On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 2:31 PM Paolo Prete <paolopr...@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
