Shawalphabet YahooGroup Archive Browser

Jean-François,

To be honest I just did up the cover quickly and I did not proof it. The words "adventures" and "wonderland" appear in the text and I will follow whatever the original transcriber used.

What I am concerned about is the shapes of the letters in my fonts. I want to make sure they are acceptable enough for publication. Wouldn't be much fun publishing it and then having people say they can't read it...

On 17 Jul 2011, at 00:40, Jean-François Colson wrote:

> I don’t understand why my text was mangled that way. I’m making a second
> attempt:
>
> I’m a little puzzled by the title on your cover. I read :
> “·𐑨𐑤𐑦𐑕’𐑩𐑟 𐑩𐑛𐑝𐑧𐑯𐑑𐑿𐑮𐑟 𐑦𐑯 𐑢𐑲𐑯𐑛𐑮𐑤𐑨𐑯𐑛”.
> Why did you write “𐑩𐑛𐑝𐑧𐑯𐑑𐑿𐑮𐑟”? “𐑿” is pronounced /juː/ as in
> “you”. Do you really pronounce it /ədˈvɛntjuːɹz/? Shouldn’t it be
> /ədˈvɛntjɚz/, i.e. “𐑩𐑛𐑝𐑧𐑯𐑑𐑘𐑼𐑟”?
> I don’t understand why you used the ice diphtong (𐑲) in
> “𐑢𐑲𐑯𐑛𐑮𐑤𐑨𐑯𐑛”. Also, couldn’t you use the “𐑼” ligature instead
> of the single “𐑮” consonant?
>
> I’m not a native speaker and there are so many dialects of English, that
> I could be mistaking (If that’s the case, I apologize), but I’m nearly
> sure there’s something wrong.
>
> Jean-François Colson
>
>

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

On 17/07/11 01:55, Michael Everson wrote:
> Jean-François,
>
> To be honest I just did up the cover quickly and I did not proof it. The words "adventures" and "wonderland" appear in the text and I will follow whatever the original transcriber used.
I think I understand your position, but did the original transcriber did
his job correctly?
If “Wonderland” is transcribed as if it was “Wine-derland”, how many
mistakes should I expect in the text?
Shouldn’t a cautious proofreading of the whole text be performed before
publishing?

Jean-François Colson

On 17 Jul 2011, at 08:57, Jean-François Colson wrote:

> > To be honest I just did up the cover quickly and I did not proof it. The words "adventures" and "wonderland" appear in the text and I will follow whatever the original transcriber used.
> I think I understand your position, but did the original transcriber did his job correctly?
> If “Wonderland” is transcribed as if it was “Wine-derland”, how many mistakes should I expect in the text?

Jean-François,

*I* am responsible for the text of the front cover. The transcriber is responsible for the rest of the book. The front cover was quickly mocked up and if I made a mistake with the character picker you'll just have to forgive me.

*Thomas Thurman* is responsible for the Shavian transcription of the book.

> Shouldn’t a cautious proofreading of the whole text be performed before publishing?

Could you please focus on what I am asking for here? I have devised new fonts for Shavian, including a serif body text and an oblique that goes with it. That is what I would like you, and other experts here, to critique. Not whether I transcribed "Wonderland" correctly in a draft cover. The question about the draft cover that is important is "Can you read the letters and do you like them?"

The questions about the body text are "Can you read it?" "Are there any particular letters that are badly drawn?" "Can you be specific about how to improve any particular letter?"

