Re: Fingering Type Size

[Kieren Richard MacMillan]

Hi, Carrick:

> Well, that worked just great. Thanks a lot.

My pleasure!

> I never would have guessed how the size increment divisions worked
> without your help, as it seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

It is counter-intuitive if you think of them literally as "divisions"  
-- in that case, it would be intuitive that 0 is zero (invisible), 1  
(= 100%) is "full-size", and numbers in between are smaller than  
normal but bigger than invisible (e.g., 0.5 = 50% of normal size).

However, if you think of 1 as "full-size" and each number, positive  
or negative, as ONE STEP AWAY FROM NORMAL IN THE DIRECTION OF THE  
SIGN (+1 = one step bigger, -1 = one step smaller), then this system  
suddenly "becomes intuitive".  ;-)

Best wishes,
Kieren.