Half class critiques of groups #1 & #2 T/Th with a focus on the specimen, and secondarily on the completion/refinement of the typefaces as follows:
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?
Final specimen printed and bound in appropriate full-color media, to scale (if for print) or supplied as a digital file to the Google Drive link
Final typeface proof (Round 07) including any extra characters at large size, in spacing strings, and in the body of paragraph.
Process work for entire typeface from sketches to iterations in proofs, organized sequentially where possible so I can follow your trajectory through the project.
PDF of final ‘Round 07’ proof with an extra characters (as above)
PDF of specimen, saved as spreads, no crop marks
link to final video/web site etc.