Re: Music glyph design choices

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "tisimst" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2015 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Music glyph design choices


> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Werner LEMBERG [via Lilypond] <
> address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > > 1. accidentals.flatflat: Why is the left flat more compressed than
> > > the right?  Perhaps if the left were expanded slightly and the right
> > > were compressed slightly, then the glyph width wouldn't have to
> > > change, but would look more consistent.
> >
> > Hmm.  I don't think this glyph looks inconsistent...
>
> Here's what I meant. In the following image, we see two normal flats
> superimposed (in green) on top of the doubleflat glyph (in black). The
> stems are matched up to show what I'm referring to as being inconsistent:
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> I hope this makes it more obvious what I'm seeing. The "left" flat is much
> more compressed than the "right" one in the doubleflat. That's all I'm
> saying. It would seem better to me to at least have the the left counter
> look more like the right one. Like I said before, I'm not saying it is
> inherently wrong (nor the green version "right"), but it seems like the 
> two
> sides to the glyph could look more similar. Maybe I'm the only one who
> notices this.


I don't have double flat examples from real music, but can show what 
Sibelius, Bravura, and Elaine Gould offer.  These are similar to your 
suggestion.  It would be interesting to try to find some real-world examples 
from published scores.

Gould also says: "double flat: two flat signs are placed together and 
(usually) touching".  This also implies they should be similar or the same.

--
Phil Holmes

DoubleFlatBrav.png
Description: PNG image

DoubleFlatSib.png
Description: PNG image

DoubleFlatGould.png
Description: PNG image