The process by which we design type has not changed significantly since Fontographer has introduced into the market. Today, there are many experiments trying to breathe new life into the type design and one of them is skeleton based type design. Why is skeleton based design advantageous compared to traditional outline drawing?
I have written an article about at http://bit.ly/skeleton-based-type-design
@James Puckett Did you try Fontark?
@Nick Shinn - That's a lot to expect from layout applications, but anyway in my experience the automating concept (in type app or layout app) is very limited, almost any parametric adjustment requires a professional adjustments and tuning after execution. It is very helpful in the hands of a type designer but not as much in the hands of an armature.
Caps have very little to do with pen written letters and the balance of stroke is not easily articulated by Noordzij's model. For instance in the letter L brush angle changes between four and seven times. The brush is also fanned, pinched, and flexed.
That's not to say that a tool like this wouldnt work. You could conceivably model every stroke. By that time it might be faster to draw outlines.
Backing away from the stroke for a moment. There are also parallel typographic histories. Centuries old traditions of letters which began as outlines, or punches, or grid units or stencils and which have all independently exerted their influences.
Very curious to see how the project develops.
That's why I see (and use) the skeleton best for modelling and practically as a fast design tool (that can take you quite far in the process) and finalizing the work in regular tools which is much easier when you have a profound basis for your design.
As said, (my) skeleton tool is not ideal for digitization, and not meant for that. If one have a "finished" letter design (made by hand) he's better of just trace and get it done with. The skeleton feature is best as a design and development tool and I'll upload a demo of how and what is it good for with Wess's beautiful letter soon.
You can use tools like http://www.getlinkinfo.com/ to check this
I found the article contents to be rather thin; I wished you said something more substantial, or showed us samples of what your tool can produce
Also, you have this quote, which is from the metapolator LGM 2013 presentation, but unsourced on your page: I hope you will source it
I then rendered it in several weights (with identical horizontal metrics) by applying various “expand path” transformations, or whatever Fog called it, as well as a version I ran through an Illustrator filter (centre).
The point is: one may design to suit the tool, as much as in mimicry.
“Truth to materials”, the mantra of my art teacher at school, Ron Dalzell.
Down on the pages you can find test fields for all the styles and weights, the leftmost tabs (circled) are the heaviest.
This is just one example, I will gladly be challenged with other tests, calligraphic or other.
Besides that, and few other issues from the edges of the beta swamp, it's a breeze and a most enjoyable way of work.
We have future enhancement plans to make it really almost unlimited.
Scope of the project is pretty extensive. You're building the thing from scratch?
How clean are the generated beziers?
It's all negative space and weight and how these shapes look next to one another. It would be hard for me design letters with a skeleton. For example, if I'm making a heavy B, I'm not thinking about the thickness of strokes. I'm adjusting the size and position of the counters until it looks right next to the rest of the alphabet. I'm adjusting the curves on the outside and on the counters, not thinking about strokes. I'm looking at how the shape fits with the other letters; how the negative space harmonizes. Adjusting a stroke, to me, would get in the way of this process. Especially ultra-bolds.
* Other than handwriting fonts and scripts.
@Frode Bo Helland Thank you for joining the discussion and sharing your thoughts. I wish to have better chance to develop more the topic
@Ofir Shavit I am glad as you that there is somebody else seeing the value in such aproach. We are able to generate well ploted oudline of stroke following a skeleton and currently looking for opportunities to integrate with existing type design tools.
@Dave Crossland you are definitely right. My approach was to open the topic and have an opportunity to participate on discussions. For me, there is nothing to conclude yet.
You know, It's already few years since I have started working on it. During that time more people has joined the project. With patience and delayed promised deadlines as it usually happens during a development of new technology. I have to laugh on my expectations We have something which could be shared and hope soon as public prototype.
On quoate: I haven't found the author. So, to me it sounds like an antient roman quoation. Good job! So, who should mentioned there?