added to cart

Cyrillic on Google Fonts: Geometric Sans

In the third episode on Google Fonts Cyrillic, we take on geometric sans typefaces. Lots of oddities, a bit of super-oddity, and something acceptable

February 11, 2021

Experts

misha

yura

ilya

Disclaimer

Today, a free font doesn’t necessarily mean a bad one. Sadly, browsing Cyrillic fonts is still like walking in a minefield; but there is also some good news. Our critique and our advice do not have a monopoly on the truth — that’s just an expert review by three professionals sharing the same values. Plus, you always have to remember that there is no such thing as forbidden means and tools in design. Any bug can be turned into a feature in the hands of a daring, confident typographer, — only before taking risks, you should figure out what this bug actually is.

What is a geometric sans?

Geometric sans serif typefaces are those that employ basic geometric shapes — rectangle, triangle, and circle. First of all, these are the likes of 1920—1930s German grotesks — e.g. Futura, Kabel, — they usually have a circular О. The second subgroup are typefaces with simplified, geometrically stylised shapes which initially had to do with industrial production — e.g. DIN, Bank Gothic, Eurostile. Some of them are sometimes classified as square sans.

Contents

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Montserrat

Julieta Ulanovsky

The author drew inspiration from traditional posters and street signs of Monserrat neighborhood in Buenos Aires. Montserrat is relatively informal, with open forms and spacious proportions. Its regular style is rather airy — strokes are light, and lowercase glyphs are quite large, therefore having much white space inside.

GF_Montserrat_01

Hands-on The typeface has little kerning and optical compensation, curves are not entirely perfect — apparently, this helps Monserrat preserve its street character. Equipped with one set of proportional figures, several fractions with complete sets of numerators and denominators, a basic punctuation set, minimum amount of currency symbols.

Styles 9 weights from Thin to Black fitted with italics:

GF_Montserrat_02

The italic version, except for the letter а, repeats the character of the upright style — so, all things said apply to it as well.

GF_Montserrat_03

The typeface has two additional sub-families, allowing for expanding its use: Alternates with vintage display forms, and Subrayada, consisting of uppercase characters with integrated underline — the latter only in Regular and Bold weights.

GF_Montserrat_04

GF_Montserrat_05

Cyrillic Montserrat’s Cyrillic is of acceptable quality: balanced, with natural shapes, — including the decorative sub-family Alternates with lots of Bulgarian forms.

GF_Montserrat_06

GF_Montserrat_07

Stroke width modulation is not always the best: for example, Лл leg’s end is too heavy. The б’s tail is too light, and broken in italics. In м and я, vertical strokes are thinner than those in other glyphs (diagonal ones are also better to be redefined). Apparently, the typeface was not adjusted after interpolation.

GF_Montserrat_fix

In some styles, the thick diagonals in Ии appear to have reverse contrast.

Our advice

The typeface’s personality implies use in headlines and display texts — substantially, Cyrillic Montserrat is OK for those purposes.

Back to contents

Rubik

Philipp Hubert, Sebastian Fischer

The typeface was designed for the Chrome Cube Lab project, a showcase of web technologies, developed at Google. The display Rubik Mono One was first used in design of the exhibition Beyond Rubik’s Cube.

GF_Rubik_01

GF_Rubik_02

Hands-on A sans serif with simple forms, referring to rounded faces of Rubik’s cube — it’s visible in both the shapes of terminals in f, t, and the rounding of terminals. Ovals are vice versa, squared, which is the most pronounced in the uppercase characters. The crumpled counter of а is rather questionable, visibly standing out of the general geometric character of the typeface.

Styles 5 weights with italics. An additional display face is called Rubik Mono One. Each letter is designed to fit the square, which often ruins the form: monstrous У, condensed Ф, lots of shared issues — for example, rounded glyphs are not compensated height-wise, which makes them look too short.

GF_Rubik_03

GF_Rubik_04

Rubik is equipped with a set of proportional figures, sets of super- and subscripts, numerators, denominators, multiple ready-to-use fractions, popular currency signs.

Cyrillic Acceptable quality. Generally, the forms comply with what we expect from DIN-ish sans serifs.

