[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

From: Urs Liska
Subject: Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:36:38 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0

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... ;)


2. Abraham's equally compressed flats

Both flats are equally compressed as a compromise, thus keeping the original
glyph width:


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


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):


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.


Thanks for the support,

Sent from:

lilypond-user mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]