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