GF_Rubik_05

GF_Rubik_06

GF_Rubik_07

Кк’s diagonal strokes have reverse contrast. Kerning is not ideal: one can see holes in АЧ, ТА.

GF_Rubik_08

Counters in Чч are trying to play the rounded square card — doing no good to the stroke joint, which is too different in upper- and lowercases.

GF_Rubik_09

Lowercase м’s diagonal strokes are excessively dark, the uncompensated bowl in ю makes the glyph excessively wide.

GF_Rubik_10

As the weight increases, б becomes awkward; plus, heavier styles have a very wide ы, a narrow ш, counters of в are too tight (while the middle stroke turns out to be the thickest one), as for я, its left side is visibly lighter than the right one.

GF_Rubik_fix

Зз: the joint of the two bowls is a bit too dark, the glyph leans to the left slightly.

GF_Rubik_11

Be careful when typesetting in Ukrainian using the densest styles — it might be too tight for the accents.

Our advice

Rubik Mono One can be of use in display setting, while for body text it might be better to choose any proper-quality version of DIN, in which letterforms don’t mimic the faces of Rubik’s cube.

Back to contents

Jost

Owen Earl

Jost (pronounced ‘Yost’) is an homage to German grotesks of the 1920s, with Futura expressly stated as the source of inspiration. The author was planning to design a powerful and up-to-date typeface, while using a Futura-like approach to the forms.

GF_Jost_01

Hands-on Very tall ascenders and descenders, explicitly proportional forms, which is usual in Modernist geometric typefaces. The forms imitate Futura, except for the а — in the standard set it’s two-pieces, while the one-piece is available as an alternate. Long ascenders and descenders comply with a roomy spacing and the general lightness.

GF_Jost_02

Jost has tabular and proportional figures, sets of super- and subscripts, lots of ready-to-use fractions, a minimum set of currency symbols. Cyrillic is covered poorly: besides Russian, it offers several glyphs from Macedonian alphabet, but you won’t be able to type in Ukrainian or Belarusian.

Styles 9 weights with oblique styles plus a variable font. .

GF_Jost_03

Cyrillic Jost’s Cyrillic is an explicit failure. Proportions, structures, implementation — nothing here reaches suitable quality.

GF_Jost_04

GF_Jost_05

Wide Ии with a very thick diagonal stroke — in fact, it is a horizontally flipped latin N. У leans on its right, the lowercase у has excessively thick ascending diagonal, the joint is placed higher than necessary. The high waist of the lowercase к would be appropriate in the Latin glyph with ascender — but it appears irrelevant in Cyrillic set. Overly light, broken tail in б. Both the ascender and the descender of ф are too short.

GF_Jost_06

The bowl joint in Зз is unfortunate — the letter looks like a three. The triangular д is irrelevant as the main form: excessively wide, with reverse contrast in diagonals. The жд pair has a visible spacing problem. Лл is too wide, has an awkwardly vertical leg with an abrupt cutoff.

GF_Jost_07

More issues with spacing — there is always a hole after ь. Wide Юю with an uncompensated counter width.

GF_Jost_fix

In Чч, the arch is welded to the vertical mechanically — it desperately needs an angle.

Our advice

Jost is a mediocre take on Futura with poor Cyrillic, no reason to use this typeface whatsoever.

Back to contents

Didact Gothic

Daniel Johnson

A geometric sans serif with simple forms that are used for teaching kids to write in primary school — exactly what the typeface was designed for.

GF_Didact_01

Graphics and proportions in uppercase are very different from lowercase characters — they are narrower, appearing to be borrowed from another typeface.

GF_Didact_02

Hands-on In spite of pure geometry, bowls are horizontally condensed, and lowercase glyphs in general are placed rather tight. Uppercase glyphs, however, are quite tall and prescribe extensive line spacing.

There is just one, upright style. An extensive glyph set in Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek scripts, quite a lot of currency signs, one set of proportional figures with math symbols and a limited amount of fractions.

Cyrillic Cyrillic uses concise structures, corresponding to the Latin script in terms of its character. Though, there are still several local oddities and inaccuracies.

