Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

I can see a problem on this discussion: a sans serif "i" should not
have, ehr, serifs...
I mean, the i on a sans serif font should NOT have horizontal lines,
and because of that it cannot be combined with the f. A sans serif
ligature between two f is Ok but it is wrong between an f and an i:
the only point to consider here is to proper align the f's top curve
with the dot. But f and i on a sans serif font must be physically
Only on serif fonts it is ok to link the f and the i (and to make the
f "grab" the dot from the i), but not on sans serif or grotesque
Just my 2¢

2011/2/26 Bernhard Dippold <>:
Hi Joey, Christoph, all,

Christoph, I'll reply to your mail later (I don't think we're far away from
each other), here just a short remark to Joey...

Johannes Bausch schrieb:


2011/2/25 Bernhard Dippold<>

sorry, but I might misinterpret your mail, because I don't remember whom
you are citing (and you don't mention the author):

Sorry for that. For me the whole discussion is a single thread in gmail.
I'll remember to add the names in the future when necessary. I was quoting


At home my mail client shows the mails threaded, so it is not a problem to
go back to the mail you cite. At work the webmail sorts all the mails by
date - nearly no chance to find the original posting...

I have done two alternative ligatures, maybe they are better suited for
font, since they're not so obtrusive. You can see them here:

I like them more, as they keep the general impression of a sans font.

I might be wrong, but to my understanding ligatures are typographic elements
to improve readability and visual balance of words - similar to kerning.

They are needed in cases, where the visually balanced distance between
characters would lead to a too narrow space between parts of the characters.

Based on this thoughts, the distance between the cross line in "f" and the
"i" is too narrow, when the distance has to be reduced for a visual balance.
Therefore the cross is extended to the "i".

For the dot it's similar: At the adjusted character position the distance to
the "f" bow is too small and the direction of the bow aims towards an
eccentric position inside the dot. This looks imbalanced.

Among your proposals I prefer Alternative 2 because the "f" should have the
same height in my understanding.

But I don't know why you raised the position of the dot. The logo doesn't
contain another "i" in the regular area (the bold "i" in "Libre" is too
different to be taken as reference). In comparison to such an "i" it would
be necessary to extend the space between the bar and the dot a bit, because
the "f" bow adds visual weight to the upper part of the "i". As we don't
have a second regular "i" we don't need to move the dot in any direction.

As you showed in your proposals the visual impression is improved, when the
"f" bow is oriented towards the middle of the "i" dot.

I think the same applies to the first "f": It's bow should be related to the
following "f".

I made a quick sketch to show you what I mean:

Keeping the position of the "i" dot, but adjusted the "f" bows to harmonize
with the inclusion of the "i" in the visual element.

I don't like it, because the first "f" bow should aim towards a slightly
higher position on the second "f" and the bows are not constant in their
bending. But I hope you'll understand what I mean.

After the optimization the logo should differ so little, that people will
not see the difference, but realize that it looks better.

Best regards


Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
List archive:
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
List archive:
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.