Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Andreas Stötzner

Hello Paul, I just chimed in with a comment … Generally I would encourage you to do it but don’t expect the big business with medievalist folks. Greetings from Leipzig, A. Stötzner


Andreas Stötzner
Last Active
Member, Type Person
  • Re: Council for German Orthography officially allows use of u+1E9E

    Maybe this was mentioned before but ẞ always follows a vowel or umlaut. So consonant + ẞ doesn't need to be kerned. The ẞ can be followed by technically any letter (but ẞ, see first sentence).
    not quite so. Be aware that there can always be a name like JANẞEN, for instance.
    Which does not mean you have to kern every combination, provided you did spacing properly, first.
  • Re: Aspects of quality for a typeface

    Hard to measure all typefaces with one rule. A brilliant text face is difficult to compare to an excellent display face.
    Features and range of weights are much overrated, i.m.h.o., whereas drawing and spacing are far too often underestimated by fontists.
    Idea and concept I would rather leave aside here because that you can’t measure objectively.

    I would distinguish essential requirements from extras and individual aspects.

    1. Essentials
    • Quality of glyph outlines (drawing)
    • Quality of spacing (width and sidebearings)
    • Quality of kerning
    • Character coverage

    2. Extras
    • Font family concept (Italics, weights, widths, others)
    • Languages supported (apart from the usual suspects)
    • Figure sets and fractions
    • Ligatures
    • Variant glyphs and alternate sets
    • symbols and ornaments

    In my opinion, a basically well crafted single font with 400 glyphs and no feature extras is worth more than a feature- and alternates-packed superfont of 2000 glyphs which are lousily drawn and poorly spaced.

    The aspect of character coverage is an interesting one. It always evokes a ‘search for completeness’ but in practice this is hardly to achieve. Who is going to tell you what goes in and what does not? Nobody. Out there is no reliable common standard which tells you that. Even well-known references (e.g. the Adobe glyph sets) are not entirely reliable in that respect.

  • Re: Council for German Orthography officially allows use of u+1E9E

    Very good designs, Mr. Shinn. And Thank You for having been one of the first pioneers who made this character a credible member of the alphabet family.
    However, I disselect the Leipzig form in most cases, definitely in all those which are not Italic.
    The Leipzig form is based on the bias that the right part of the letter has to resemble an s. Which is clearly untrue for the historic emergence of the letter ß in medieval manuscripts and early prints. Only from the 19th century onwards, when composing German texts in Roman typefaces instead of blackletter evolved, it proved to be handy to just utilize the cursive Italian ſ-s-ligature for the German ‘eszett’. Since then, the character had (at least) two different origins.
    The ſ-s theory is but a legacy of the 20th century, of a man named Tschichold in particular. But we know for quite some years today, that he was wrong.
    To cut a long story short (see also this recent article): the sharp s is not – or not neccessarily – an ſ-z or an ſ-s, it is rather a long s with something.
  • Re: Stephen Fry re-invents printing with movable type

    There may be even more to take into account. The Phaistos Disc is supposed to be some 3.500 years old. To me that is ‘printing with movable type’. I recall I have seen similar stamp prints on old ceramic vessels (but fail to remeber where it was).
    The Gutenberg revolution consisted of several parts which were to put together to form a technically viable set of operations. Printing already existed in those days, paper already existed, presses already existed. To cast metal already existed. But to make punches for letters, to cast them in a proto-industrial way, to arrange them mechanically to lines of text and the lines to columns – and to combine this achievement with all the other parts of the process, that was the actual bite.

  • Re: There's two variants of old cursive/script lowercase d – rules on usage?

    There is no rule.

    > What about d_d?
    You decide.
    But I’d say there is not much reason for a dd ligature.