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

12357

Comments

  • The ẞ in the left sample feels a hair too open.
    The right sample looks mechanically inclined overall.
  • @Christian Thalmann : I do not intend to spoil your enthusiasm nor would I like to appear being bold or say anything against beautiful Zurich, but, what you repeatedly herald as the “Zurich form” is in fact nothing else than exactly the Dresden form. – There is no point in forcing a second term onto what actually is one and the same thing.
    Having said that, I’d also like to remark that the Dresden glyphs in your latest sample really look good.
  • For the Cyrillic digression, please continue in the thread @John Hudson has kindly started:
    http://typedrawers.com/discussion/2281/early-forms-of-cyrillic-r-r
  • Christian ThalmannChristian Thalmann Posts: 1,936
    edited July 2017
    Andreas: As we discussed on the Typografie.info thread (which seems to have gone missing for no good reason?), the Zürich form is in fact a sub-form of the Dresden form, just as the Zehlendorf form is a sub-form of the Leipzig form. In fact, both sub-forms occupy the same region of proportions and shape within their form's respective parameter space.

    My point is that many, if not most, of the Dresden realizations out there range from suboptimal to downright ugly, and the Zürich sub-form is my recommendation for avoiding this pitfall and finding a robust, unambiguous and attractive realization.

    Having said that, I’d also like to remark that the Dresden glyphs in your latest sample really look good.
    And it seems to work!  :grimace:

    (If you ask me, the Zehlendorf and Zürich designs have much more in common than the typical Dresden implementation has with Zürich.)

  • Aural associations are largely irrelevant.

    Beyond decoding: phonological processing during silent reading in beginning readers.


    Since, when it comes to the uppercase eszett the almost all readers are beginning readers, phonological association may not be as irrelevant as you suppose.
    “The visual word form area does not care how the word sounds, just how the letters of the word look together”
    From: https://gumc.georgetown.edu/news/After-Learning-New-Words-Brain-Sees-Them-as-Pictures
  • … many, if not most, of the Dresden realizations out there range from suboptimal to downright ugly,

    Sorry, but this is downright nonsense.
  • It's this: Roman capitals go width-wise all the way from classical proportions where the letters alternate between a full square and a half-saquare, and so-called modern proportions where they are much more uniform in width except very wide letters like M or W.

    In my opinion, Christian’s proposals are spot-on when it comes to classical proportions. In my view, capital ß should be treated like a "wide" letter. When the proportions are more uniform, capital ß may be a bit narrow.

    Perhaps Christian’s generosity in terms of inner whitespace may be a bit too much, but I personally prefer "a bit too wide" over "a bit too narrow" (and "a bit too open inside" over "a bit too closed inside"). 

    The city-derived terms are just for orientation. They're like "oldstyle", "transitional" and "modern" for serif faces — these days, those old distinctions are just navigational posts but there may be a lot in-between. So it's not a question of whether a form is "same" or "different" from another — they never are same, are always differrnt, but some are closer to each other than others. :smile:

    I think as long as we know what we're talking about, it's fine to have a bit more refined terminology. And if we're lost, we can always use descriptive terms like "sharp top-left, soft right, wide and open" to get some sense. 


  • So, of we stick to the overall COMMON skeleton (i.e. leave out the completely different forms like SS ligatures or S with diacritical marks or other graphemic idiosyncrasies), we can all take influence from those people who care.

    In the end, in my view, any letterform should be convincing in execution and pleasant to the eye. If a designer had put a lot of thought into it, and cared, it will usually be all-right. 

    And, in this very period, I value the fact that designers can explore some options. We've laid out the different directions which people can explore, which I think is worthwhile. Some commonalities are emerging, which is also good. Now, we can leave it to our colleagues of trade to form their own opinions, which (thanks to the debates like ours here) can be *informed decisions* — which I think is great. 

    Many thanks to all participants! :smile:
  • … many, if not most, of the Dresden realizations out there range from suboptimal to downright ugly,

    Sorry, but this is downright nonsense.
    Hyperbole, at most. :grimace:
  • This full-square/half-square business is a crutch.
  • Ray LarabieRay Larabie Posts: 1,374
    edited August 2017
    What letters does ẞ need to be kerned to?
  • As ẞ can appear at the end of a word, I’d say it needs kerning with all German caps (A–Z, ÄÖÜ) as right partner, plus the usual punctuation.

