From aa8ea505018422ee0178fbf7be58af43c3853281 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Akatsumekusa <112813970+Akatmks@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2023 04:11:49 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] =?utf8?q?Fix=20typo=20in=20=EF=BD=A2The=20=E2=80=9Ctight?= =?utf8?q?=20not=20touching=E2=80=9D=20style=EF=BD=A3?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- .../lessons/the_tight_not_touching_style/content.md | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/cc-by-sa/knowledge/modules/history_of_type/lessons/the_tight_not_touching_style/content.md b/cc-by-sa/knowledge/modules/history_of_type/lessons/the_tight_not_touching_style/content.md index 151f1af148..a1aacd35ad 100644 --- a/cc-by-sa/knowledge/modules/history_of_type/lessons/the_tight_not_touching_style/content.md +++ b/cc-by-sa/knowledge/modules/history_of_type/lessons/the_tight_not_touching_style/content.md @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ In the 1960s, the introduction of photo-typesetting made it possible to set type What does scaling have to do with letter spacing? -When you change the font size in a document, the forms of the letters remain the same—they just get bigger or smaller. That’s called linear scaling (“scaling” type simply means enlarging or reducing it). But, because of inherent limitations of the human visual system—which responds in a nonlinear way to changes in scale1— letterforms behave differently at different sizes. Scaling that takes the human eye into account is known as non-linear scaling or [optical sizing](/glossary/optical_sizes). (Although, as Tim Ahrens notes, “Optical is not the most appropriate term here, since the issues involved are perceptual and related to human vision more than the laws of optics.”)3 +When you change the font size in a document, the forms of the letters remain the same—they just get bigger or smaller. That’s called linear scaling (“scaling” type simply means enlarging or reducing it). But, because of inherent limitations of the human visual system—which responds in a nonlinear way to changes in scale1— letterforms behave differently at different sizes. Scaling that takes the human eye into account is known as non-linear scaling or [optical sizing](/glossary/optical_sizes). (Although, as Tim Ahrens notes, “Optical is not the most appropriate term here, since the issues involved are perceptual and related to human vision more than the laws of optics.”) In the digital age, we’re all accustomed to scalable type: When you create a document, you can make the text any size you like. But if you’ve ever tried to use a display typeface for a footnote, you may have found it difficult to read—the text can be too light overall, details like serifs can be insubstantial or disappear entirely, and the letters can seem to trip over each other. On the other hand, if you’ve ever set a headline in a typeface designed for long-form reading, it may have looked clunky—too heavy, with inelegant details and overly-wide letter spacing. @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Today, linear scaling is the norm and optical scaling is the exception, but beca From the fifteenth century until the middle of the nineteenth century, there was more or less one way to manufacture type: A steel punch was cut by hand, then struck or driven into a bar of a softer metal like copper to produce a “strike,” or unjustified matrix. After the matrix was trued up (or “justified”), it was fitted into an adjustable mold. Molten type metal (an alloy of lead, tin, and antimony) was ladled into the mold and an individual piece of printing type was cast from it. -This entire process happened at “actual size”—there was no enlargement or reduction. The punch, the matrix, and the resulting type were all on the same scale. Steel punches had to be cut by hand at every size that was going to be cast and each size of type had to be cut as though it were a new design. Under these circumstances, it would have been virtually impossible for punchcutters to reproduce exactly the same letterforms at different sizes even if they’d wanted to—and it seems they didn’t. In fact, according to Harry Carter in “Optical Scale in Typefounding” (1937), “It is clear to anyone who can examine enlargements of hand-cut types that the good punchcutters varied the design, or at any rate the functional features of it, to suit the scale on which they worked. They did so instinctively because they corrected their work by eye, and they had the wisdom not to let mathematical rules override their judgment.”7 +This entire process happened at “actual size”—there was no enlargement or reduction. The punch, the matrix, and the resulting type were all on the same scale. Steel punches had to be cut by hand at every size that was going to be cast and each size of type had to be cut as though it were a new design. Under these circumstances, it would have been virtually impossible for punchcutters to reproduce exactly the same letterforms at different sizes even if they’d wanted to—and it seems they didn’t. In fact, according to Harry Carter in “Optical Scale in Typefounding” (1937), “It is clear to anyone who can examine enlargements of hand-cut types that the good punchcutters varied the design, or at any rate the functional features of it, to suit the scale on which they worked. They did so instinctively because they corrected their work by eye, and they had the wisdom not to let mathematical rules override their judgment.” ### Machine punchcutting @@ -141,6 +141,6 @@ And variable fonts can now automatically map optical size to font size. For exam
![An animated GIF showing how font size, optical size, and tracking interact to appropriately manipulate type for its intended size.](images/the_tight_not_touching_style_7_ANIMA.gif) -
Adjustments to font size, the Optical Size axis (OPSZ), and letter spacing when setting [Fraunces](https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Fraunces?) at different sizes.
+
Adjustments to font size, the Optical Size axis (OPSZ), and letter spacing when setting Fraunces at different sizes.
-- 2.47.2