Thu 01 Dec 2011 12:37:11 PM UTC, comment #6:
Hi Steve,
Haven't heard from you in a while!
I reviewed all your suggestions, individual comments follow.
The upshot is, at this time I won't be making any changes. While I agree with a couple of your objections, these are all stylistic in nature, and I think continuity with the source font is a stronger guideline than any of these. I'm not convinced the changes would be improvements.
Is your "Greek NT" anywhere available for download? I did a search, and saw it mentioned...
The FreeFont greek range comes from the old Omega system fonts.
The Greek designs resemble stylistically Bitstream Cyberbit, but not very much other fonts at my disposal. Presumably, both the Omega fonts and Cyberbit derive from some older sources, but I don't know what those would be.
Several of your complaints are based on arguments from pen-and-ink calligraphy. I'm going to argue against that.
The letters in this font, as in many general-purpose fonts, do not follow a single style based on a specific mechanical heritage.
By "mechanical heritage" I mean like calligraphy with a certain kind of pen, or printing with metal type.
For instance, the Latin "roman" range follows a long geneology of newsprint typefaces that that went through a cut metal tradition (which influenced them greatly), which derived from a stonecutting tradition, which in the end came from a calligraphic style. (That's a story, but roughly it's right). The Latin "italic" is more strongly directed toward a (specific) style used by scribes in Rome at a certain time.
Of course, modern fonts are free of the constraints of pen and ink, of chisel and stone, of metal cutting and presses. The styles echo those previous environments, but are not dictated by them.
The range in FreeSerif, while reflecting a calligraphic history, is not essentially calligraphic in nature.
----------------------
Beta: Should tail slant to left as in rho?
Well, this is almost invisible, but I see the difference.
I would have made them the same, too.
I don't buy the calligraphic argument here, though.
Comparisons with other fonts show this small feature to
be a peculiarity of Omega.
Eta: Should descender slant slightly to right?
Most other fonts have the descender quite straight, and
this fits with the rest of the range here.
Delta: Should the top have a tear drop on top arm?
Different fonts vary greatly in this regard.
I think the thin hook fits the overall design of the range.
Iota: Should it have a serif on top or not? (Compare kappa.)
Most other fonts do not feature a serif on the iota,
whether kappa has one or not. Counterexample proving rule:
Deja Vu Serif has a serif on iota -- but then that font is
overall much more heavily serifed than FreeSerif.
Kappa: Lower leg with upward curve rather than flat serif?
Of all your suggestions, this one appeals to me strongest.
The flat serif does indeed seem out of place to my eye.
Most fonts use a slight upward-curved taper here, which
seems more delicate and more like the other letters.
However this comes from the Omega and Cyberbit tradition,
and to me that holds more weight. Maybe they were trying
for compatibility with the Latin range.
Nu: Should it have curve at top-left?
This curve -- flourish, whatever -- is a feature of the
Greek range from Omega.
Again, I don't buy the calligraphic argument.
Psi: Should the line get thicker or thinner toward the bottom?
You argue from what is "normal". Who says, exactly?
fedra serif display: thicker
greta display italic: thinner
gentium: thick at top and bottom, thin in middle!
bitstream cyberbit: thicker
Please don't hesitate to make more suggestions!
Cheers again!
|