GF_Didact_03

GF_Didact_04

GF_Didact_05

Дд and Лл: the left stroke is too sweeping. Ж — uncompensated excessive width. And, for some reason, the Greek letter Tau instead of a lowercase т.

GF_Didact_06

As for kerning, not ideal: a hole in АЧ. Vertically oblate breve in Й. A bizarre, squared shape of the Ч’s counter.

GF_Didact_fix

Lowercase б has a short, too high tail.

Our advice

Cyrillic is somewhat weird and of poor quality — it won’t be a problem to find a replacement for the typeface.

Back to contents

Jura

Daniel Johnson

A typeface with squared forms, Eurostile-like, and rounded stroke terminals. The author was inspired by the shapes of Kayah Li script, from which he borrowed a number of distinctive graphic tricks.

GF_Jura_01

GF_Jura_02

Hands-on Quality of the design is rather low. No optical compensation: horizontal and vertical strokes have the same width, which gives you an impression of a slight reverse contrast. The strokes in lower- and uppercase letters are also of the same width — this results in the uppercase appearing lighter. And both cases have the same letter spacing: this way uppercase setting looks tighter. Glyphs have various vertical position in relation to the baseline.

One set of proportional figures, basic fractions, sufficient amount of currency signs and math symbols. The typeface covers Latin, Cyrillic, Greek, and Kayah Li scripts.

Styles 5 upright styles, from Light to Bold, plus a variable font.

GF_Jura_03

Cyrillic The Cyrillic set is even more unfortunate, both in terms of forms and technical implementation.

GF_Jura_04

GF_Jura_05

One of the most visible oddities is different proportions and forms of glyphs that should be the same in Cyrillic and Latin:

GF_Jura_06

GF_Jura_07

If we consider each Cyrillic symbol separately, we will have a problem with nearly all of them.

GF_Jura_08

One can define groups of issues: twisted outlines — Сс, Зз, е have an open mouth, while а and е have roughly bent stroke endings.

GF_Jura_09

Poor forms: ф is an old-fashioned, separate-bowl one, yet poorly made, к also has the old-fashioned, curly structure, with wide branches.

GF_Jura_10

Other design problems: У is falling to its right, Ф is too narrow, Пп, Дд, Цц, Ии and others have acutely angular parts. Swollen arc-to-vertical joints in а, р, and others.

Our advice

Jura is a typeface with a poor-quality Latin set and a Cyrillic which can only be used in radical design: so bad, it’s good.

Back to contents

Play

Jonas Hecksher

An open-aperture sans serif with all glyphs based on о — that is, a rectangle with rounded angles.

GF_Play_01

Hands-on Open apertures, simple structures, tall lowercase, plenty of white space thanks to the squared forms — all that ensures good readability. There is no kerning — but that does little damage, due to the general squareness.

GF_Play_02

The implementation raises a number of questions: О appears lighter and narrower than Н, having overly thin vertical strokes, and looks too short because of an insufficient height compensation — this results in a disbalance of straight and round glyphs all across the typeface. Lower- and uppercase symbols also vary in contrast and character.

The typeface is fitted with sets of regular and old-style figures (both tabular and proportional), sub- and superscripts, plenty of ready-to-use fractions, mathematical symbols. Symbol set: expanded Latin (equipped with small caps), Cyrillic set, Greek script.

Styles There are just two of them, Regular and Bold.

GF_Play_03

Cyrillic Design of lower- and uppercase glyphs is not always consistent: K and к have different structures — and both would have benefited from the use of Latin form. The uppercase И is too wide, too light, and more contrast than the lowercase letter. Too high and too contrast a tail in б.

GF_Play_04

GF_Play_05

GF_Play_06

Жж and Юю are excessively wide: uncompensated, they were constructed of Кк and Оо.

GF_Play_07

Once again, we see difference in the character, proportions, weight of lower- and uppercase Жж, Чч, Зз.

GF_Play_fix

Too round, not geometric at all, left leg of Лл — the letter, in general, is too narrow.

