Don't be too careful, it's very much a latter-day problem in the field. But equally problematic is the cavalier dismissiveness towards robust kerning. Especially when one spends so much time determining sidebearings...Simon Cozens said:I have to be a bit careful saying this, but... I wonder if there is a danger in coming to think of the number of kern pairs as a proxy for font quality. And I wonder if it becomes a pride issue - a way of showing how seriously you are taking things.
Their kerning was limited to over-hanging bits and filed-down sides (and ligatures, in a way) but I agree with Ray: that's not very relevant.Simon Cozens said:How many "kern pairs" did some of the most famous letterpress types have?
But ideally while keeping in mind how kerning will eventually kick in; for example I let glyphs touch (although rarely). This is because environments that don't care enough to enable kerning probably look worse in more important ways...Andreas Stötzner said:Do very careful spacing of all glyphs first.
I think that makes sense because optical compensation is intended to be subvisible: not consciously noticeable by the reader. That said, this should not prevent typographers from intentionally using the "wrong" optical size.Peter Constable said:It seems to me that he considers optical-size variation to be a treatment rather than a style
But you hit Disagree anyway? :-)Thomas Phinney said:You'll need to define which version of “empiricism” you mean before anybody can disagree.