[smufl-discuss] Re: Registration of articulation glyphs

[Joseph Berkovitz]

Hi Daniel,

I think this makes sense — as I understand it, you’re proposing to adopt Maurizio’s proposal #2 alone, and not #1 or #3.

I think this approach seems fine if you are providing additional glyphs capturing the above/below placement even when the glyph forms don’t vary.


.            .       .    .  . ...Joe

Joe Berkovitz
President

Noteflight LLC
Boston, Mass.
phone: [phone]
www.noteflight.com
"Your music, everywhere"


On Feb 11, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Daniel Spreadbury <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Maurizio wrote:
>
>> Also, SMuFL is striving to be a platform-agnostic and legacy-agnostic
>> standard (or at least it seems to me it is) and to be bound by habits
> rather
>> than looking for the most logic solution isn't perhaps a bit too
>> conservative?
>
> I have been mulling this email over and I am certainly willing to reopen
> the discussion about registration for articulations.  To review your
> original proposal:
>
> 1. Articulations should be centered vertically on the baseline (y=0). This
> would, you argue, simplify their placement within the staff (for e.g.
> tenuto and staccato): you would in theory be able to position the origin
> of the glyph precisely in the middle of the staff space and the
> articulation would be correctly centered between the staff lines.
>
> I think this contradicts your second proposal (below), or at the least
> requires a different approach for those articulations that do not require
> separate above/below glyphs. For that reason I'm not too keen.
>
> 2. For those single articulations that require different forms when drawn
> above/below the note/chord (e.g. staccatissimo, marcato), and for
> combinations of articulations whose order needs to be inverted when drawn
> above/below the note/chord (e.g. marcato-staccato): the "above" version
> should be registered such that it proceeds upwards from the baseline
> (y=0), and the "below" version should proceed downwards from the baseline
> (y=0).
>
> I can see how this might help: in order to position an articulation the
> same distance above one note and below another, you wouldn't need to worry
> about positioning the articulation below the note offset by the measured
> height of the glyph itself: you could simply place the glyph at the same
> distance above or below the note, and the result would be optically
> balanced.
>
> 3. Articulations should be centered about x=0, according to their optical
> center (if different from their actual center). This would, you argue,
> simplify the positioning of articulations relative to noteheads (or stems,
> in some cases), since they are typically centered over the notehead.
>
> However, I'm not sure about this: the articulation glyphs would end up
> with zero width, which would moderately complicate things. Consuming
> applications would then have to perform a special calculation to measure
> the size of the glyph rather than being able to rely on the metrics of the
> glyph (i.e. the side bearing values). So I don't think I would be in
> favour of this change, and furthermore I don't think any of the
> articulations (even the accent, which you specifically mention) have an
> optical center that is different from their actual center.
>
> On balance, then, I think it would potentially be a beneficial change to
> register the above/below versions of the articulations such that they sit
> on or hang from the baseline (y=0), as you suggest. Perhaps it would also
> be worth, for consistency, adding above/below versions for those
> articulations that do not typically require different forms when shown
> above/below (i.e. accent, staccato, tenuto), which adds only three glyphs.
> This would be an acceptable compromise, as far as I am concerned.
>
> Does anybody in the community have any further thoughts on this topic?
>
> Daniel
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH, Frankenstrasse 18b, D-20097 Hamburg, Germany
> Phone: [phone] | Fax: [phone] | www.steinberg.net
> President / Managing Director: Andreas Stelling
> Managing Director: Kazunori Kobayashi, Hiroshi Sasaki
> Registration Court: Hamburg HRB 86534
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> #############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
> Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>
>

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
  the mailing list <[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to  <[hidden email]>