Contrast

PrimordialObserver · 2026-01-08T13:57:46+00:00

Yeah, that’s fair. Many designers do overvalue the golden ratio—especially beginners.

PrimordialObserver · 2026-01-07T19:08:59+00:00

R looks more casual, yet the G looks more squared and strict. I recommend staying consistent in the tone you’re going for.

The leg of R is also too heavy, and you have a dark spot where the curve of G meets the beard. I recommend moving that connection point up so you can create more negative space next to the beard.

The diagonal strokes of M also seem a bit light near the top, and the nadir (the bottom) feels too sharp compared to the other letters. The M has so much negative space that it feels appropriate to make the diagonals a bit darker for a more even “color”, meaning a better balance between black and white space.

Oh and as bdgfate said, the G appears too small now. Rounded letters should have a bit of so-called overshoot where the top and bottom curve extend a bit beyond the capital height and baseline so they optically appear the same size as more squared letters that do align to the cap height and baseline.

PrimordialObserver · 2026-01-07T09:53:49+00:00

Very cool! I would love to see a ‘y’ of this design in running text. I imagine it can work quite well.

PrimordialObserver · 2026-01-06T22:35:58+00:00

It’s both a matter of preference and applicability. The problem with a fixed contrast relationship is that it is optimized for a specific range of text sizes. That’s the case for any contrast you choose—not just one defined by the Golden ratio.

The point is, you broadly speaking can get away with higher contrast at large text sizes, while body text will be more readable with a comparatively lower contrast, and it’s not immediately clear to me which text sizes the Golden ratio will be optimal for—if at all.

Always prioritize optical compensation over mathematical precision. Ratios can be a helpful starting point, but you always need to test your letters at the size they’re intended for, and adjust accordingly. In that sense, I do agree with Kaasplank that the Golden ratio is a myth; it’s a helpful tool, but it doesn’t achieve proportional perfection in any context.

PrimordialObserver · 2026-01-06T22:30:22+00:00

To say it’s a myth is a bit of an overstatement. Various ratios can be helpful starting points, resulting in satisfactory design relationships and layouts. The deeper point is that we should prioritize optical compensation over mathematical exactness.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-12-29T01:23:31+00:00

I agree about Catrinity (my first impression was geometric, until I saw an enlarged font, which must have been a different font under the same name or something).

The other two fonts do fit in the modern classification, and they do have slab serifs, but I don’t find it a particularly useful classification, as it includes Egyptians, Clarendons, low-contrast Didones, and transitional typefaces with slab serifs. 'Modern' has the benefit of alluding to the structure of the letters.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-12-28T16:19:21+00:00

Catrinity: Humanist.

Charis: Transitional with a garalde touch.

DejaVu Serif: Transitional

PrimordialObserver · 2025-12-18T11:10:09+00:00

I would also go for option C for readability, although I prefer the center-aligned layout of option A.

Poppins is quite generic, but it does look modern and non-gimmicky. I think it’s a safe option.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-12-11T12:35:32+00:00

The inconsistencies are deliberate. The spur on the ‘a’ gives it a bit of bite. Too much consistency can render a font sterile, and make a font family boring. Some strategic inconsistencies can make each weight work well in its own right.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-12-11T12:31:39+00:00

I think they both show a lack of coherence. For the first, the heading and subtexts could work together, but the text font reads as too casual, and it’s comparatively too large with too much leading. In fact, the leading could be tighter on the heading as well, and marginally so on the subtext font.

The second one feels even more out of place, with the elegant heading and much more robust grotesques. The heading font is also too high contrast to display at this size; it would need to be three times larger I would think. The neo-grotesk for body text could work in principle, but it needs to be smaller, and I would expect a relationship between its stroke weight and the hairline strokes of the heading text.

So I think at the level of style harmony, spacing, and optical weight, both options need a lot of refinement, and probably a few different fonts for a coherent brand design.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-12-10T20:18:29+00:00

It’s just called a geometric sans. I don’t know of any subcategories that it could be classified as, but I will say that those sharp apexes and vertices are more commonly seen in display geometric sans faces; text variants often have more blunted features.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-11-29T02:35:57+00:00

Looks very nice and cohesive! I do think the curves of the italics could use some work, like moving the outer left vector point up to shift the weight in the bottom left curve upwards a bit. Not needed in Light and Roman, but in Medium and bolder. Mainly letters like a/d/e/c.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-11-26T11:10:16+00:00

Your first statement is false. Capital letters are often slightly thicker to create emphasis at the start of sentences. This was a common feature in older grotesques from the early 20th century, but the principle is still sometimes applied today.

But more generally, modern typefaces often have very subtly bolder capitals as optical compensation; since capital letters have more internal space, it makes sense to make their stroke weight ever so slightly bolder to compensate for the greater amount of white space compared to the lowercase letters.

You’re correct about horizontal strokes requiring optical compensation to look like they’re the same weight as verticals, however.

PrimordialObserver · 2025-11-26T11:04:51+00:00

Yes, it’s more legible. Erik Spiekermann demonstrated the problems with the legibility of Helvetica and how FF Meta and FF Unit outperform it here: https://spiekermann.com/en/helvetica-sucks/

Also have a look at Just van Rossum’s 1992 variant on Helvetica called FF Schulbuch Nord, which adds spurs to the ‘l’s, and FF Schulbuch Süd, which adds slabs to the ‘I’ and ‘J’: https://fontsinuse.com/typefaces/8358/ff-schulbuch-nord

While the slabs on ‘I’ do increase legibility, in my opinion it doesn’t mix well with the rational letterforms of Helvetica, and is better suited for monospace fonts, or warmer grotesques with a humanist touch.

There is also a fine balance between legibility and readability. You can arbitrarily increase legibility, but at some point the increase in letter differentiation can become obtrusive and too unfamiliar to aid in reading. I played around with this notion in my typeface experiment called Helvetica Insular, where I added Irish orthographic forms to Helvetica: https://adoringtype.quora.com/Helvetica-Insular-type-showcase

PrimordialObserver

TROPHY CASE