On the contrary. Let me explain:
- Our “visual” methodology consists in a 4-point scale that assigns a value to the visual similarity of a pair. Each pair of characters is rendered in three different font types. We agreed on Arial, Times and Courier to do such comparison. Each pair is then score independently (e.g. 1 = Identical; 2 = Nearly identical; 3 = Distinguishable; 4 = Different).
- Our “non-visual” methodology is looking for to prove or disprove the notion that certain handwriting customs are transferred to font design. For this analysis we picked the website wordmark.it to analyze a large number of font types.
The argument about visual similarity of the ligatures “æ” and “œ” is logically under the “visual” methodology. So, if anything, I’m advocating for us to stick with our methodology and not to apply ad-hoc criteria on a case by case basis.DennisFrom: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>
Date: Monday, February 11, 2019 at 4:09 PM
To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] AE, OE, and LigaturesAnd yet, in our previous work, we considered high visual similarity in a significant number of fonts in workmark to be sufficient cause to consider something a variant.
So are you arguing for changing our criteria?Bill Jouris
Inside Products
bill.jouris@insidethestack.com
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org>
To: "Michael.Bauland@knipp.de" <Michael.Bauland@knipp.de>; "latingp@icann.org" <latingp@icann.org>
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2019 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Latingp] AE, OE, and LigaturesLooking again at the visual evidence, I believe this is not a strong case for variants. But it may be a candidate for visual similarity.From a visual standpoint I don’t see it as a clear-cut case. Doing a comparison of the code points "æ" "œ" using wordmark.it, the great majority of fonts show them very distinguishable (e.g. Arial: æ œ, Times: æ œ, Courier: æ œ, Calibri: æ œ).From an orthography viewpoint, I don’t see good support, but of course, this is only one data point.-DennisOn 2/11/19, 9:16 AM, "Latingp on behalf of Michael Bauland" <latingp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Michael.Bauland@knipp.de> wrote:Hi Bill,thanks for the summary.I agree with you if purely looking at the visual confusability issue.However, with ae vs. æ and oe vs. œ the issue is not about visualsameness, at least that's what the IP argued on our phone call. Theysaid that in most languages ae and æ have the same meaning and could beexchanged. I can only talk for German, and there it might be ok to writeae instead of the ligature but certainly not the other way round. But tobe honest, I personally never used such a word in German.Therefore the reason to make ae and its ligature variants would bepurely semantic. And then we have a problem: how to decide which variantrelation is stronger? If all are visual, it's (more or less) easy todecide which visual similarity is stronger, but there's no metric tocompare visual and semantic similarities with each other.Cheers,Michael--____________________________________________________________________| || knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH------- TechnologieparkMartin-Schmeisser-Weg 944227 DortmundGermanyDipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0Fax: +49 231 9703-200Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland@knipp.deSoftware Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland@knipp.deRegister Court:Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728Chief Executive Officers:Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp_______________________________________________Latingp mailing listLatingp@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp_______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list
Latingp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp_______________________________________________
Latingp mailing list
Latingp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp