Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Noeck]

Hi,

from what I learned (only in the last days), #x seems to be the "default".

I like your suggestions, Torsten. When looking at the triple flat, I
wondered why it is so inconsistent – only discovering later that it is
the bb part that is inconsistent not the third b that you added.
In short, I have the same aesthetic issue as Abraham.
But it only really bothers me for the triple flat.

What I would prefer: what you called "equalized flats" here:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Music-glyph-design-choices-td179329.html
or just a little wider hole in the first b (matching the second b's hole).
Because:
 * The two b's are the same width
 * The overlap is a good way to obviously combine the two into one glyph
 * It saves some horizontal space (and the bb is alread quite large
   compared to the double-sharp)

The triple-flat would then naturally follow the same scheme.

Why is the bb currently like it is? I don't know, but since we could not
find any answer yet, here is some pure speculation (which I gladly
withdraw in case there are further references to LP's history):
* It makes sense to horizontally shorten the bb glyph
* In order to highlight that the two b's belong together, it makes sense
  to ensure that the 'stems' are close, so this is the part that needs
  compression. The other round part on the right can stay 'normal'.
* The first b's round part might just be shortened to no protude into
  the hole of the second b while overlapping. By doing so, the hole got
  shortened accidentally (?). I tried in an SVG-Editor and widening the
  first hole to the size of the second does not look too bad.
* Some deviation from total perfection makes a score look more handmade.

Perhaps it's all wrong. That just comes to my mind and might be worth
considering when thinking about a better design.

I actually start liking the current bb-design :)


@Torsten again: your triple-sharp proposal is probably the best one can
get (the right distance between the two in my eyes, are there any other
free parameters?). I agree with Urs, it's not a nice looking accidental
but seems to be the convention.


tl;dr: I like your proposal and can only add speculation to the
discussion ...

Cheers,
Joram