ƒ~∞∫Ω∆∏∑√µ∂◊|¦
These are some glyphs in Adobe Latin 3, particularly math-related, which I don't know the context of their uses and have had to follow the example of other fonts. I've done too much guessing at rationales that may themselves be wrong since there is so much variance in how they're designed?
With some Wikipedia research I found some possible contexts of their uses but I'd be curious to know from others what is the most 'correct' way to design these glyphs and how they are used?
1. ∏∑ sometimes these glyphs are descending below baseline, and ascending just beyond number/cap height, other times they match the number/cap height and start from the baseline.
2. ∫ is even taller the above? sometimes not?
3. ∞ I see these quite small sometimes, other times larger, which look balanced between two numbers.
4. ~ These are sometimes aligned to the top of numbers, sometimes vertically centered, sometimes different again to ≈ (i.e. not merely the component used to make ≈)?
5. √ sometimes there's a horizontal stroke on the left, sometimes it's perpendicular to the first \ stroke down, sometimes the top right has a horizontal stroke? Sometimes it reaches below the baseline, and/or up above the number height?
6. ∂ This glyph just f**** me up
7. ◊ Sometimes it's a full height diamond, sometimes it's a little rotated square?
Also another question I wonder about is
how and
when would one actually use these glyphs in an Adobe-Latin 3 font if it is not actually suitable for extensive maths typesetting (since it's missing the rest of the glyphs — but what's the point of including some of these maths glyphs then)?
√172
±√1 −√a
∫ f(x)dx ∫2x
ƒ/2.8
◊(S)
A∆B X∆Y ∆x ∆y ∆ƒ
Ω(G)
∂z ∂x ∂(x) ∂{x} ∂[x] ∂¹ ∂² ∂³ ∂
Comments
I reason that as none of my typefaces are special math fonts, they will not be used for complex math typography.
If typographers want them to be correct, they can switch to the upright, roman font because, after all, many equations are a mixture of roman and italic.
And it is quite likely that the character + will appear in non-mathematical usage, such as the name of a business product, e.g. Google+, or instead of the ampersand in, for instance, London restaurants: Peg + Patriot, Sager + Wilde, Jackson + Rye etc.
As another example, imagine that Einstein’s famous equation E=mc² is text in an all-italic sidebar. In this typical situation, doesn’t it make more sense for the = symbol to be slanted? Because this is just as likely a usage of = in an italic setting as pure maths, if not more so.
Afaict Adobe put these in their charset because they are on Apple keyboard e.g. Option+w is ∑.
(Which I mean as a clever way of saying, people use these in ways that makes sense to slope them. Especially in typefaces that one wouldn’t expect to be used for hardcore math)
∫ ∏ ∑ and especially ∂ are more trouble than they’re worth for a non-math font.
I wonder if the little nub on the √ is sometimes left off to make it more usable as a check mark. I remember my old Amiga used this symbol (with nub) as a check mark in program menus.
During the OpenType conversion of 2000–2002, Adobe chose to treat MacRoman + WinANSI (plus euro, litre and estimated) as their core characters set. So those math symbols are in Adobe Latin 2, as well. IIRC, literally every alphabetic Adobe font has them! Although in the case of say Mythos or Rad they may not match the main font very well....
From TIME magazine, Nov. 2, 2015:
Call me old-fashioned, but I just don’t see anything wrong with the unslanted symbol.
Not such an issue in a serif style, where the = fits nicely with the entry-stroke of /m, but would be awkward in a sans.
The thing is, the correct scientific presentation is: E = mc², with all variables in italic, a space on either side of the equal symbol, and twosuperior upright. As soon as the equation enters non-scientifc usage as shown in the Time example, without the spaces, and with every character in the italic font, it becomes neither one thing nor the other, being both scientifically wrong, and aesthetically flawed.
The vertical bar | is not primarily a math character. It is used for a variety of editorial purposes, e.g. to indicate verse breaks in transcriptions of poetry, and is generally expected to be vertical even in italic text.
I don't think there can be a general rule for whether math symbols in italic fonts are slanted or not, simply because there is no such thing as general typography. All typography is specialist, so the decision process needs to consider the kind of typeface one is making and for what kind of text it is intended. If I were making a type that I expected to be primarily used in advertising copy and packaging design, then I would slant the math symbols. If I were making a type that I expected to be used in book or editorial typography, then I would not slant them. [Notably, when I discussed these kinds of questions with Brill, they asked that not even ( ) [ ] { } and other parenthetical signs be slanted in the italic fonts.]
My question is about the so-called the "Mac symbol substitution characters" (as they are called in Adobe Latin 2)
Since I read @Thomas Phinney confirmed they were added in Adobe Latin 2 for this “legacy reason”, if I am not doing an extended Math symbols set for Math typesetting, does it make sense to have the Greek letters? I will always include the most important Mathematical operators, but I can’t see much of use for Ω, π, ∂, ∆, ∏, ∑, √, ∞, ∫.
Especially if I am doing a historical revival of a typeface which did not contemplate these at all. I mean, I can always add them on an upgrade which extends the character set.
Your thoughts?
Whether that matters to you or your expected users is another question, of course.
For me, I would still keep them part of my standard character set for that reason. I might omit them in some particular circumstances, though.
I have another question: my stylistic choice has been to make the basic Arithmetic operators as monolinear and of a light weight, to achieve, so to speak, an “armony of contrast” with the modulated style of De Vinne. Would it make sense, except for the micro/mu, pi, Omega and Delta, to have some of the others (∏, ∑, √, ∞, ∫) drawn in monoline fashion as well? I see that ∏ and ∑ are used in algebra, ∂ is for derivatives, so probably it requires to be modulated.
A thing that puzzles me a bit is that not even Tiro’s Brill fonts support:
- ∂ partialdiff
- ∏ product
- ∑ summation
- ◊ lozenge
But they support:- ∫ integral
(I already did lozenge, monolinear, now the perplexity remains on these three, as they’d just be for algebra and derivatives).@John Hudson: What would your advice be on a "non scholar" textsetting/subtitling typeface (not display)?
I draw product and summation with the bottom part below the baseline (but not as much as a true descender), but frankly I am not sure if this is a good choice and why.
— Delta (uni0394) = increment (uni2206)?
— Omega (uni03A9) = Ohm (uni2126)?
— mu (uni03BC) = micro (uni00B5)?
— Pi (uni03A0) = product (uni220F)?
— Sigma (uni03A3) = summation (uni2211)?
Yes, that’s the reason I always include it, I often use it as a bullet. But again, some professional fonts which support even the algebra operators or the Math Greek letters do not include it!
Great reply, John. Yes, I believe it depends on tradition or conventions in Math, and clearly Summation and Product are not supposed to sit on the baseline and be identical to /Sigma and /Pi Greek. But then, is there a consolidated historical model to follow as far as height and positioning go?
Thanks much for the consideration: so a serifless Delta would be preferable? But I guess it would be the only Greek glyph to be used in mathematics to require formal differentiation, then?
I mean, more than “serif vs. sans serif" it seems to me that here there is at play an expectation of having Greek letters for Math drawn in a certain default style rather than following the overall design logic.
The corresponding Greek letters, matching the weight and modulation of the Latin letters: