This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

ok, so i was happily fontstructing away when i noticed this ad:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/armorath/3286395091/

i have no idea what the rest of the typeface looks like, but from the sample, it seems quite modular.

what do you people think?

I think that the capital letters are inherently modular unless they’re drawn in certain calligraphic styles. But that’s another story…

Modular in the context of Fontstruct is not the same as modular in the context of Fontlab or other font editors. I can construct modular letters in Fontlab and still have fine control over kerning, sidebearings, OT features, etc. that just don’t exist in the modular world of Fontstruct. That kind of stuff adds days or weeks of effort to a font and is what separates the free stuff from the pay stuff.

To paraphrase Leslie Cabarga, the difference between a free font and a pay font is about six weeks.

Hey, Simon!

Bebit is a version of Milton Glaser's Baby Teeth, which was based on a hand-painted sign he saw in Mexico.

There is an older Typophile thread on Baby Teeth here.

I would describe Baby Teeth as being made of simple yet bold geometric shapes, but that is not exactly the same as letters made from standardized parts (i.e., modules).

P.S. And James makes a good distinction about how the word "modular" is used within FontStruct and outside of it.

thanks guys, i see what you are saying and after posting i looked at it on the fontshop website, i guess my point is not that Bebit is used as a sample, but that all the letters chosen for the sample could be made with fontstruct, why didn't they use the word BABY maybe?