Font feedback

Music notation symbols, fonts, font sources and font creation, SmuFL.
Post Reply
User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1742
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Font feedback

Post by OCTO »

I like B 3/4 and A 1/4. I just like so...

Skickat från min GT-I9100 via Tapatalk
Freelance Composer. Self-Publisher.
Finale 27.3 • Sibelius 2023.5• MuseScore 4+ • Logic Pro X+ • Ableton Live 11+ • Digital Performer 10+ /// MacOS Monterey (secondary in use systems: Fedora 35, Windows 10)
Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Font feedback

Post by Knut »

Thanks, OCTO.

In that case, I guess you have no particular preference of concept?
User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1742
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Font feedback

Post by OCTO »

No, I just like more soft angles.
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Font feedback

Post by John Ruggero »

I prefer A.
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
User avatar
tisimst
Posts: 416
Joined: 08 Oct 2015, 17:57
Location: UT, USA
Contact:

Re: Font feedback

Post by tisimst »

Knut wrote:I'm curious about people's opinions on an aspect discussed in this thread, viewtopic.php?f=4&t=187, as it relates to my own music font. The question is, how should the diagonal strokes of different sharp symbols be drawn?

A keeps the angle constant, which results in a variable vertical placement (in relation to the staff line), while the opposite is true for B.

Do you prefer A or B, or is it all the same to you?
I have been quite torn between these two designs. At first, I very much preferred B because of the consistent placement of the slashes (like beams) relative to the staff lines (which doesn't really apply when the tips don't touch staff lines). However, as I've looked at both sets from a way high up and down close, I realized that forcing the 1/4-sharp's slashes to be at the same staff positions as the 3/4-sharp makes it look too compressed. I'm not sure if there's a great need to differentiate so drastically between them. So, I'd probably vote for A, given the consistent slope of the slashes OR extend the slashes slightly so they don't look so compressed, but allow them to land at the same staff-positions.

Gosh, even while writing this I'm still jumping back and forth between what I'd prefer. They are so similar, but the nuances are noticeable. I like them both, but for different reasons.

Anyway, take those thoughts for what they're worth.
Music Typeface Designer & Engraver - LilyPond | Sibelius | Finale | MuseScore | Dorico | SMuFL | Inkscape | FontForge
Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Font feedback

Post by Knut »

John Ruggero wrote:I prefer A.
Thanks, John!
tisimst wrote: I have been quite torn between these two designs. At first, I very much preferred B because of the consistent placement of the slashes (like beams) relative to the staff lines (which doesn't really apply when the tips don't touch staff lines). However, as I've looked at both sets from a way high up and down close, I realized that forcing the 1/4-sharp's slashes to be at the same staff positions as the 3/4-sharp makes it look too compressed. I'm not sure if there's a great need to differentiate so drastically between them. So, I'd probably vote for A, given the consistent slope of the slashes OR extend the slashes slightly so they don't look so compressed, but allow them to land at the same staff-positions.

Gosh, even while writing this I'm still jumping back and forth between what I'd prefer. They are so similar, but the nuances are noticeable. I like them both, but for different reasons.

Anyway, take those thoughts for what they're worth.
Thank you so much for this feedback, tisimst. It's really helpful.

As I mentioned earlier, there is the third option of combining both principles to reach some kind of middle ground between the two:
Skjermbilde 2016-08-02 kl. 18.29.03.png
Skjermbilde 2016-08-02 kl. 18.29.03.png (34.2 KiB) Viewed 12856 times
User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 2453
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Font feedback

Post by John Ruggero »

I still prefer A.
M1 Mac mini (OS 12.4), Dorico, Finale 25.5, GPO 4, Affinity Publisher 2, SmartScore 64 Pro, JW Plug-ins, TG Tools, Keyboard maestro

http://www.cantilenapress.com
MJCube
Posts: 130
Joined: 15 Dec 2015, 13:32
Location: NYC

Re: Font feedback

Post by MJCube »

I also prefer A. The angle of the heavy strokes is more important to readability than the precise positioning of corners.
erelievonen
Posts: 96
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 16:12
Contact:

Re: Font feedback

Post by erelievonen »

I actually like C the most.
Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Font feedback

Post by Knut »

OCTO wrote:
1. will you make a roman alternative? It is highly needed. For that purpose are needed tempo and technique roman styles.
Hard at work :-)
Skjermbilde 2016-10-28 kl. 16.20.03.png
Skjermbilde 2016-10-28 kl. 16.20.03.png (110.39 KiB) Viewed 12496 times
Thanks to everyone who chimed in on the accidental issue above, BTW.
Your opinions are duly noted!
Post Reply