I first asked this community to scrutinize the font in the Spring of 2010. There was some discussion, then the discussion stopped. I would very much like to publish this book, but I would really like to make sure that people are happy with the way in which I Shavianized De Vinne for the body text.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

Hi Herb
I was talking to Philip a while back, and I think we settled on a price of 20 Euros, perhaps 22 if the paperback edition has as a seperate card showing all the Shaw letters.
Regards, Paul V.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, AJT <ajt91910@...> wrote:
>
> I have a mint condition of that Penguin paperback that I bought back in the day! Approaching 80 in June so I am not sure if my estate will value it as much as I do nonetheless, is there any market for a nicely preserved original paperback edition? I also have a few of the old Newsletters from the late 50's or early 60's.
>
> Herb
>
>
> On Apr 14, 2011, at 2:31 PM, rubik67 wrote:
>
> > --- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, "rubik67" <rubik67@> wrote:
> >> ---
>

hF /hY
it hAz bIn a lYN tFm. unfPcanitlI, F dOnt nO muc abQt /VnakOd.
hOp sum wun els kAn help. F hAv just fFnalI got a trM tFp font t wxk, fP mF /SY AbJad Alfabet.
it tEks awFal t get TiNz wxkiN.
ragMdz, /pYl /vI
_________________atAct_________________________

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Hugh Birkenhead <mixsynth@...> wrote:
>
> helO evrIbodI!
>
>
>
> F dOnt nO if enIwun hC rimembDz mI; Fm H "AbsantI modDEtD" v His grMp hM set
> it up bAk in 2004. Fv bIn YlmOst kamplItlI inAktiv hC f sum jCz nQ, YlHO Fv
> bIn kIpiN up t dEt wiH Yl H pOsts Az HE kum t mF inboks n aprMviN nV membDz
> from tFm t tFm.
>
>
>
> H rIzan f mF rinVd intrest in /SEvWn v lEt iz dQn t mF nId t kIp a prFvat
> dFDI At wxk HAt mF kolIgz kUdant posablI rId (unles HE sumhQ wxk Qt wot it
> iz, in wic kEs Fm skrMd).
>
>
>
> F sI HAt HX R nQ pxmanant /VnikOd pqnts f /SEvWn; H lyst tFm F lUkt HE wx
> OnlI tempDerI. F'm stil not SUD wic v H "/VnikOd" fonts in H fFlz ripozitrI
> hC Vz H afiSal pqnts n wic stil Vz H Old tempDerI wunz; duz evIwun nO? F wiS
> HX wx an IzID wE t mEk Vs v H /VnikOd pqnts, but sins it rikwFDz bOT a
> /VnikOd font *n *a mAciN opDEtiN-sistam-spasifik kIbPd lEQt t bI instYld
> (wic sO fR duznt sIm t igzist) it sImz its AkSalI IzID t Vz H Old
> non-/VnikOd "/lAtin letDz riplEst wiH /SEvWn" fonts. pDhAps His iz sumTiN
> HAt nIdz t bI lUkt At.
>
>
>
> enIwE, His iz Just t sE 'hF', n t lE dQn H gYntlat f enIwun hM fAnsIz a gO
> At /SEvWn konvDsESan (in wicevD Aksent), Just f fun? :)
>
>
>
> cCz,
>
> /hV
>
>
>
> p.s. Fm VziN H /JImEl web intDfEs t rFt His; sins it Onli alQz V t salekt
> stAndDd /windOz fonts, t Vz /SEvWn fonts rikwFDz krIEtiN a /wxd dokjUmant,
> rFtiN sumTiN in a /SEvWn font Hen kopIiN n pEstiN it intM H /gImEl mesiJ
> boks. not igzAktlI kanvInWnt but it'l dM...
>

On 18 Jul 2011, at 07:18, paul wrote:

> hF /hY
> it hAz bIn a lYN tFm. unfPcanitlI, F dOnt nO muc abQt /VnakOd.
> hOp sum wun els kAn help. F hAv just fFnalI got a trM tFp font t wxk, fP mF /SY AbJad Alfabet.
> it tEks awFal t get TiNz wxkiN.
> ragMdz, /pYl /vI

Aiyeeeeeeee! No! No!

Shavian has been encoded in Unicode. Please use a Unicode-enabled font.

