Hi, Torsten!
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Torsten Hämmerle <torsten.haemme...@web.de>
wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG wrote
> > In this proofsheet the spacing for smaller sizes is not `natural'.
> > For example, the distance between the clef and the accidentals for
> > `feta11' is very large. Is this intentional? I think it's a bit
> > confusing.
>
> Hmmm, I was wondering, too.
> I just used \score inside a custom markup-command and set the size by
> \layout { #(layout-set-staff-size design_size) }
>
> It looks as if #(layout-set-staff-size) doesn't scale down all the
> distances.
> The key signatures all start at the same positions, independent of the
> stave
> size...
>
> The funny thing is that the "Notation" document claims
> Known issues and warnings: "layout-set-staff-size does not change the
> distance between the staff lines."
>
> As far as I can see it at the moment, the distance between staff lines
> seems
> to be one of the few distances it does change.
>
> Well, that's a brilliant opportunity for checking out the brand-new
> \magnifyStaff functionality - e voilà !
>
> *Next attempt:*
> issue3356-proofsheet.pdf
> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/issue3356-proofsheet.pdf
> >
> Now, the spacing looks much (!) better.
>
Thanks so much for heading this on! This is really exciting. I do feel like
the slash on accidentals.flatflat.slash gets WAY too thick, comparatively,
from really feta-18 and smaller. Maybe I just need to see it in context to
change my mind. Also, since you brought up the typographic side of the
design, I feel like the double and triple flat symbols should gradually
become uncondensed as the point size decreases, starting from maybe
feta-16, because the counter (the white space inside the flat) almost fills
up all the way, not to mention when it's sitting on a staff line. Keeping
the full width at that point gives the counter a little more breathing
room. This is very common for optically sized designs: at smaller caption
sizes, the shapes become more heavier and more "extended", at larger
display sizes, the shapes become lighter and more condensed. I think that
would really bring out the legibility at the smaller point sizes.
My two cents on the matter,
Abraham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
