On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Daniel Demski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This reminds me of a post on the Wolfram math blog:

That's fascinating!

> And of course of the fonts of calculators.
> I am kind of fascinated by such restricted symbol systems, especially
> since it is so easy to see the individual symbols as something more
> than the lines that make them up.
> Gary, on the website you mention aesthetic criteria for the symbols.
> What criteria have you used or considered using?

I've been updating the website over the last couple of days. Depending
on how long your browser keeps cached copies you might want to hit
refresh. I took out the references to aesthetic criteria because I
couldn't come up with any decent criteria that I could program into a
scrip. Also, I produced a computer generated Word document with 30,761
glyphs that I'm using as my master specimen book. I just pick an
interesting glyph for a word, and let my instinct for which glyphs I
pick be my aesthetic criteria.

> I have a few in mind
> I would use but I'd like to hear yours first. (My curiosity is, of
> course, linguistic; what are the criteria of a good grapheme?)

My latest info is here: <> where
I am starting to explore the grammar of Neoglyphic, along with
expanding the lexicon.

That page also has the Word document with 30,761 glyphs and the
Zegments.ttf font available for download.