If there are any fonts in the archive which are not Unicode-enabled, please point them out to me and I will revise them so that they are.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

I agree that the first test font seems a bit ornate but I do like the second. However, I know that (for example) a Helvetica font is great for showing clarity and until we have a couple of generations of people well versed in non-serf scripted Shavian I wonder if the emotional content the script seeks to convey is a bit premature though a bedside book for grandkids to read or be read to using the second of your fonts might be a nice treasure for them in the future. I guess what I am trying to say is that, until the regular Shaw fonts are more widely used and read, the addition of emotive fonts may be better left for future everyday users to help them from suffering the boredom of a common font. I think we would all be bored if everything were just in Helvetica, even though It does work well for conveying clear information in an easily read font.

Herb

.
On Jul 15, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Michael Everson wrote:

> Some earlier conversation, showing the development of the font from too-ornate to (hopefully) easy to read.
>
> On 31 Mar 2010, at 22:43, Michael Everson wrote:
>
> To start, here are two files which differ in the shapes of four letters. Test-2 was the first one, but it seemed to me that the "ball ornament" was very distraction, and it seemed that simplifying it for SO, ZOO, MIME and NUN would be a good idea.
>
> http://www.evertype.com/fonts/shavian/shavian-test-2.pdf
>
> http://www.evertype.com/fonts/shavian/shavian-test-3.pdf
>
> =====
> On 1 Apr 2010, at 10:07, Michael Everson wrote:
>
> Here is a draft the cover.
>
> http://www.evertype.com/fonts/shavian/shaw-draft-cover.pdf
>
> To put in perspective how exacting I am hoping to be.. see the ER and the L in "Wonderland"? It's just "c" and "turned-c". But I will have to move the counter (the hole) in the reversed "c" to the left in order to make the font work (compare the counters in "o").
>
> There's not so much text in this particular display font, but I think (if I may say so) that it looks pretty good.
>
> =====
> On 6 Apr 2010, at 12:32, Michael Everson wrote:
>> On 6 Apr 2010, at 08:56, yahya_melb wrote:
>> I really like the look of those ball finials used - as Star wrote - "sparingly as a special text", i.e. a display font. However, they'd be a little tiring to read in extended passages.
>
> I think this is because there are too many of the ball finials for the face.
>
>> I wonder why you haven't tried using serifs, rather than balls, as finials?
>
> Because this is a Shavian version of De Vinne.
>
>> They really do enhance readability especially in smaller sizes, as they prevent the astigmatic eye (most people have a small degree of astigmatism, I believe) from wandering "off the end" of the strokes - they give definition to each character. They're also visually lighter than ball finials, which we rarely see, owing (I believe) to their extra visual weight.
>
> See http://www.evertype.com/fonts/shavian/alice-Latn-Shaw.png to see the original De Vinne and my Shavianization of it. I need to reduce the numbers of the ball finials in order to make it less ornate.
>
>> When you completely remove the finial, you have in effect a sans serif typeface. Why not try adding serifs, or reducing the size of the ball finials?
>
> No, as I say it's a question of how many letters have the ball. Fewer letters have them in the Latin original, for instance.
>
> =====
> On 6 Apr 2010, at 14:15, Michael Everson wrote:
>
> http://www.evertype.com/fonts/shavian/alice-Latn-Shaw-2.png is much "lighter" and easier to read, because many ball-finials have been changed to t-finials. I am pretty sure that there are some letter collisions still, but on the whole I would say that the text us much more legible. I suppose some s-serifs might be added to MIME and NUN... or? Any suggestions? Any letters whose base-shapes are just "not right"?
>
> =====
> On 6 Apr 2010, at 14:40, Michael Everson wrote:
>> On 6 Apr 2010, at 14:18, Robert Richmond wrote:
>> I learned Shavian in 1961, and can read it easily though not very fast. I find the ball-finial font nearly unreadable, though I can't figure out why.
>
> Too many of the little guys, I should think. The regular De Vinne text has them in c and j and f and that's about it. There were many more in the http://www.evertype.com/fonts/shavian/alice-Latn-Shaw.png first version. But most of these were done away with inhttp://www.evertype.com/fonts/shavian/alice-Latn-Shaw-2.png the second version
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>
> PS. In case anyone is interested I'm also preparing an edition of Alice in Unifon.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please
contact me immediately at 909-456-9977, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part
of this communication or disclose anything about it.

