Interesting collaborative feature… though not very serious(*), because it did not help these users realize the great waste of solutions (binary/viable glyphs) after they adopted their baseline rule (y-1). I mean, you can count only a limited number of glyphs that (should) use the bottom row, here, out of the 94 in US-ASCII for instance. The outcome is a good set of 3x3 characters forced to align in a 3x4 matrix (with a quite less readable / useless 2 x-height rule), which is not the good way (since all the compressions work the reverse way, i.e. they lose info logically, instead of stretching illegible virtual glyphs, of course)…
* In this case of collaboration, who decided which rule was prioritary? (I needn't be answered.)
13 Comments
Interesting collaborative feature… though not very serious(*), because it did not help these users realize the great waste of solutions (binary/viable glyphs) after they adopted their baseline rule (y-1). I mean, you can count only a limited number of glyphs that (should) use the bottom row, here, out of the 94 in US-ASCII for instance. The outcome is a good set of 3x3 characters forced to align in a 3x4 matrix (with a quite less readable / useless 2 x-height rule), which is not the good way (since all the compressions work the reverse way, i.e. they lose info logically, instead of stretching illegible virtual glyphs, of course)…
* In this case of collaboration, who decided which rule was prioritary? (I needn't be answered.)
I honestly have no memory of any of this... looking back on it it seems like it was really annoying, both for me and for everyone else involved...
Please sign in to comment.