![]() An expert type designer essentially uses a set of parameters to make decisions. To say that an algorithm can’t produce beautiful spacing is a little silly (whether or not any has written one yet is another question). People who understand aesthetics and math can produce incredible things. Plus the automated base has to be really good, and also tuned to further manual work. But “hybrid” methods are always harder to wrap your head around. ![]() David Kindersley once devised a system that uses measurements of the fourth moment delta (not merely the surface area) between two glyphs to arrive at superb results, certainly much better than 95% of designers seem to manage. Matt, you’re reading the mind of a dead guy. Most of all spacing is about consistency, and very little about expression, so methods will beat headless chickens every time. Just like math is in the petal arrangement of a flower or the spirals of a seashell, it’s also in your brain and eyes – we just haven’t figured it out the numbers yet! That’s very different than the pseudo-religious escapism that math could NEVER be used for spacing/kerning, which is essentially a technical thing. Sure, the eye is the “target audience” (and not mathematicians), but math is part of nature. Although the “weathered” type shown on the site isn’t a good benchmark to see how well the algorithm really works, I think this is a great effort.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |