Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

[Urs Liska]

Hi Torsten,

thank you for that comparison.


Am 13.03.2018 um 15:52 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle:
> ...
>
> Double-flat alternatives in comparison
>
> In the old discussions mentioned in some of the answers, Abraham proposed a
> compromise that kept the original glyph width by applying an average
> compression to both flats.
>
> I've used MetaFont's proof sheets (with outlines so show how the flat
> symbols are put together on the left and the filled-in normal versions to
> check the visual appearance).
> There has been some manual cleansing of distracting outlines of superimposed
> parts and I've unified some parameters that made the counter (the small
> "hole" in the flat symbol) look slightly different in some accidentals
> containing flats.
>
> 1. Original Feta design
>
> The compressed left flat even "bites off" part of the lower stem and makes
> it look considerably thinner. And the compression of the left flat only
> reminds me of a rear-shunt car crash, sort of... ;)
>
> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/double-flat-1-original.png>
>
> 2. Abraham's equally compressed flats
>
> Both flats are equally compressed as a compromise, thus keeping the original
> glyph width:
>
> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/double-flat-2-abraham-equal.png>
>
> 3. Torsten's "real" flats with maximum overlap
>
> Both flats are "real" unaltered flats. Maximum overlap makes the double-flat
> glyph only marginally wider than the original design (cf. Dorico's Bravura
> font):
>
> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/double-flat-3-torsten-real-overlap.png>
>
> 4. Abraham's "real" flats with minimum overlap
>
> Both flats are "real" unaltered flats, there is only a slight overlap. This
> is the widest of all the designs mentioned here (cf. Sibelius' Opus font):
>
> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/double-flat-4-abraham-real.png>
>
> All the graphics have exactly the same height/width and glyph positioning,
> so you can download them and flip through them to directly see how the
> design slightly changes from image to image and gradually widens up.
>
> What do you think?

I would vote for changing the current design, i.e. rule out version 1)

I don't really like the compressed version 2)

If I had to choose between 3) and 4) I would go for 4), but actually I'd 
suggest to go for something between those two.
The problem with 4) is obviously (and only) that it takes much 
horizontal space - especially if you extend it to triple flats.
The problem I have with 3) is the upper edge of the intersection between 
the left and right glyph: I have the impression (although this should be 
verified in a realistic-sized setting with notational context) that this 
section is somewhat blurred because the line is still nearly horizontal 
at the intersection.

Urs

> Thanks for the support,
> Torsten
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user