Ubuntu Font Family

Bug #727733
Comment #8

Comment 8 for bug 727733

Revision history for this message

Paul Sladen (sladen) wrote on 2011-03-08:

ubuntu-mono-nominal-size-r17-r21.pdf Edit (55.8 KiB, application/pdf)

As Martin notes it is a hard problem and it's probably one that we should have been developing in parallel from the start with the proportional fonts. As I understand it, originally the proportionally-spaced fonts were developed in a design cell that was 1160×variable, and thus the Monospace then developed around 1160×560, maintaining the various 'TypoGap' numbers added in from some unclear historical folklore. All of these have a nominal 1000×1000 em-square.

The question is, what are the various terminals using when they choose their layout line-height. I or somebody else needs to categorically figure out and document this, at which point is should in theory all be easy!

1160×560 is too squashed, 1160×482 is too gappy. 1000×500 is ... etc. Malcolm is currently working on a 500-width test which fits in with the rational 1:2 ratio for a monospace and which people are used to reading. The next step is to figure out the tiling, which is why a minimal set of box-drawing characters have been added (again, I know, we should have done this on day one and got it right then).

Barry, I don't the aim should be to "cram it in"... we're aiming for good, universal defaults here. The logic for the 83% scaling was perhaps fairly thin, but at the time it was the fastest way to get a test that might solve the overlaps. On the attached PDF you can see how the line-counts should compare. The current test proposal would give 48 lines (vs. originally 52 with with unsatisfactory overlaps, or 42 without overlaps).

The one thing that hasn't been tried yet is 1120×560; this does not have the historical beauty of matching the 12 CPI (12 characters per 25.4 mm) but would be equivalent to the current downsizing of extreme accents that is being done and would have a 2:1 ratio and would keep the same ascender, descender and x-height as the Proportional. The question is whether it can be done, if it can, it makes future expansion easier as characters of about the right width port straight across (currently 'abcde' are identical in both).

The really BIG question is, if we could make a small change to the default TypoGap line-spacing of the proportional (which is perhaps a little) tight and have a more coherent result across the board, would we do that at this stage?

The question is, what are the various terminals using when they choose their layout line-height.  I or somebody else needs to categorically figure out and document this, at which point is should in theory all be easy!

1160×560 is too squashed, 1160×482 is too gappy.  1000×500 is ... etc.  Malcolm is currently working on a 500-width test which fits in with the rational 1:2 ratio for a monospace and which people are used to reading.  The next step is to figure out the tiling, which is why a minimal set of box-drawing characters have been added (again, I know, we should have done this on day one and got it right then).

Barry, I don't the aim should be to "cram it in"... we're aiming for good, universal defaults here.  The logic for the 83% scaling was perhaps fairly thin, but at the time it was the fastest way to get a test that might solve the overlaps.  On the attached PDF you can see how the line-counts should compare.  The current test proposal would give 48 lines (vs. originally 52 with with unsatisfactory overlaps, or 42 without overlaps).

The one thing that hasn't been tried yet is 1120×560;  this does not have the historical beauty of matching the 12 CPI (12 characters per 25.4 mm) but would be equivalent to the current downsizing of extreme accents that is being done and would have a 2:1 ratio and would keep the same ascender, descender and x-height as the Proportional.  The question is whether it can be done, if it can, it makes future expansion easier as characters of about the right width port straight across (currently 'abcde' are identical in both).