    On the left side, not much kerning should be necessary. Some combinations that might need kerning don’t occur in words: F
    ẞ Tẞ Vẞ Wẞ.
  • The end of the word is important because it can be followed by another word in a compound. 
    Yes, I meant that but failed to write it ;)
  • Ray LarabieRay Larabie Posts: 1,374
    Can we rule out S on both sides?
  • No, there is a large number of words with ßs, like Fußspur or Maßstab. The combination sß is near impossible though.
  • Craig EliasonCraig Eliason Posts: 1,396
    edited August 2017
    Can we rule out S on both sides?
    No, ßs definitely happens, e.g. "Großstadt". 
  • Bianca BerningBianca Berning Posts: 21
    edited August 2017
    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).
  • 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.
  • Bianca BerningBianca Berning Posts: 21
    edited August 2017
    You're right. Let's say 'ẞ almost always follows a vowel or umlaut'.
  • "Never say never."
    – Kerning
  • Christian ThalmannChristian Thalmann Posts: 1,936
    edited August 2017
    «Never.»
    — Me

    Kern King contains the word Uzßai. Anybody know what that's about?
  • Uzßai : Maybe a machine reading error? M. Tullii Ciceronis Orationum tomus primus

    ***

    And then, if you are writing a book about the former German country of Ostpreußen, you find some more place names with amazing ß combinations: Didßeln, Laudßen, Medßokelmoor, Laugßargen, Gelßinnen, Tranßau.

    There’s also Polßen, Golßen and Mehßow in Brandenburg; Pomßen and Sornßig in Saxony; Droyßig in Saxony-Anhalt; and Barßel, Börßum and Veerßen in Lower Saxony.

    Most of these combinations shouldn’t need kerning though.
  • The cap ẞ would need more kerning pairs of it uses a top-left curve, e.g. in DROYẞIG. If it uses a corner there, probably no kerning is needed. 
  • Christian ThalmannChristian Thalmann Posts: 1,936
    edited November 2019
    I revised my infographic about Germandbls design to use Ysabeau instead of Quinoa; I think it is more generally applicable that way:
  • hi,
    before i found this discussion, i was looking for insights to draw the capital ß for a grotesk/sans font. i found this post of Nick Shinn in another thread:

    Nick Shinn said:
    Yes, I was wrong, it’s not the Zehlendorf.
    But I do think it’s quite distinct from the Dresden; so I will call it the “Orangeville” (where I have my studio).


    based on this, i designed a "grotesk" version:



    ...and a "sans" version, lower line is my slightly alternate design:



    next, i did it for a contrasty, serifed design - without prior research how this should be approached. intuitively, i tried it on the basis of my lc ß (lower line). based on your inputs in this discussion here, i made the upper line design:



    being swiss, i am not familiar with the ẞ and the ß. german designers seem to favour the upper line design, though i've seen a great variety in this discussion, also depending on type style. many of the links in this old discussion were not available anymore. maybe i missed something out. 

    maybe you like looking at this - please comment if i got it all wrong :-)
  • Christian ThalmannChristian Thalmann Posts: 1,936
    edited June 2023
    Hoi Donat,
    I'm Swiss and I have very strong opinions on the Eszett. :grimace: 

    Although I have since mellowed a bit and made the Eszett of Ysabeau slightly narrower, and improved the alternation of thicks and thins (thanks Andreas!). It's probably time for an update to that tweet.
  • what you labeled “Orangeville“ is in fact the Dresden form. No need for a further distinction here.
    In your lightweight Roman design, the right half of capital O is far too heavy. In the same specimen, the idea of ß being a ligature of ſ-s is a conceptual mistake. A roman upright ß is a long s with a curly something on the right side.
    In your sans specimen (Dresden form) the top right oblique stroke shall be more steep and the beginning of the bowl does not want to be so stiff.
    Don’t worry, a bit more thorough study of good examples and you’ll soon get the hang of it.

Sign In or Register to comment.