Zuzana Licko wrote:
> Anyway let's see if I can sum it up and add some additional insight:
> the roman also draws on the structure of serif letter forms.
Was that intended mostly as a readability device?
Or was it more of an aesthetic choice?
> I'm not sure why many of you don't like the Q; is it a legibility
> concern, or a purely formal issue?
Since I doubt that Tarzana is intended for formal typography,
I don't think the latter would come into play.
Now, in terms of *readability*, UC letters can go party, as far
as I'm concerned, so the "Q" -being traditionally (and with good
reason) allowed even more flamboyance- is OK in that respect.
But in terms of *legibility*, I'd say it is in fact a problem,
since I feel it violates the essence of a "Q". I think if the
tail were even a *little* to the right (so as not to appear to
flow from the lefthand stroke - a jarring anomaly), it would
make things much better.
To me, the rightmost three "Q"s in your working drawings
are all good possibilities. Have you included any alternates?
> Perhaps people are more interested in this stuff than I anticipated.
People like me *dream* of learning the rationale behind type designs,
especially well-thought-out ones. I'd say web sites (because of
their structure and efficiency) and books (because of their depth)
are two good places to go into a lot of depth.
> I do hope that my presence won't make this discussion
> any less candid.
I think you'll find that you won't have that problem with me, though...