I wonder if any writing teachers start their pupils out with binocular "g"s.
Surely the single storey g and q are too similar -- a fact attested by the addition of a check-mark to the q, which has to be later unlearned, a pedagogic kludge if ever there was one.
What can be so hard about drawing two circles and connecting them with a short line?

> What can be so hard about drawing two circles and connecting them with a short line?

That is how my 4yr old currently draws her cap B's.

Sassoon looks good.
Apparently children say they prefer the g, y and a forms of schoolbook fonts as they are now the handwritten forms, though they read no faster with them.

The altered glyphs in Bembo Schoolbook are ugly. That is what I think. They go against the rest of the typeface.

Oh, ecch! What is that? I agree with Paul.

I think the least appealing aspect is having the same shape descender on the 'g' AND the 'y'; so much for distinct letterforms. What's wrong with a diagonally-tailled 'y'?

BTW, I write single-storey 'g's, (surely they're easier for cursive writing, and therefore for speed), doesn't mean you have to abandon the double storey 'g' for typefaces derived from designs created in the metal days...

Having said that, we were all taught to write those single-storey 'a's as well, and at about the age of twelve I spontaneously switched to doing double-storey 'a's just because I felt they looked better. I still know they're slower for me to write than single-storey ones would be but what the heck it's a habit now...
______________________________
Ever since I chose to block pop-ups, my toaster's stopped working.

i think more than giving a reading edge, these alternate glyphs give a juvenile feel to the design.

The altered glyphs in Bembo Schoolbook are ugly. That is what I think. They go against the rest of the typeface.

would these be less appopriate in something such as Bookman?

I think such "primary" glyphs are useful (although certainly not in such a bookish face as Bembo) but only for absolute beginner readers (and only because they form the -sad- standard of current alphabet instruction). Once they've been learned, and the child (or foreigner) can read them quickly, they should be replaced by full print forms.

> the addition of a check-mark to the q, which has to be later unlearned

Well, I wish it didn't. (And does it really? I'd say it depends on us a bit.)
To me the best "q" for reading is the one with a single-sided bottom serif.

> these alternate glyphs give a juvenile feel to the design.

Which however is lost on the target readership, so that's not so bad.

hhp

good points, hrant. thnx!

Alternate forms don't need to have a special purpose. They can be purely aesthetic, make a typeface new. When I saw Plantin Schoolbook used in Wallpaper, I said "Wow, that looks and reads great. What is it?" Turns out it was just the old standard with primary forms.

i think more than giving a reading edge, these alternate glyphs give a juvenile feel to the design.

Good point. And rather than be redundant, complexity might help learning, eg "that's the letter that has two shapes, normal and superhero".

> complexity might help learning

At the right learning point.
And it certainly helps immersive reading.

hhp