glyph opsz fall.pdf

[davelab6]

@dberlow A couple of small change requests for [glyph opsz fall.pdf]()https://github.com/TypeNetwork/Roboto-Flex/blob/master/docs/Sketch%20Docs/glyph%20opsz%20fall.pdf - none urgent :)

• [ ] Add the glyph opsz fall.sketch source file to the repo
• [ ] Remove the Amstelvar watermark, this interferes with taking slices of the page into slide decks :)
• [ ] Post the narrative text as a glyph opsz fall.md file (or .txt or .rtf) as copy & paste doesn't work very well with the illustration texts :)
• [ ] I'd like the horizontal comparisons with Amstelvar and Flex, roman and italic, to be more directly comparable with the Century Expanded illusration. The ? from Amstelvar Roman is great, but the a shown in a smaller series, placed in the top right, is a more direct comparison.

• [ ] I'd also like these comparisons to be shown 'vertically', either with a single glyph like a, or a short word like handgloves (or shoplift or a similar early-stage type concepting word you prefer), or short mixed case alphabet (AaBbCc of length you prefer), or a complete upper+lower case (ABC..XYZabc..xyz). The purpose of showing them vertically is to illustrate this point:

• [ ] There's a few typos; rational subjective reasoning -> rational objective reasoning; ca[ height -> cap height; divide it be text -> divide it between text; appears shorted -> appears shorter;a upsizing->at upsizing`

• [ ] This paragraph seems incomplete:

• [ ] The final illustration, the step by step way to derive opsz-min with parametric axes, uses the test word Architecture, but this has no glyph(s) with descenders, so when the text says As long as these don't appears shorter than the descenders, we can't see that is the case.

• [ ] I think it is worth proving that if they DO appears shorter than the descenders, it looks weird, by providing an illustration that goes "too far"

• [ ] Finally [we might do something else if I forgot something]..., well, I think placing the final result on the right of the final step makes it harder to compare, placing it directly under (like the previous steps) would be more helpful

• [ ] I suggest to illustrate proof that you didn't forget anything by adding a final 'overlay' image with the opsz-min style and the parametric style as 50/50 opactity with red/green (or your choice) hue; then you can remove the Finally... line from the text :)

• [ ] The steps for 'upsizing' need to be written out :)

• [ ] The 'upsizing' steps are on a 2nd col to the right of the 1st 'downsizing' col, but I don't see any meaning behind having them separated like this, and think it will be better to have them all in a single col, to show that it is a fluid continuous space, and to have the same 50/50 comparison at the top end too

[dberlow]

I've still to update the text and labels,

but is this everything you want to see?

[dberlow]

Do you have an approximate schedule an audience for this?

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:05 AM Dave Crossland notifications@github.com wrote: @dberlow A couple of small change requests for glyph opsz fall.pdfhttps://github.com/TypeNetwork/Roboto-Flex/blob/master/docs/Sketch%20Docs/glyph%20opsz%20fall.pdf - none urgent :)

Add the glyph opsz fall.sketch source file to the repo Remove the Amstelvar watermark, this interferes with taking slices of the page into slide decks :) Post the narrative text as a glyph opsz fall.md file (or .txt or .rtf) as copy & paste doesn't work very well with the illustration texts :) I'd like the horizontal comparisons with Amstelvar and Flex, roman and italic, to be more directly comparable with the Century Expanded illusration. The ? from Amstelvar Roman is great, but the a shown in a smaller series, placed in the top right, is a more direct comparison.

I'd also like these comparisons to be shown 'vertically', either with a single glyph like a, or a short word like handgloves (or shoplift or a similar early-stage type concepting word you prefer), or short mixed case alphabet (AaBbCc of length you prefer), or a complete upper+lower case (ABC..XYZabc..xyz). The purpose of showing them vertically is to illustrate this point:

There's a few typos; rational subjective reasoning -> rational objective reasoning; ca[ height -> cap height; divide it be text -> divide it between text; appears shorted -> appears shorter; a upsizing->at upsizing`

This paragraph seems incomplete:

The final illustration, the step by step way to derive opsz-min with parametric axes, uses the test word Architecture, but this has no glyph(s) with descenders, so when the text says As long as these don't appears shorter than the descenders, we can't see that is the case.

I think it is worth proving that if they DO appears shorter than the descenders, it looks weird, by providing an illustration that goes "too far"

Finally [we might do something else if I forgot something]..., well, I think placing the final result on the right of the final step makes it harder to compare, placing it directly under (like the previous steps) would be more helpful

I suggest to illustrate proof that you didn't forget anything by adding a final 'overlay' image with the opsz-min style and the parametric style as 50/50 opactity with red/green (or your choice) hue; then you can remove the Finally... line from the text :)

The steps for 'upsizing' need to be written out :)

The 'upsizing' steps are on a 2nd col to the right of the 1st 'downsizing' col, but I don't see any meaning behind having them separated like this, and think it will be better to have them all in a single col, to show that it is a fluid continuous space, and to have the same 50/50 comparison at the top end too

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.