The job title has been changed, mostly in order to correspond more closely with that of similar jobs as categorised by Services Canada. The job will also be posted on the Services Canada Job Bank in the coming week. We want to ensure that we've done our best to attract qualified Canadian applicants before initiating a work permit application for a foreign national.
We've also added a sentence to the job description regarding possible future responsibilities for the successful applicant in the areas of project and team management. As we've not yet received an application that checks all the boxes of the original job description, we're anticipating hiring someone who can take charge of individual projects and direct external freelancers or future additional employees. [Applicants who have already submitted resumés are invited to send updates if they have relevant experience in this area that was not noted previously.]
Finally, we've added an expected salary range for the position. The actual salary is open to negotiation once we start interviewing, which we hope to do in June.
I begin every project quizzing the customer about their needs, because generally they have only partially determined these. I try to build as complete a brief as possible, both in design and technical terms, with the focus on documentation of the proposed glyph set. This is a lot of work, typically undertaken speculatively unless the customer has specifically requested my consultation and agreed to pay for this upfront work. I like to prepare in this way so that neither the customer nor I have nasty surprises during the project, and I can therefore price the work both accurately and competitively. I quote design (glyph creation and spacing) on a per glyph basis, making distinction between base, composite, and derived glyphs (derived glyphs would be technically not composites, but based on existing glyphs, e.g. /Hbar/. Other work, such as kerning, OpenType programming, mastering, and testing are quoted based on time estimates.
What a revealing thread! I had no idea that rationalism was such a force here
What Mark, Thomas, and James are putting forward is not rationalism, it is empiricism.
Empiricism proceeds from experience, so has room for emotion and even for mysticism. But experimental empiricism, of the kind that on which science relies, involves specific processes of testing falsifiable hypotheses, such that claims can be demonstrated to be true or false. In that respect, as Ofir notes, science is less open to charlatanism than mysticism or other non-rational belief systems, because when science makes mistakes new science can correct those mistakes; indeed, it is the only thing that can. [NB: non-rational ≠ irrational; non-rational beliefs proceed from grounds that cannot be arrived at through reason, e.g. revelation, but are still subject to reason; irrational beliefs are contrary to reason. Believing that God exists in three persons is non-rational; believing that I have three hands is irrational.]
I understand the attraction of the idea that some activity that humans do, such as writing, reveals something deep about their subconscious psyches, or the idea that the arrangement of the heavens overhead when they were born reveals something about their destinies. These are not ideas that hold any attraction for me, and I'm personally pleased that they consistently fail to meet the truth criteria of experimental testing. But I understand why some people like these ideas.They do fail testing, though: the claims of the proponents of graphology and astrology don't stand up to experimental enquiry. Now, one can say that the experiments are insufficient, or that there are aspects of these claims that cannot be tested empirically — i.e. that there is something inherently mystical in their nature, even in their outcomes, that cannot be subjected to the methods of science —, but then I would say that these are areas of private, non-rational belief. If someone wants to believe that his or her handwriting reveals something about his or her psyche, that's his or her business. But it really is his or her business: there's no empirical grounds for anyone else share to this belief, and to apply that belief to someone else's writing is at best an imposition and at worst an injustice.
With regard to my own handwriting, I know that it reveals two very specific things about be: a) I didn't learn to hold a pen properly when I was a child, and b) I've not taken the time to consciously correct and improve my writing.
I think either above the stem or centred on the dot below are viable for this diacritic. My inclination in serif types is to place the macron above the stem, but in a sans serif type I might very well opt to centre on the dot, otherwise the macron might appear to stick out too far to the left.
Here, by the way, is the full set of L diacritics included in the Murty fonts:
[Note horizontal position of below marks. I position these based on optical balance of the whole, which means they are slightly left rather than centred on the width of the baseline stroke of the L.]
The ring below is a variant for the dot below preferred by some publishers.
The acute accent is to indicate stress. I took a crazed completist approach to these, and provided for acute on any vowel, since I'm not aware of stress patterns in all varieties of Sanskrit or other languages that might be transcribed with the Murty fonts.
The tilde is used for a nasalised pronunciation, which some publishers transcribe as m̐l.
The L with diaeresis below is used in transcriptions of Kannada script for the ೞ.
Many romanised transcriptions, in practice, will not use uppercase letters, but for the Murty fonts I provided both upper-, lowercase, and also smallcaps for all.