Talk:159edo/Notation: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

VisualWikitext

Revision as of 06:15, 16 October 2020 view source FloraC (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Sysops 18,308 edits Comment as by request ← Older edit		Revision as of 06:50, 16 October 2020 view source Xenwolf (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, confirmaccount-notify, Interface administrators, Sysops 8,705 edits →My Second Idea for a Notation System: re Newer edit →
Line 194:		Line 194:

	: This proposal is basically equivalent to having one accidental for half-apotome and another for 33/32, so, yes, I see it works for most equal temperaments. Better if they appear more distinct glyph-wise. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 06:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)		: This proposal is basically equivalent to having one accidental for half-apotome and another for 33/32, so, yes, I see it works for most equal temperaments. Better if they appear more distinct glyph-wise. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 06:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

			:: Thanks for your thoughts, Flora. Besides the minor flaws (lenghts of verticals) the sharps seem okay to me, but the flats are harder. I'm not sure if sticking with the b-shape isn't the fundamental problem here. But you are experienced with fonts maybe you are the right person for the details. Maybe having three lines is for 4 accidentals each is not ideal. I did a tiny improvement right now to set the single accidental glyphs apart from each other (maybe a browser refresh will be needed). --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 06:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)