[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: lilypond-user
Subject: Re: alpha test, horizontal spacing
From: Gerard McConnell <gerineire () gmail ! com>
Date: 2010-09-27 20:30:03
Message-ID: AANLkTin6PVkPsn63fegfcotmAE5hkThFYeEELN5XL9QN () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
I agree that in the examples you gave the accidentals look a lot better in
the 2.12 versions.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Keith E OHara <k-ohara5a5a@oco.net> wrote:
> In "First impressions of alpha test" I wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:41:24 -0700, Joe Neeman <joeneeman@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Do you consider this desirable?
>>>
>>
>> Personally, I have a neutral opinion on the aggressive tucking.
>>
>
> Well, opinions change over time. It is a subtle thing, but I think the old
> naive spacing around accidentals makes an easier-to-read page. Here are two
> dense measures of Debussy that are a little difficult to space.
>
> Moving the notes over the clef-change is a good thing, of course.
>
> The stem-accidental collisions do not occur unless the beam crosses staffs,
> even if it is kneed, so they might be considered part of the cross-staff
> issues. The spacing of the first three 16ths is probably a cross-staff
> artifact as well. However, stems of cross-staff beams will always be
> special cases in collision resolution, so they can cross a long hairpin
> crescendo for example. So I suggest that keeping accidentals clear of other
> note columns might be wisest.
>
> More simply, in the last three 16th notes (demisemiquavers) in the first
> measure, I want the accidental to give me a bit of extra space for
> readability. I was able to create a small example showing a case where
> notes with an accidental in between were actually spaced closer together. (I
> imagined the new spacing engine getting a little too excited: "can I fit
> under the neighboring accidental? Yes! Oh boy lets slide these
> together!!")
>
> So I favor less aggressive tucking of noteheads under other noteheads and
> their attached accidentals, if that is an option. Other opinions?
> --
> Keith
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
I agree that in the examples you gave the accidentals look a lot better in the 2.12 \
versions.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Keith E \
OHara <span dir="ltr"><<a \
href="mailto:k-ohara5a5a@oco.net">k-ohara5a5a@oco.net</a>></span> wrote:<br> \
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px \
solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">In "First impressions of alpha \
test" I wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt \
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> On Fri, 24 Sep \
2010 10:41:24 -0700, Joe Neeman <<a href="mailto:joeneeman@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">joeneeman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> <blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, \
204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> <br>
Do you consider this desirable?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Personally, I have a neutral opinion on the aggressive tucking.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, opinions change over time. It is a subtle thing, but I think the old naive \
spacing around accidentals makes an easier-to-read page. Here are two dense measures \
of Debussy that are a little difficult to space.<br> <br>
Moving the notes over the clef-change is a good thing, of course.<br>
<br>
The stem-accidental collisions do not occur unless the beam crosses staffs, even if \
it is kneed, so they might be considered part of the cross-staff issues. The spacing \
of the first three 16ths is probably a cross-staff artifact as well. However, stems \
of cross-staff beams will always be special cases in collision resolution, so they \
can cross a long hairpin crescendo for example. So I suggest that keeping \
accidentals clear of other note columns might be wisest.<br>
<br>
More simply, in the last three 16th notes (demisemiquavers) in the first measure, I \
want the accidental to give me a bit of extra space for readability. I was able to \
create a small example showing a case where notes with an accidental in between were \
actually spaced closer together. (I imagined the new spacing engine getting a little \
too excited: "can I fit under the neighboring accidental? Yes! Oh boy lets \
slide these together!!")<br>
<br>
So I favor less aggressive tucking of noteheads under other noteheads and their \
attached accidentals, if that is an option. Other opinions?<br>
--<br><font color="#888888">
Keith</font><br>_______________________________________________<br>
lilypond-user mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:lilypond-user@gnu.org">lilypond-user@gnu.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user" \
target="_blank">http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user</a><br> \
<br></blockquote></div><br>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]