Re: Accidentals' font

[Paolo Prete]

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 10:45 PM Carl Sorensen <carl.d.sorensen@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 2:31 PM Paolo Prete <paolopr976@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>> I think there is an incomprehension in the meaning of my words.
>> Unfortunately this does not depend on Lilypond but on commercial logic in
>> the production of musical fonts today. Today it seems to me that music
>> software producers are more interested in the captivating aspect of fonts
>> than in their actual readability. This is normal, otherwise they could not
>> sell their products. Consequently, this is why there is a great
>> proliferation of bold fonts of the "plate engraving" type. If you look at
>> the trill glyph in Gonville, it appears much simpler than those that are
>> commonly used. Commercially I think it would have little success. But
>> Gonville's trill glyph does not aim to be captivating; it aims to be more
>> readable.
>> Lilypond currently has two possibilities:
>>
>> 1) use the Feta font (---> "plate engraving approach") as do the other
>> notation softwares.
>>
>> 2) use the Gonville font (---> "readability / playability approach")
>>
>>
> Do you have any objective data that says Gonville is more
> readable/playable than Feta?  Or is this your opinion?
>
> Carl
>
>

About this question, I gave an answer to Han-Wen. For example, I consider
objective data that a fraction where the mumerator is not joined to the
denominator is more readable.
Also, look at the attached image in response to Kevin (clefs) with the red
lines. I consider it objective as well.