Our advice

Play is a simple typeface with a clear idea, but a non-ideal implementation. The problems in its Cyrillic symbol set are typical, but make it hardly suitable for use.

Back to contents

Raleway

Matt McInerney, Pablo Impallari, Rodrigo Fuenzalida

A display geometric sans serif, half-closed apertures, distinctive curved tails (a, u). It is claimed to be inspired by neo-grotesques — that said, Raleway is equipped with true italics, which is more typical for humanist designs.

GF_Raleway_01

GF_Raleway_02

Hands-on The more conventional geometric forms are hidden within alternates — with those, the typeface immediately gets stricter and more brutal.

GF_Raleway_03

GF_Raleway_04

In italics, the slant is often mechanical: widths are not sufficiently compensated, rounded glyphs are skewed. Italic has poorer outlines than Regular — with the latter also not being irreproachable.

See the basic pair НО (which affects the designs of all straight and rounded glyphs): О looks lighter and shorter — it definitely would have benefited from stronger optical compensation. The lowercase ho are somewhat better, yet they are darker than uppercase glyphs — stroke widths are almost equal, whilst the counter volume is quite different.

GF_Raleway_05

Small (within a few points) dissimilarities in metrics, widths, and symmetry of strokes are apparently the result of interpolation Interpolation is estimating a third value between two established values. For example, we have designed weights Regular and Bold, meaning we can get any weight between them by calculating an intermediate value. If Regular is 0, and Bold is 1, then Medium would equal, for example, ½ — this figure called the interpolation factor to create intermediary weights, which was not manually adjusted afterwards.

The lightest style, Thin, also looks as if created automatically, through extrapolation Extrapolation is estimating a third value which is beyond the interval between two established values. For example, we have designed styles Regular and Bold, and we want to get Thin — the result can be calculated, but it would be less predictable and correct than if we had used the interpolation method, — and was not adjusted either. This is indicated by the distribution of widths: the joints of arcs and vertical strokes are typically dark (n, u and others), and there’s a reverse contrast in certain glyphs (especially those with diagonal strokes).

GF_Raleway_06

Raleway uses old-style figures by default — it is also fitted with standard proportional figures, sets of sub- and superscripts, numerators and denominators, ready-to-use fractions, math symbols, currency signs. Extensive symbol set in both Latin and Cyrillic, with the latter equipped with Bulgarian, Serbian, Bashkir, and Chuvash glyphs.

Styles 9 weights in upright and italics versions, from Thin to Black:

GF_Raleway_07

The typeface is available as a variable font with a weight axis.

A light display style called Raleway Dots can be downloaded as a separate file, it only has Latin set.

GF_Raleway_08

CyrillicIn terms of structures the Cyrillic set looks rather natural, without any downright failures, stylistically corresponding to the Latin one. However, there are problems with widths, lack of compensations, and other flaws resulting from automatic generation.

GF_Raleway_09

Кк‘s diagonal strokes form a reverse contrast — the ascending stroke is thicker than the descending one; the same is true for А and У. Outside vertical segments in Ф are clearly too short.

GF_Raleway_10

Overly light, drastically straightened tail in б. Short, broken tail terminal of У matches the Latin lowercase y, but not the Cyrillic у — those, for some reason, are not same in Raleway (both are too light).

GF_Raleway_11

Uppercase У, besides its reverse contrast, has a wildly varying tail terminal — it is different in upright and italic styles, plus also in extreme weights.

GF_Raleway_fix

Lowercase ф is not very confident in terms of its structure — the ears are a bit awkward.

GF_Raleway_12

Narrow З, light А with a reverse contrast in its diagonals. Too sweeping and light an ending of the left leg in Л — in Д, this element is not perfect either.

GF_Raleway_13

Italic ш lacks a tail on the right, like one that и or а have. й has a very light breve. Curved tail in italic б — it is fundamentally different from the form in upright styles.

GF_Raleway_14

Typical for a Ukrainian set, there are problems with accents in dense weights.

Our advice

Overall, Raleway seems rather solid, its Cyrillic part included. The general picture is overshadowed by poor implementation and inattention to details. The typeface should be used with caution, and you need to avoid the Thin weight at all.