John Hudson wrote as follows. >At 05:26 11/7/2002, Michael Everson wrote: > >>Please don't. William, no one really wanted you to make a .notdef glyph. >>John was pulling your leg. Sorry I responded to the matter. Please don't >>waste your time and ours by writing up a case history.
Thank you for your concern: however the case history will probably be less than a thousand words and I will try it anyway for my own interest and as a learning activity. I shall hopefully complete it and place it in our family webspace. People do not have to read it or even visit the webspace if they do not wish to do so! >I was indeed pulling his leg, but I also knew that he would actually go off >and do it. Well, you claim that now! At the time it appeared as a genuine suggestion. Reading the suggestion again now in the light of that claim produces no indication that that was the case at the time. I did not notice the split infinitive at the time though, perhaps I am now being more thorough in my reading. At the time I took the suggestion as a genuine opportunity which I should seize. You suggested an exercise for me and I attempted it. You do not have to comment on my design if you do not wish to do so, but it would be nice if you did. Did I complete the project brief as you stated it at the time? If not, how does the design not fill the stated project brief? I like the design which you produced with the counterchanged question mark. Yet is that rather anglocentric when perhaps a .notdef symbol should perhaps be best designed so as to be suitable for fonts in many scripts? >He's that personality type. The Myers Briggs Type Indicator of personalities is good! >By the way, on the subject of copyright, the design is pretty much useless >if it is copyrighted, As I stated, copyright subsists automatically in the United Kingdom. However, I did not even think in terms of copyright when I attempted the exercise and sent you and the list the result. However, your suggestion that the design is pretty much useless if it is copyrighted is just one opinion out of those which are possible. Copyright is a very important right. >so if William wants anyone to use his design he >should make a formal declaration of deposit in the public domain. Oh no! I don't assign intellectual property rights to the public domain. I may choose to publish an invention rather than patent it for reasons of my own, but I do not assign any rights to the public domain. I might also license something for free use, but I do not assign intellectual property rights to the public domain. >I'm >afraid, if he is hoping that people might pay him a license fee, he's out >of luck. Yet I had not even thought of that. I simply attempted a learning exercise which was suggested to me by a professional typographer. I have learned a lot from the exercise, both from trying it, from reading the comments in the Unicode mailing list and in private email and from following up the various links. I have received a number of helpful emails off-list. I can imagine that there will be an art exhibition of .notdef characters, with the characters shown on large panels, both alone and amongst a page of text, so that viewers of the exhibition can look at them. Maybe my attempt will be included in the exhibition, for completeness, as it is the suggested exercise and my response which has been the catalyst to start this thread. Readers interested in art and typography might like to know that one of the four nominees for the Turner Prize 2002, an event sponsored by Channel 4, an English terrestrial television channel, http://www.channel4.com then search for Turner Prize, has produced some sculptures of full stops from various fonts in huge sizes. If one follows the link through to http://www.sculpture.uk.com there is an illustration of them between half and two-thirds of the way down the http://www.sculpture.uk.com/new_works.htm page. The Turner Prize is an annual event about modern art, in previous years it almost invariably has the tabloid press having headings like Rubbish and so on. Yet it is very influential. It has brought an awareness of modern art, like it or not, to a large proportion of the public. Channel 4 started sponsoring the already existing event about ten years ago or thereabouts and that brought it centre stage with television coverage of the awards ceremony and various programmes before the event showing the work of the nominees. >Even if his design were the most excellent .notdef glyph possible, >every type designer would still presume that he or she could design a >better one, especially if using William's required them to pay. Well, that is a matter for them. I simply carried out an interesting exercise suggested to me by a professional typographer. I hope that a hypothetical if about what I might think then some downbeat quip against that imagined thought by the hypothesiser does not give people the idea that I think such iffy thoughts! I just happily designed a .notdef glyph in response to the exercise. Certainly, now that there has been a discussion about .notdef glyphs and references to various documents and examples, I might now think about another design. However, what I produced was a work of art produced without the knowledge which might have constrained my thoughts had I previously known about the various documents and examples beyond the plain black rectangle. A sort of primitive art, unconstrained by the chains of knowing about what is usually expected of such a design? William Overington 8 November 2002
