alpha test, horizontal spacing

[Keith E OHara]

In "First impressions of alpha test" I wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:41:24 -0700, Joe Neeman <address@hidden>  
> wrote:
> > Do you consider this desirable?
>
> Personally, I have a neutral opinion on the aggressive tucking.

Well, opinions change over time. It is a subtle thing, but I think the old  
naive spacing around accidentals makes an easier-to-read page.  Here are  
two dense measures of Debussy that are a little difficult to space.

Moving the notes over the clef-change is a good thing, of course.

The stem-accidental collisions do not occur unless the beam crosses  
staffs, even if it is kneed, so they might be considered part of the  
cross-staff issues.  The spacing of the first three 16ths is probably a  
cross-staff artifact as well.  However, stems of cross-staff beams will  
always be special cases in collision resolution, so they can cross a long  
hairpin crescendo for example.  So I suggest that keeping accidentals  
clear of other note columns might be wisest.

More simply, in the last three 16th notes (demisemiquavers) in the first  
measure, I want the accidental to give me a bit of extra space for  
readability.  I was able to create a small example showing a case where  
notes with an accidental in between were actually spaced closer together.  
(I imagined the new spacing engine getting a little too excited: "can I  
fit under the neighboring accidental?  Yes!  Oh boy lets slide these  
together!!")

So I favor less aggressive tucking of noteheads under other noteheads and  
their attached accidentals, if that is an option. Other opinions?
--
Keith

C13.png
Description: PNG image

C12.png
Description: PNG image

C.ly
Description: Binary data

T13.png
Description: PNG image

T12.png
Description: PNG image

tucking.ly
Description: Binary data