Re: blot_diameter

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

address@hidden writes:
> Citat Juergen Reuter <address@hidden>:
> 
> > According to the recent discussion about blot_diameter, I tried to fix
> > all font symbols that I contributed so far.  Still, I do not fully
> > understand the concept.  Does blot_diameter only apply to convex
> > edges?
> 
> Yes, I guess so.
> The problem is that Han-Wen in a previous mail (back in december) wrote
> 
> * preferably no sharp inside angles.
> 
> but on the other hand he also wrote
> 
> * Have no clotting.
> 
> Theese two are in direct contradiction as visual clotting reduction is made 
> by 
> SHARPENING the inside angles. I guess that the first claim was a misthought 
> from Han-Wen.

That is a good question. If lines intersect at an non-right angle,
they apppear to be thicker in one direction. You alleviate this by
thinning the lines a little (locally), or equivalently, making the
angle sharper. Look at the > accent to see what I mean.  Secondly,
sharp angles produce visual spikes, so they should be avoided. In
convex situations that's easily done by using a shaped pen. In concave
situations, it is harder. You would have to add small smoothing
sections to concave sections.

For now, it would be nice if all glyphs at least have correct convex
points.

> >  Does the
> > concept of blot_diameter imply that lines always must have a width of
> > at least blot_diameter?  What about penrazors, penstrokes and all the
> > other MetaFont constructs that typically produce sharp edges?
> 
> Don't use them.

Or use taking the effect of blot_diameter in account.

-- 

Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden    | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/