Re: change in treble clef - do you accept?

[Janek Warchoł]

(this was originally off-list to reduce clutter, but perhaps it was a bad idea)

2011/7/13 Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden>:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
> > in the recent clef survey you said that you don't like some aspects of my 
> > clef.
> > I've modified my original suggestion - it's bigger now. It looks like
> > we're going to make the change, but nevertheless i'd like to know your
> > opinion about my revised proposal before we decide. Please look at the
> > attachment (more examples in tracker issue 1752).
>
> Hi Janek,
>
> I am very pleasantly surprised by your new clefs.  Although I very much
> liked the current feta clef, it always was a bit airy and possibly also
> stood out being a tad lighter than most other aspects of Feta.  Both
> these [possibly minor] gripes seem to be resolved.  My compliments!

Thanks!

> Still, the current feta clef is kind of a Feta/LilyPond fingerprint,
> which makes it extra hard for me change it.  But as Han-Wen said,
> possibly it is time to let go.  That's something I would find very hard
> to make a balanced decision about -- I'd like to talk with Han-Wen
> first.

I understand it.

> I do have a question about the smallest clef, the two on the right:
> the current clef just peeks out above the upper staff line, while
> your new clefs do not.  It appears to me that the current ones
> are more readable because of this.  What do you think, and more
> importantly: do you have any examples of this.  I don't have
> an example handy but I really think we should not make such
> a change lightly.

In my opinion it looks better not peeking above upper staff line, but
i don't have any examples (every time i need an example i go to IMSLP
and click "random page" until i find one... this would perhaps need
more than 100 tries to find first score containing it, i don't feel
like doing this).
If we want to change it, perhaps we should simply change the CueClef
font-size?  Currently it's -4.
Actually, there is one thing more to consider: there are separate
glyphs for normal clef and change clef.  The difference between them
is currently mostly line thickness (try alt-tab-comparing
http://lilypond.googlecode.com/issues/attachment?aid=17520019000&name=small-clefs+current+Lily.pdf&token=3fba6f114556a1bb2ead9689deb230e3
 and  
http://lilypond.googlecode.com/issues/attachment?aid=17520019001&name=small-clefs-switched+current+Lily.pdf&token=f12cc444665d9ac7bee2d7fa9338860a),
but in my suggested clef there is also a difference in top loop to
avoid bad interference with stafflines (alt-tab-compare
http://lilypond.googlecode.com/issues/attachment?aid=17520019002&name=small-clefs+my+suggestion.pdf&token=f8598eb528a502effea3085744170530
 and  
http://lilypond.googlecode.com/issues/attachment?aid=17520019003&name=small-clefs-switched+my+suggestion.pdf&token=07fdb7cae206c4a67b26d4a9f365f6b6).
Surprisingly, CueClef currently uses regular clef glyph scaled down
1.5874 times (font-size -4), not a scaled down change clef.  Maybe we
should modify this?
Here is a demonstration of how regular clef glyphs look at different
font-sizes around -4 (top system) and how clef-change glyphs look at
corresponding sizes (bottom system):
http://lilypond.googlecode.com/issues/attachment?aid=17520019004&name=cue-clefs.pdf&token=7fff7b11c837fc587643badd1b00f9bd

> Thanks for sending this -- I'd like to include at least Han-Wen and
> Werner in this too.

Looks like i should've send it to the whole list at the very beginning :P


2011/7/14 address@hidden <address@hidden>:
> I completely agree with Jan.
> My only issue is that the change clef (the second one from the left)
> has a line that is too thick (marked in orange in the attached PNG).

Umm, Mike, do you realize that in the image you attached there are
current Lily clefs, not my suggested ones?

cheers,
Janek

Mike's attachment.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document