It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
sub f' [b h k etc] by f.narrowtopknot
Christian Thalmann said:
In short: I find the call to avoid ligatures across morpheme boundaries groundless and purely academic, both within German and outside.
Paul Miller said:
Where an 'fi' or 'ffi' ligature removes the dot of the i it is actually altering the sequence of letters to a Turkish reader.
John Hudson said:
With that, I still see that unnecessary ligatures must still be droppedSurely this is a stylistic decision, and the whole point of the flexibility of digital typography is that such decisions can be stylistic — matters of typeface idiom and aesthetic —, rather than dictated by limited technology or ideological commitment. South and Southeast Asian scripts — not to mention Arabic — have often been simplified for technical reasons, and in various typesetting systems traditional features of the scripts have been sacrificed for mechanical facility. Sometimes, those technical limitations have been dressed up as modernism or as script reform, but they're inevitably traceable to the inadequateness of imported technologies to faithful reproduction of the script. My take on this is that if there are cultural moves towards modernism, if there are genuine proposals for script reform to e.g. improve literacy rates, then the technical issues have to be removed from the equation. This is where the flexibility of digital type becomes important, because it enables type designers and font foundries to both give users options with regard to how text can be displayed as well as to contribute materially to those cultural discussions around modernity and tradition.While Evert saw the return of features such as ligatures and oldstyle numerals as nostalgia for things 'rooted in limitations', I see them as things to be thoughtfully engaged with in technologies that overcome previous limitations. If you're including ligatures in a font — for any script — just because other fonts have them and you've heard they are, somehow in themselves, 'good typography', then that isn't thoughtful. If you are considering the question of whether these things are suitable for this particular typeface design and how text set in this typeface should look, then I think perhaps the dilemma to which Evert referred goes away, in that contemporary type design doesn't have to find only one way,
John Hudson said:
These features have created interesting scenarios in modernisation of the Indic typ[ef]aces.And some wacky script reform proposals to better fit Indian writing systems to the imported technologies. Just a few examples from the chapter ‘Notes on the work of the script reformers’ in Naik's Typography of Devanagari (first edition, 1965):