slender and pointy.

To me it seems as if you had a lot of ideas for the "W" and tried to put them all into one; there is the cathedral-like symmetry and the extremely high arch, the giant hook and finally the diagonals slightly reminiscent of celtic knotwork. And all of that doesn't come together in a unified design but stays a bit of this and a bit of that. I like some of those ideas a lot, but don't forget: additionally to those "ideas" you still have the basic principle of a calligraphically simplified blackletter…

I would be really, really curious to see the other shapes you explored!

Here's the "o":

Yay But generally: When working on glyphs don't just look at the singular shape of one glyph, always think of the font as a whole. The beautiful "o" on its own is nice - but does it work well together with the rest of the letters?

(I hope I answered all of your points… If I missed one it wasn't on purpose and only due to the sheer amount of text...)



And another vote for Typophile! Those guys are really, really great - nice and you'll find no other group with that kind and level of knowledge on the web!