[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...

From: Abraham Lee
Subject: Re: Thriple flat/sharp glyphs...
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:37:23 -0600

Hi, Torsten!

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Torsten Hämmerle <address@hidden> wrote:
Werner LEMBERG wrote
> In this proofsheet the spacing for smaller sizes is not `natural'.
> For example, the distance between the clef and the accidentals for
> `feta11' is very large.  Is this intentional?  I think it's a bit
> confusing.

Hmmm, I was wondering, too.
I just used \score inside a custom markup-command and set the size by
\layout { #(layout-set-staff-size design_size) }

It looks as if #(layout-set-staff-size) doesn't scale down all the
The key signatures all start at the same positions, independent of the stave

The funny thing is that the "Notation" document claims
Known issues and warnings: "layout-set-staff-size does not change the
distance between the staff lines."

As far as I can see it at the moment, the distance between staff lines seems
to be one of the few distances it does change.

Well, that's a brilliant opportunity for checking out the brand-new
\magnifyStaff functionality - e voilà !

*Next attempt:*
Now, the spacing looks much (!) better.

Thanks so much for heading this on! This is really exciting. I do feel like the slash on accidentals.flatflat.slash gets WAY too thick, comparatively, from really feta-18 and smaller. Maybe I just need to see it in context to change my mind. Also, since you brought up the typographic side of the design, I feel like the double and triple flat symbols should gradually become uncondensed as the point size decreases, starting from maybe feta-16, because the counter (the white space inside the flat) almost fills up all the way, not to mention when it's sitting on a staff line. Keeping the full width at that point gives the counter a little more breathing room. This is very common for optically sized designs: at smaller caption sizes, the shapes become more heavier and more "extended", at larger display sizes, the shapes become lighter and more condensed. I think that would really bring out the legibility at the smaller point sizes.

My two cents on the matter,

reply via email to

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