Is this normal practice?

No.

I started a thread on that Bringhurst comment here.

Besides Berlow's comment, see this very helpful tutorial from Briem:
http://briem.net/2/2.3.4a/2.3.4.31.italic.htm

Especially (though not only) this page:
http://briem.net/2/2.3.4a/2.3.4.34.curves.htm

Cheers,

T

re #1: sometimes you can obtain a pleasing appearance by ROTATING characters such as o and s clockwise, the same number of degrees as the italic angle slant. In such circumstances, you would of course have to relocate the extrema. This little trick doesn't always work, but it's worth a try...

Is this normal practice?

It is the best practice when an italic word/phrase within a paragraph of roman text is parenthesized.

could I establish such a thing and become rich?

Ask Igino Marini how wealthy ikern has made him.
He is also an engineer.

The short answer is no, because it's one thing to invent something impossibly marvellous (even if you can get general agreement on that), quite another to make any money from it. That's been the type case since Gutenburg.

Thank you! Briem's tutorial looks helpful indeed.

Rotating sounds good too, Nick ... I'll try that.

(Nick Shinn: I was joking. No ambitions, really :-)

It is the best practice when an italic word/phrase within a paragraph of roman text is parenthesized.

Most publishing houses have style guides regarding this. There are a handful of schemes, usually referencing either the surrounding text or the enclosed text, then sometimes adding specific guidance regarding mixed styles.

Nick describes a circumstance where the style of parentheses follows the surrounding text regardless of the nature of the enclosed text. This approach certainly has many adherents. I believe this is more or less Chicago Manual of Style’s current practice.

But Bringhurst’s rule is advocating something slightly different — always upright, regardless of context (surrounding or contained matter), even if all italic, like so.

Bringhurst’s own sidenote explains “This rule has been broken more often than followed since the end of the 16th century.” It is worth noting that the period prior, when this ‘rule’ was more often followed, is also a period wherein the capitals used with italic are still largely upright as well.

I’m not arguing that one should or should not employ this approach. The point of my terse reply to the third point in the initial post is simply that this strict approach is not what most compositors would consider “normal” practice today.

Is there a mathematical function of angle, thickness and contrast factor? — Or could I establish such a thing and become rich?

I think this is where you would likely run into the problem Metafont has. Sure you can do it all with math, but then the font designers also need to be mathematicians, and people who can be both are rare.

One trick I've tried for designing italics of letters like O and S, is after getting the initial weight and condensation correct, get the slant by doing half of it via obliquing and the other half by rotation. One catch on the rotation is that it affects the height, so you still can't get away without doing at least a few manual corrections.

Cheers,

T

This may be of interest: RMX Slanter. To be found here:
http://remix-tools.com/

That's extremely helpful insight, guys. Thank you so much. I'll consider updating the Wiki once I'm comfortable with the method (would that be appreciated?)

Bert: Some day, yes, I wish ... right now it's a low-budget project (Ubuntu + FontForge) :)

RMX Slanter totally rocks. It doesn't do everything, but it is pretty helpful as a starting point on a lot of glyphs....

Of course, I am a big fan of the Font Remix Tools in general:
http://www.thomasphinney.com/2010/03/font-remix-tools-rmx-and-multiple-m...

Cheers,

T

I am a big fan of the Font Remix Tools in general

I would certainly like to give them a try, but every time I have attempted to install the demo, I get an error message saying that the module os.path is missing...

RMX Slanter totally rocks. It doesn't do everything, but it is pretty helpful as a starting point on a lot of glyphs....

It does until a design requires non-extrema control points on curves :(
But that’s why I also licensed UFOStretch!

Nick,
this error message is puzzling. The module os.path should be available on any system, it's a standard Python module. Cann you tell me which OS and Python version you are using? Any further error messages? We might be able to track down what causes the problem.

Tim,

I'm running Vista Home Premium SP2. The only instance of os.path I can locate on my hard drive is within a text file which explains what's new with Python v2.5.2, so I am presuming that's the version I have installed.

When I drag the RMX installer into FontLab, I get this...

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 4, in ?
ImportError: No module named copy_reg
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 4, in ?
ImportError: No module named os.path

The "No module named copy_reg" comment seems to come up ANY TIME I get an error message, so I don't know how relevant it is...

Nick,

as mentioned on the Remix Tools website, RMX requires Python 2.3 or 2.4.

This is because FontLab in general seems to have problems with the newer versions of Python. See the official FontLab Python info on FontLab Studio 5 for Windows:

FontLab Studio 5 and AsiaFont Studio 5 for Windows work with Python 2.4. You need to download and install it on Windows. Python 2.2 and 2.3 will also work. Python 2.5 will not work.

I suggest you install Python 2.4, then RMX should work.

Btw, the older installers are a bit difficult to find on the Python website.

This page has the download link:
http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.4.4/

I suggest you install Python 2.4, then RMX should work.

I downloaded and installed 2.4.4 and RMX installed just fine. However, I'm not seeing some of the features "doing their thing." I tried Harmonizer on an uppercase and lowercase s, and nothing noticeable changed. I tried Slanter, and it slanted alright, but didn't maintain orthogonal extrema. Curious...

Nick,

I tried Harmonizer on an uppercase and lowercase s, and nothing noticeable changed.

I'll simply quote the RMX manual:

Note that the Harmonizer does not modify the shape as a matter of principle. How much a glyph gets modified glyph depends entirely on the deviation from the required conditions. Consequently, a shape that is already harmonious will not be changed at all if the Harmonizer is applied to it a second time.

Did you see the Harmonizer video? It also demonstrates why this is the case.

I tried Slanter, and it slanted alright, but didn't maintain orthogonal extrema. Curious...

With extreme slanting, or if there are too many additional (diagonal) control points then some orthogonal handles are not retained. If you want you can also send me a (one-glyph) FontLab vfb file, then I can have a look.

Tim,

I watched the Slanter and Harmonizer videos. Perhaps it's reassuring that my Ses can't be improved upon ;)

I don't think that 12° isn't an extreme angle, nor is the glyph over complicated...

Nick, the RMX Slanter and Tuner only correct nodes that connect two curves, not connections of straight line and curve like in your example. In that case, would you simply add nodes at the extremes? That can be done with FontLab's built-in tools. Or, would you maintain the orthogonal extrema by converting the straight to a curve and then adjusting everything? This would be a bit complicated, I am afraid, and it involves design decisions. The Slanter, like all RMX tools at the moment, does not insert nodes or change the node structure. Not treating the outline is the only sensible thing I can think of in the above example - do you have an idea for a better behaviour of the tool?

Tim,

Changing the lines to curves before applying Slanter didn't change anything in the noted case; I presume that this means Slanter works with smooth curves, but not tangents, since I applied it to an all-curves S and it performed as advertised. Thanks for the personal attention in this matter.