Typically fonts use x-height as a general design parameter. I don't know if you find that helpful in this interesting project, but it is a point of possible useage.
Regards, Shane Brandes On Sat, Jun 8, 2024, 5:47 AM Aaron Hill <lilyp...@hillvisions.com> wrote: > Thank you both, Werner and Valentin, for taking the time to look at my > submission. > > When I was playing around with drawing shapes, I was thinking paper > scale not text scale. This was inspired by Paolo's desire to draw > arbitrary arrows and things. > > Because of that, I presumed the end user would desire absolute sizing. > Of course, as I continued playing with the markup command, I realized it > probably should work similar to the built-in \triangle command. > > I love the idea of tying things to font-size, so the shapes are > automatically responsive to changes in the surrounding context. That > simplifies the usage of the command since you just need to specify point > count. This also makes it behave similar to the other built-in shape > functions. > > Thankfully, it should be trivial to make the changes. The question now > is what reference glyph is the best? "A" is notably a letter in most > fonts that tries to make the apex more prominent. As a result, it could > make the polygons appear a little too big. "O" has a similar issue. > These glyphs are optically oversized, so they look good. Perhaps "H" > will work. I think it usually has a consistently flat top and bottom > without any optical adjustments. Mind you, I could just be overthinking > things. Nothing would stop me from sampling all uppercase letters and > averaging them. > > Regardless, you both have given me plenty to think about. > > > -- Aaron Hill > >
