Font feedback

Music notation symbols, fonts, font sources and font creation, SmuFL.
User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1056
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Font feedback

Post by OCTO » 31 Jul 2016, 10:21

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 25 • Sibelius 8 • MuseScore 2 • Logic Pro X • Ableton Live 9 • Digital Performer 9 /// OS X El Capitan, (side system: Debian 9, Windows 7)

Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Font feedback

Post by Knut » 31 Jul 2016, 11:17

Thanks, OCTO.

In that case, I guess you have no particular preference of concept?

User avatar
OCTO
Posts: 1056
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 06:52
Location: Sweden

Re: Font feedback

Post by OCTO » 01 Aug 2016, 10:22

No, I just like more soft angles.

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1249
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Font feedback

Post by John Ruggero » 02 Aug 2016, 11:13

I prefer A.
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

User avatar
tisimst
Posts: 295
Joined: 08 Oct 2015, 17:57
Location: UT, USA
Contact:

Re: Font feedback

Post by tisimst » 02 Aug 2016, 15:27

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
http://www.musictypefoundry.com

Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Font feedback

Post by Knut » 02 Aug 2016, 18:12

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 3078 times

User avatar
John Ruggero
Posts: 1249
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 14:25
Location: Raleigh, NC USA

Re: Font feedback

Post by John Ruggero » 03 Aug 2016, 18:29

I still prefer A.
Mac mini (OS 10.8.5) with dual monitors, Kurzweil Mark 5 with M-Audio Midisport 2 x 2,
Finale 2014d with GPO 4, JW Plug-ins, SmartScore X Pro, Adobe InDesign CS4,
Inkscape .48.5 and .91, FontForge 20150526
http://www.cantilenapress.com

MJCube
Posts: 130
Joined: 15 Dec 2015, 13:32
Location: NYC

Re: Font feedback

Post by MJCube » 11 Aug 2016, 13:21

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 » 11 Aug 2016, 22:58

I actually like C the most.

Knut
Posts: 867
Joined: 05 Oct 2015, 18:07
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Font feedback

Post by Knut » 28 Oct 2016, 14:20

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 2718 times
Thanks to everyone who chimed in on the accidental issue above, BTW.
Your opinions are duly noted!

Post Reply