[EversonMono] Is something wrong with Everson Mono's oblique?
adam at twardoch.com
Wed Nov 24 21:20:32 GMT 2010
On 10-11-24 22:09, H. Chris Gast wrote:
> I would just ask a maybe silly question: Why is there any difference
> between italic and oblique?
> In italic the letter a differs from the normal a. But why does this
> difference in our times still exists?
> When I want a "a" like in handwriting, I would use a font with
Principally, italic never was a "slanted version of a roman". It always
has been a separate design which was supposed to work well with a roman
typeface. The "working well" can exemplify itself in different ways:
either a similar contrast, or "color" (overall boldness), similar
proportions of the letters as a whole, or indeed, similar shape of every
single glyph (or most of them). If all shapes of the letters are very
similar, and the only difference is the degree of slant, then the italic
is oblique. So oblique is a very particular case of italic. There are
very many kinds to make an italic, and oblique is just one of them.
If you play a tenor saxophone, you can pair it with an alto saxophone
(which is only slightly different, as if it was oblique), or with a
trombone (which is quite different, as if it is an italic that is
constructed very differently than the roman).
In short: why is there any difference between italic and oblique?
Because there can be. :)
More information about the EversonMono