I once did a similar analysis, and them turned the results into a serie of letters that show those pairs in some extra context for convenience and quick review. It was available on the testing page. Mi testing page is not longer online (will be back soon) but its still available at Alexei's http://www.cyreal.org/Font-Testing-Page/index-latin-02.php under the "Minimal Kerning Pairs" tab
Ramiro, you mean every possible combination that is not in use anywhere? Kern pairs such as "rX" and "pY"? There must be 100!s of these (using ! in its mathematical meaning as 'factorial').
Ramiro was talking about the Latin alphabet, though. Even given 100 glyphs, there can only be 10,000 possible kerning pairs, right? The math would be: 100 for the first times 100 for the second glyph. This is on the order of 8 (or maybe 9?) factorial.
100! (factorial) is more atoms than exist in the known universe. In order to have that many pairs, we would actually need more individual glyphs than there are atoms in the known universe! 100 factorial is an unfathomably large number, but calculating kerning pairs just requires a 2nd order polynomial.
I designed Oneleigh Italic with a kernless constraint in cap-lc and lc-lc combinations. This was possible by using swash forms of the problem caps, and adopting the “reverse angle stress” lower case method of Goudy’s CompanionItalic.
The form of T which I used was styled after a glyph in the nameplate of an American business magazine of the 1920s (the name of which escapes me)—very “Chicago School” of lettering, that I imagined was the work of Oz Cooper.
I suspect that a certain amount of the old italic letter forms was configured to avoid kerning, given the difficulties that entailed in metal type.
I designed Oneleigh Italic with a kernless constraint in cap-lc and lc-lc combinations. This was possible by using swash forms of the problem caps, and adopting the “reverse angle stress” lower case method of Goudy’s CompanionItalic.
The form of T which I used was styled after a glyph in the nameplate of an American business magazine of the 1920s (the name of which escapes me)—very “Chicago School” of lettering, that I imagined was the work of Oz Cooper.
I suspect that a certain amount of the old italic letter forms was configured to avoid kerning, given the difficulties that entailed in metal type.
I still and will always *love* these “old” experiments of yours. Oneleigh, Merlin et al. Surely not “best sellers” but unique. Like Jens Gehlhaar’s Goody (no longer visible anywhere, but I have it as he sent it to me at the time).
Comments
Cap to Cap
HHATAHH HHTÆHH
HHAUAHH HHUÆHH
HHAVAHH HHVÆHH
HHAWAHH HHWÆHH
HHAYAHH HHYÆHH
HHAOAHH HHAQAHH HHACHH HHDAHH
HHOÆHH HHDÆHH HHQÆHH
HHOTOHH HHQTQHH HHDTHH HHTCHH
HHOVOHH HHQVQHH HHDVHH HHVCHH
HHOWOHH HHQWQHH HHDWHH HHWCHH
HHOXOHH HHQXQHH HHDXHH HHXCHH
HHOYOHH HHQYQHH HHDYHH HHYCHH
HHKOHH HHKCHH HHKQHH
HHLOHH HHLCHH HHLQHH
HHFAHH HHFÆHH
HHPAHH HHPÆHH
HHSYHH HHYSHH
HHBTHH
HHBVHH
HHBYHH
HHFJHH
HHGYHH
HHLTHH
HHLUHH
HHLVHH
HHLWHH
HHLYHH
HHPJHH
HHPXHH
HHRTHH
HHRUHH
HHRVHH
HHRWHH
HHRYHH
HHTJHH
Cap to Lower
Fannon Kannon Pannon Tannon Vannon Wannon Yannon
Fcnnon Kcnnon Pcnnon Tcnnon Vcnnon Wcnnon Xcnnon Ycnnon
Fdnnon Kdnnon Pdnnon Tdnnon Vdnnon Wdnnon Xdnnon Ydnnon
Fennon Kennon Pennon Tennon Vennon Wennon Yennon Yennon
Fonnon Konnon Ponnon Tonnon Vonnon Wonnon Yonnon Yonnon
Fgnnon Kgnnon Pgnnon Tgnnon Vgnnon Wgnnon Ygnnon Ygnnon
Vinnon Winnon Yinnon
Tmnnon Vmnnon Wmnnon Ymnnon
Tnnnon Vnnnon Wnnnon Ynnnon
Trnnon Vrnnon
Tsnnon Vsnnon Ysnnon
Atnnon Ytnnon
Funnon Kunnon Tunnon Vunnon Wunnon Yunnon Xunnon
Avnnon Kvnnon Lvnnon Tvnnon Vvnnon Yvnnon Xvnnon
Awnnon Kwnnon Lwnnon Twnnon Vwnnon Ywnnon Xwnnon
Txnnon Yxnnon
Aynnon Kynnon Lynnon Tynnon Vynnon Wynnon Yynnon Xynnon
Tznnon Yznnon
Lower to Lower
nonavnon nonvanon
nonovonon nonvcnon nonvdnon nonvenon
nonoxonon nonxcnon nonxdnon nonxenon
nonkcnon nonkdnon nonkenon nonkonon
nonranon nonrcnon nonrdnon nonrenon nonronon
Caps and punctuation
HH‘AHH HHA’HH HH’AHH HHL’HH
HH“AHH HHA”HH HH”AHH HHL”HH
HH'A'HH HHL'HH HH"A"HH HHL"HH
HH.O.HH HH.T.HH HH.U.HH HH.V.HH HH.W.HH HH.Y.HH
HHD.HH HHF.HH HHP.HH
HH,O,HH HH,T,HH HH,U,HH HH,V,HH HH,W,HH HH,Y,HH
HHD,HH HHF,HH HHP,HH
HHK-HH HHL-HH
HH-T-HH HH-V-HH HH-W-HH HH-X-HH HH-Y-HH HH-Z-HH
HHT:HH HHV:HH HHW:HH HHY:HH
HHT;HH HHV;HH HHW;HH HHY;HH
Lower and punctuation
nn.f.nn nn.o.nn nn.v.nn nn.w.nn nn.y.nn nnr.nn
nn,f,nn nn,o,nn nn,v,nn nn,w,nn nn,y,nn nnr,nn
nonf*non nonf?non non(f)non non[f]non non{f}non
nonf"non nonf“non nonf”non nonf’non nonf‘non
non¿jnon non(j)non non[j]non non{j}non
nonk-non nonr-non non-x-non
non’snon
Ramiro was talking about the Latin alphabet, though. Even given 100 glyphs, there can only be 10,000 possible kerning pairs, right? The math would be: 100 for the first times 100 for the second glyph. This is on the order of 8 (or maybe 9?) factorial.
100! (factorial) is more atoms than exist in the known universe. In order to have that many pairs, we would actually need more individual glyphs than there are atoms in the known universe! 100 factorial is an unfathomably large number, but calculating kerning pairs just requires a 2nd order polynomial.
I designed Oneleigh Italic with a kernless constraint in cap-lc and lc-lc combinations.
This was possible by using swash forms of the problem caps, and adopting the “reverse angle stress” lower case method of Goudy’s Companion Italic.
The form of T which I used was styled after a glyph in the nameplate of an American business magazine of the 1920s (the name of which escapes me)—very “Chicago School” of lettering, that I imagined was the work of Oz Cooper.
I suspect that a certain amount of the old italic letter forms was configured to avoid kerning, given the difficulties that entailed in metal type.
Surely not “best sellers” but unique. Like Jens Gehlhaar’s Goody (no longer visible anywhere, but I have it as he sent it to me at the time).