Hi all, Sorry for the long pause, but I was quite occupied with my job (and music)...
tisimst wrote > This is really exciting. Yes, it certainly is. That's why I'm trying to get it right, or, at least, find a good compromise. tisimst wrote > I do feel like the slash on accidentals.flatflat.slash gets WAY too thick, > comparatively, > from really feta-18 and smaller. Maybe I just need to see it in context to > change my mind. When comparing it to the other flats' slashes, it definitely *is* too thick, especially for small sizes. I've now adapted it to the rest of the slashes (thickness, symmetry) and also corrected the left horizontal extent to achieve consistent spacing. tisimst wrote > Also, since you brought up the typographic side of the > design, I feel like the double and triple flat symbols should gradually > become uncondensed as the point size decreases, starting from maybe > feta-16, because the counter (the white space inside the flat) almost > fills > up all the way, not to mention when it's sitting on a staff line. Keeping > the full width at that point gives the counter a little more breathing > room. This is very common for optically sized designs: at smaller caption > sizes, the shapes become more heavier and more "extended", at larger > display sizes, the shapes become lighter and more condensed. I think that > would really bring out the legibility at the smaller point sizes. > > My two cents on the matter, > Abraham I totally I agree and I like the idea of applying these conventions to our flats. The use of different design sizes has nearly fallen into oblivion in photo typesetting when PostScript came up with scalable fonts. Using slightly different font designs for different sizes is one of the greatest advantages of LilyPond over any other music engraving software, as far as I know. And at the same time, it's probably one of the least acknowledged features as LilyPond picks different Emmentaler fonts totally by itself. *Original counter behaviour* * The counter was slightly enlarged for the compressed left flat in the double flat glyph. * No direct dependency from the design size. *New counter and compression "morphing"* * All flats are equally and moderately compressed in double and triple flat glyphs * Compression ceases to zero when approaching smallest design size. * At the same time, Counter gradually slightly opens up for small design sizes I've set up two PDFs for comparing the original and my current working draft design (the triple flat missing in the original design, though). All existing accidentals containing flats both on and between stave-lines in all design sizes. In my printout, the opening-up of counters does not look overdone. issue3356-flats-ORIGINAL.pdf <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/issue3356-flats-ORIGINAL.pdf> issue3356-flats-NEW.pdf <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/issue3356-flats-NEW.pdf> Urs Liska-3 wrote > Didn't we even have a GSoC project suggestion for alternative accidental > glyphs for on/off staffline one day? And I could swear I've seen separate on-stave-line and between-stave-lines accidentals in an old Metafont file (feta-accidentals.mf before they were split up in feta-sharps.mf and feta-flats.mf). But, at any rate, I'd like to keep this out of the triple-accidental issue... :) Simon Albrecht-2 wrote > Even if I seem to be in a minority here, take my vote in favour of the > traditional Feta design. It’s certainly contentious in much the same way > as its treble clef, but I like it. Acknowledged. But whereas the treble clef is very characteristic of LilyPond and by far the most common clef, double flats are quite rare animals. And a triple flat is like a Yeti. All the best, Torsten -- Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