Sadly, as far as I remember, Yahoo's system mangles Unicode Shavian.

&#66674; 𐑣𐑴𐑐 𐑲 𐑡𐑳𐑕𐑑 &#66640;𐑮𐑵𐑝𐑛 𐑥𐑲𐑕𐑧&#66660;𐑓 𐑮𐑪𐑙.

--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@...> wrote:
>
> On 18 Jul 2011, at 07:18, paul wrote:
>
> > hF /hY
> > it hAz bIn a lYN tFm. unfPcanitlI, F dOnt nO muc abQt /VnakOd.
> > hOp sum wun els kAn help. F hAv just fFnalI got a trM tFp font t wxk, fP mF /SY AbJad Alfabet.
> > it tEks awFal t get TiNz wxkiN.
> > ragMdz, /pYl /vI
>
> Aiyeeeeeeee! No! No!
>
> Shavian has been encoded in Unicode. Please use a Unicode-enabled font.
>
> If there are any fonts in the archive which are not Unicode-enabled, please point them out to me and I will revise them so that they are.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>

On 19 Jul 2011, at 05:31, tim_rice09 wrote:

> Sadly, as far as I remember, Yahoo's system mangles Unicode Shavian.
>
> 𐑲 𐑣𐑴&#66640; 𐑲 𐑡𐑳𐑕𐑑 𐑐𐑮𐑵&#66653;𐑛 𐑥𐑲𐑕𐑧𐑤𐑓 𐑮&#66666;𐑙.

That seems browser-dependent. What OS, version, and browser or e-mail client are you using?
I received the following from the list two days ago, it's got Unicode characters in it:

On 17 Jul 2011, at 00:40, Jean-François Colson wrote:

> I’m a little puzzled by the title on your cover. I read : “·𐑨𐑤𐑦𐑕’𐑩𐑟 𐑩𐑛𐑝𐑧𐑯𐑑𐑿𐑮𐑟 𐑦𐑯 𐑢𐑲𐑯𐑛𐑮𐑤𐑨𐑯𐑛”.
> Why did you write “𐑩𐑛𐑝𐑧𐑯𐑑𐑿𐑮𐑟”? “𐑿” is pronounced /juː/ as in “you”. Do you really pronounce it /ədˈvɛntjuːɹz/? Shouldn’t it be /ədˈvɛntjɚz/, i.e. “𐑩𐑛𐑝𐑧𐑯𐑑𐑘𐑼𐑟”? I don’t understand why you used the ice diphtong (𐑲) in “𐑢𐑲𐑯𐑛𐑮𐑤𐑨𐑯𐑛”. Also, couldn’t you use the “𐑼” ligature instead
> of the single “𐑮” consonant?

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

On 15 Jul 2011, at 21:37, AJT wrote:

> I agree that the first test font seems a bit ornate but I do like the second.

It is easier.

> However, I know that (for example) a Helvetica font is great for showing clarity

So it is, but then... it's Helvetica.

> and until we have a couple of generations of people well versed in non-serf scripted Shavian I wonder if the emotional content the script seeks to convey is a bit premature though a bedside book for grandkids to read or be read to using the second of your fonts might be a nice treasure for them in the future.

I think that's setting the bar a bit high. Generations of people reading Shavian?

> I guess what I am trying to say is that, until the regular Shaw fonts are more widely used and read, the addition of emotive fonts may be better left for future everyday users to help them from suffering the boredom of a common font.

Or a book could be issued now to challenge readers to get used to it.

> I think we would all be bored if everything were just in Helvetica, even though It does work well for conveying clear information in an easily read font.

Ease of reading anything is a question of familiarity. And the thing is, this is one of a series of Alice translations, all of which use the same sort of style. I mean, one could use a serifless Androclese-style font, but what about all the titling fonts and so on?

I think the first thing I should do is double the space between words, though. I could try getting rid of some of the serifs.

Are there any particular letters you think are badly designed?

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/