Re: Contra Universal Writing Systems

From: Markus Kuhn (Markus.Kuhn@cl.cam.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Aug 23 1999 - 03:27:44 EDT


Gregg Reynolds wrote on 1999-08-23 04:17 UTC:
> "Bilingual Typography", by Alistair Crawford, in "Visible Langauge",
> Vol. XXI, nbr 1, Winter 1987.
> From the article:
[...]
> "The shape and style of the typefaces used in the visual
> presentation of any language must be determined, not by habit or
> expediency, but by the visual characteristics of that language."
>
> "'Technological' typefaces, in fact, reflect a monopolistic cultural
> arrogance on a grander scale than previously seen."

There is certainly some truth in that. Practical examples:

  - German has capitalized nouns, therefore capital characters appear
    quite frequently in the text. In English on the other hand, a
    capital letter only denotes the start of a new sentence, a name,
    or shouting corporate lawyers. Many good German fonts have therefore
    less prominent capitals. They are usually a bit less wide then
    what is common practice in fonts designed for English publications.
    The dominance of fonts designed for English writing markets has
    certainly had a negative impact on the quality of typography found
    in German texts today (except for some high-quality publishers who
    still care about such issues). Even horrible constructs like a
    beta-shaped sharp-s U+00df become acceptable today (as opposed to
    a sharp s that is correctly shaped as a ligature of s + long s
    (U+0073 + U+017f))

  - The kerning of some fonts is often only carefully tested for
    the small subset of letter pairs that is common in English.
    Other languages have a different subset of common digraphs
    and fonts that were originally designed for the US market sometimes
    fail badly.

Unicode 2.0 errata:

Would it be possible to add to LATIN SMALL LETTER SHARP S U+00DF a
cross-reference to U+0073 + U+017f in the Unicode 3.0 book? The current
cross-reference to beta and the glyph used for sharp s (just a beta
without long leg) really gives the reader (and font designer) the
impression that the sharp s is a glyph variant of the beta, which would
be definitely wrong. Making the reader aware that the sharp s derives
historically from a U+0073 + U+017f ligature will hopefully lead font
designers without experience in German typography to coming up with more
appropriate glyphs than the common beta variant.

Markus

-- 
Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK
Email: mkuhn at acm.org,  WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:51 EDT