Small groups to critique early stages of digitized specimen pieces and contextual settings as well as standard typeface proofs. Look at the proofs themselves here, rather than just the type. Do they fully test the types?
- Do they show a range of scale?
- Is it easy to assess spacing?
- Do the proofs show all the glyphs in the font? (incl. alternates?)
- Do they put the type in context?
- How is the type reacting to its intended purpose?
- Should the intended purpose update in light of how the text is performing?
- What should this purpose be? What would be the best way to update the proof for this context: what should be included?
Forms / Spacing:
- Is there harmony in the forms? Are the consistencies carefully maintained, and do the idiosyncrasies feel deliberate or accidental? How can these be improved?
- Does the spacing feel consistent? If not, can you identify the culprit?
- Can you identify candidates for kerning? (ie. where the spacing is good overall, but particular pairs feel loose/tight, and their spacing should not be changed as this will be cause issues, so kerning is the best solution)
- How would you go about testing the kerning?