Noto Sans Hebrew ver. 3

[Ben Nathan]

Hello All!

I'm designing a new version for Noto Sans Hebrew.

I will share my progress and thoughts, please feel free to comment :)

Here are the 3 main changes I decided to do:

1. Hebrew Proportions - I made the stems wider:

2. Hebrew Proportions - condensed the Hebrew, so it won't be so squarish:

3. Different design for similar letter (The Tet and Samech as an example)

Here's my first sketch of the alphabet:

More updates soon,

Cheers!

Ben

[Karambir Singh Rohilla]

I have Developed a new typeface - Body Text and Heading(devanagari) recently. Typeface UNICODE 11 Support (Devanagari, Sanskrit, Vedic, Marathi, Nepali and Latin) weight :- Light , Light Italic, Regular, Regular Italic, Bold and Bold Italic 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Fonts Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to googlefonts-dis...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to googlefon...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/googlefonts-discuss.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/googlefonts-discuss/25024f9b-a818-4cd4-9565-3483cf6e0f5a%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Thanks and Regards
Karambir Singh Rohilla

www.asiantypefoundry.com
Font Design Professional
New Delhi (INDIA)
(M) 9968312113

[Marek Jeziorek]

REPLIES TO MY POST:

REPLY #1

"Looking at the comparison of v 1.04 and v. 2, it seems that v. 2 indeed has issues and is less readable.

From the short comparison of v.2 to v.3 it seems that v.3 is an improvement. It would be interesting to see a comparison of v. 1.04 to v. 3. (including running text), to see if there are specific issues with v. 3

Could you share the motivation for creating a new version to replace v. 1.04? This version actually looks pretty good to me, and is readable and aesthetically pleasing (IMO).

One specific issue that I notice with v.2 which is not corrected in v.3, is that the YOD (י) is slightly too long (stretching over 1/2 of the line height). This feels "wrong" to my eyes, and perhaps even makes it confusable with VAV (ו).

Another issue is that the TET (ט) seems a bit to closed at the top (looking a bit like SAMECH (ס), although not like the SAMECH of the same font).

Finally, I really liked the ZAYIN (ז) with the slanted top in v.1. To me it is the best way of differentiating it from VAV (ו). The solution in v. 3 (a "bow") is a bit unorthodox. It might work, but I need to see it in running text to get a better feel of it.

"

REPLY #2

"It's unclear what problems 2.0 is trying to solve when compared with 1.04. In particular, I agree with the user's complaints, and have some more:

• ן (nun sofit) now looks very different from ו (vav), as not it has a serif and vav does not; I think this is highly unusual.
• I've never ever ever seen a ק with a sharp right angle, not even in "serif" fonts (they usually have a straight angle followed by a curve). It looks super weird.
• Same for ל.
• The י (yod) looks like someone bit it.

The two slight improvements that 2.0 makes over 1.04 are that it's slightly narrower (as to fit more text on screen), and that פ/ף have a straight angles on the left, which is more standard - but I could take it or leave it."

REPLY #3

"

• Overall 1.04 is more comfortable to me, maybe because it is more rounded.
• The ן (nun sofit) and ו (vav), difference does seem highly unusual.
• I think 2.0 is more festive/beautiful, maybe somewhat like the difference between Google Sans and Roboto/Ariel. I would maybe use it for headers and something else for content.

"

REPLY #4

"

I think 1.04 is much clearer for ׳ז׳ (zain), whereas 2.0 is much clearer for ׳ן׳ (noon sufit). Other than that 2.0 is great.

"

[Nir Hershko]

Hi Ben,

Can you show V1 of this font at the same weight for reference?

[Liron Newman]

As a layperson (but native Hebrew speaker/reader), I have the following feedback:

1. The split of the ג is very low, it almost looks like a נ with a tail, making it hard to tell which one it is.

2. the angle of the leftmost line of ף is weird - why is it not parallel to the rightmost line? Same for פ but to a smaller extent.

3. The curve in the ז feels inconsistent with the rest of the font. If the intent is to differentiate it from the ו (vav), it works, but it works by being visually jarring. Maybe because I'm looking at it too much, though.

4. I think the curve on the bottom-right corner of מ is wrong. It should be a corner.

[Aviram Peleg]

so cool...

בתאריך יום שני, 20 במאי 2019 בשעה 16:02:25 UTC+3, מאת Ben Nathan:

[Marek Jeziorek]

Ben,

here's the post I shared with Hebrew readers. I'll post the responses that I get to this thread.

Marek

=============================

Dear Hebrew readers:

Noto currently has two versions of Noto Sans Hebrew;

- version 1.04 (in red/pink below and in the attached Hebrew.pdf). this is what is shipping currently in Android

- version 2.0 (in green below and in the attached Hebrew.pdf). this was something that was slated to ship on Android but a year or two ago was pulled from Android after a single user complained.

We now want to produce an update to Hebrew v2.0 that will be acceptable to the Hebrew users :-) Hence we ask you for help ...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/googlefonts-discuss/q-FxupSEn58 has a first cut of the Hebrew v3.00 ... If you feel qualified feel free to comment

Marek

PS. We are producing Sans Serif version right which will not support 'Taami Mikra' (for bible use) at this point. A serif version might come later.

DETAILS OF THE V2.00 COMPLAINT

V2.0 was pulled because a user complained that

"... I find it much harder to read a lot of the characters look very similar. 

I think what makes them look difficult is that they are rounder and less accented, which is common for Hebrew.

Was this intentional? I find reading and typing in Hebrew is very difficult now"

Note the comment pertained to the green characters from version 2.0. Hence the Android team pulled v2.0 off and replaced with v1.04.

Here are more details of the complaint (the description describes the green font)

"In particular, the letters I find most difficult are:
ע - the extension at the bottom left is very short

ט - very round and not so descript from ס

ן - again, the extension is very short

ג 

מ - the upper left curve downwards feels very drastic

ז - the top part doesn't seem to be similar to they way זis typically displayed"

SAMPLES

Hebrew.pdf: I have added Hebrew.pdf attachment where I compared sample Hebrew text using both version 1.04 (red) and 2.00 (green). No samples with v3.00 yet. My apologies but I do NOT read/speak/write Hebrew so I couldn't attest to the correctness of Hebrew.
Screen Recording 2019-05-22 at 05.46.46.mov: a short video that compares Mac text sample between 1.04 and 2.00 (rounder and less compact shapes are from 1.04)

On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-7, Ben Nathan wrote:

[Marek Jeziorek]

Copied a comment I received:

"One specific issue that I notice with v.2 which is not corrected in v.3, is that the YOD (י) is slightly too long (stretching over 1/2 of the line height). This feels "wrong" to my eyes, and perhaps even makes it confusable with VAV (ו).

Another issue is that the TET (ט) seems a bit to closed at the top (looking a bit like SAMECH (ס), although not like the SAMECH of the same font).

Finally, I really liked the ZAYIN (ז) with the slanted top in v.1. To me it is the best way of differentiating it from VAV (ו). The solution in v. 3 (a "bow") is a bit unorthodox. It might work, but I need to see it in running text to get a better feel of it."

attachment: a short video that compares Mac text sample between 1.04 and 2.00 (rounder and less compact shapes are from 1.04 -- this is what ships with Android and this is what the user refers to in v.1)

On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-7, Ben Nathan wrote:

[font designer]

https://www.facebook.com/karambir.s.rohilla/videos/10221470509369749