Call for design suggestions: Anglicana W

2»

Comments

  • John HudsonJohn Hudson Posts: 1,266
    In terms of contrast with W/w, that seems to me very much a style-specific, and is the sort of issue we already face with some extended Latin and IPA characters that, in an italic font, might be easily confusable with conventional cursive forms of common letters.

    Of your recent suggested forms I think a hybrid of forms 4 and 6 is possible, keeping the rounded bottom on the right, but straightening the middle diagonal. I made some pen experiments with this idea, in a couple of different size/modulation variations:



    Although we're talking about typographic forms as distinct from the attested historical manuscript forms, I still find it helpful to see if a proposed form can be reasonably written, and what instinctive proportional relationships emerge in terms of counter sizes. This shape is interesting because — as in these examples — with a little forethought the letter can be written without lifting the pen; alternatively, both diagonals can be written beginning from the top with a broken ductus.

    In a seriffed type, I would either have only a left serif on the middle stroke, as in some of your examples, or even leave it off completely.
  • Michael, could you post a small set of MS samples, showing the character in its context?
    I need to watch this …
  • … what exactly is the carolingian w?
  • > I still find it helpful to see if a proposed form can be reasonably written, and what instinctive proportional relationships emerge in terms of counter sizes …

    Very good point, John. (we seem to work rather simultaneously right now… :)


  • Michael EversonMichael Everson Posts: 24
    edited January 6
    John, the way you have written it in one stroke is exactly the way I am doing it in my notes on the printout of the manuscript I am preparing for publication. The issue typographically with a strong middle seems to be the interplay between it and the hairline that leads from lower left to upper right, as well as the angle the corresponding stroke might have for the Carolingian w. 

    Andreas, I use the term Carolingian here to distinguish our (v+v) w from the (ỽ+ỽ) Anglicana w. The best way to see samples is to study the many examples in the proposal document http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17238-n4838-anglicana-w.pdf. I have indicated Carolingian v and w as well as Anglicana w, and for some of the latter in those examples you can also compare the letter b.
  • With serifs, it's interesting. Unless the width of the character is to be made rather wider than the standard w, it's hard to see how a curve could work well, given the usual space between serifs in this font and the distance of the dark strokes in the w. 

  • Michael EversonMichael Everson Posts: 24
    edited January 6
    № 3 and № 4 are a reasonable hybrids, though № 5 retains more of the Middle-Welsh w flavour. I think I am happy with the italic.

  • Michael EversonMichael Everson Posts: 24
    edited January 6
    Michael, could you post a small set of MS samples, showing the character in its context?
    I need to watch this …
    The MS samples are in the original proposal. http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17238-n4838-anglicana-w.pdf

    I will do up some prose samples (running the verse lines together) in due course, but I am travelling tomorrow and need to do some packing.

  • ah, thanks for pointing at the Pdf again. I just missed it …

    Right now my favourite would be w_a6. If ascenders shall be, probably w_a9, in which I referred to the detailing of the j. A double full-strenght ascender with serif terminals (w_a7) feels rather unusual, but may do as well.



  • John HudsonJohn Hudson Posts: 1,266
    With serifs, it's interesting. Unless the width of the character is to be made rather wider than the standard w, it's hard to see how a curve could work well, given the usual space between serifs in this font and the distance of the dark strokes in the w. 
    Given the complexity of the double bowl on the right, I would expect this letter to be somewhat wider than the w. But I would also be willing to forego the serif on the middle diagonal. If the ductus is understood to not involve lifting the pen, terminating in a rising diagonal stroke, rather than a descending one, then the middle serif can logically be dispensed with, which helps manage the width and the counter space.

  • Steve GardnerSteve Gardner Posts: 26
    edited January 7
    This isn't a discussion I would usually dream of getting involved in, since my knowledge in this area is zero, but I think I'm seeing the construction of the anglicana w differently.

    I've shown a single stroke, script-like version below, which shows the bowl/s being formed from below, not above; followed by two more formal versions (upper & lower?), which I've paired with Arno Pro for visualisation.  

    Apologies for the crude forms: they were created in a hurry using Inkscape.








    EDIT TO ADD: A more Arno-like version


Sign In or Register to comment.