New Character(s) Challenge - Annotations

[hrant]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

Inspired by a cool new character invented by Nina*, I've started thinking: maybe we can design/use symbols beyond the asterisk and dagger(s) to annotate text? Sure people use numbers, but that's pretty boring isn't it? Plus numbers are easily confusable when they're small. And having two floating digits is ugly (and the reason people use a dagger instead of two asterisks). So the Challenge is to make new symbols that:
- Clearly convey that they're for annotation.
- Look good small and floating.
- Are not confusable with other annotation symbols.

*
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ninastoessinger/4238222291/
https://typography.guru/forums/topic/75762-forwarding

I actually use custom little floating reference thingies* when I handwrite an article for splicing in additional text, but had never thought of putting things like that into fonts.

* BTW, is "annotations" a good name for these?

hhp

[nina]

Cool thread.

"I actually use custom little floating reference thingies* when I handwrite an article for splicing in additional text"
Me too.

One interesting feature of these symbols vis-à-vis numbers or alphabetics is obviously that they're not inherently sequential. So while numbers seem more practical in situations where you have lots of annotations/footnotes/etc., I would imagine that in more literary texts, and/or ones that use fewer notes (and no endnotes that are all lumped together!), a more graphical solution would certainly be a very nice option.

One question is if a bit of intuitively «readable» «sequentialness» would still be desirable for annotation symbols, for example by means of repeating elements that could increase in number (lines, points…), or elements that get larger etc. But the fewer annotations you need (and the more easily the bits they refer to can be found), the less that's important.

So, do we make this into a Type Battle of sorts? :)

[hrant]

The asterisk and dagger had a kid, and named it Dagterisk.

hhp

[Riccardo Sartori]

Actually, I was thinking along similar lines, prompted by the same thread.
But I was too lazy and too slow a typer to start a new thread (and also not sure of the possible interest, but on this I was mistaken, it seems :-).
Anyway, some random thoughts:
* Typesetting text, I often need some sort of reference symbol which is distinct from the figures used for endnotes/footnotes.
* Usually I use the asterisk, which is fine for one, not so good for two (**), simply unacceptable for three ("What's that, a censored swearword?").
* The dagger, especially in sans serif typefaces, could be (conf)used to indicate a cross, meaning the (date of) death of a person (making especially unsuitable its use in conjunction with proper names).
* I often end up using (oh, the horror!) the readily available degree sign (°).
* If designers would want to insert these newly devised glyphs in their fonts, which codepoints should they use?

That said, I think the sketch I made in the other thread has potential.

I'm just not sure if I will call it Daggerism (loaning from asterism) or Daggerisk, following Altaira's suggestion ;-)

[hrant]

> making especially unsuitable its use in conjunction with proper names

Not to mention non-Christians. (BTW, I once saw a floating
crescent to indicate the year of death of a Muslim person.)

hhp

[nina]

Related to the dagger ↔ cross thing: https://typography.guru/forums/topic/67592-forwarding

[Michael Hernan]

The key I think is making each of the items look really different from each other.
I was thinking about this at one point, but gave up.
The annotation mark which doesn't have a unicode and gets overlooked is the double bar
This is my favourite glyph! .. after my new favorite character the 'thin'.

/m

[Michael Hernan]

'heart.sups' is my starter...

Its a bit wide and dark maybe it needs to be broken or stabbed with the dagger?

[John Hudson]

Numbers, among other benefits, come with built-in ordering, unlike other systems of symbols, which require establishment not only of shapes but also of conventional ordering. Sorry, Hrant, but I disagree that numbers are ‘easily confusable when they’re small’: if they're easily confuseable, then they're poorly designed, and the same could be true of virtually any small, superscript sign.

In any case, footnotes are for children. Grown ups use end notes. :)

[Riccardo Sartori]

@ John Hudson: I agree that numbers have their fundamental function and are a superior solution for longer series of notes.
But there are instances in which some other kind of symbol would come handy instead or alongside them.
Just look at the success of the asterisk.

@ userone: That heart sure is cute! And I can think at several appropriate uses. The double bar, I think is too similar to a roman two.

[nina]

Of course John – like I said up there, I think numbers are unbeatable in contexts where you need many «annotation symbols» that are also undoubtedly sequential. But there are other situations too, like maybe less formal ones, more literary/poetic ones, quainter ones etc., where numbers would feel out of place, and where you don't need «ordering» as much (for example because you only need very few notes). And things like the heart and dagger hint at some nice possibilities of playing with semantics too!

Hey, it's a proposition for the [playful or serious] expansion of typographic possibilities – it's not like we're trying to outlaw numbers. :-)

[hrant]

John, as others are saying, I would think that if you have a certain number of notes per page/chapter in a work, non-numeric annotation symbols can give a nice flavor without causing functional hassles. I would say this number is between 3 and maybe 7 if it's footnotes, and 3 and maybe 15 if it's endnotes.

BTW, in general I personally prefer footnotes to endnotes - they're faster.

hhp

[kentlew]

For those who are not aware, there used to be a widely accepted convention for annotation symbols prescribed by Chicago Manual of Style (when there are few notes, or in addition to numerical note references).

The generally accepted sequence (in U.S. publishing, anyway) was/is:
* (asterisk), † (dagger), ‡ (double dagger), § (section mark), ∥ (parallels), # (number sign). When more symbols are required, the suggestion was to use doubles (e.g. ** †† ‡‡ etc.). These were often superscripted.

[Interestingly, the latest edition drops the mention of parallels and number sign -- presumably because the parallels are not commonly available in digital fonts and because this sort of annotation has fallen out of favor.)

IMO, if you need more than five symbols, then really you should be using numbers. But hey, knock yourselves out.

[Michael Hernan]

I still think there is something to this and lay down the challenge to come up with 4 more to add to Kent's (Chicago MS's) 6 to make a total of 10 annotated markings!

[Don McCahill]

> In any case, footnotes are for children. Grown ups use end notes. :)

Yes, but wouldn't it be nice if there were both? I get annoyed with scholarly works, where 90% of the notes are reference information, while the other 10% provide additional background information that I find useful. Wouldn't it be great if the background information could be done with footnotes at the base of the page, easily accessible, and the reference information placed in endnotes where the scholars who need it could access it there.

I have seen this system used once (I can't remember where) and think it would be a great addition to scholarly style.

[typodermic]

How about crossed daggers? Since they look like daggers, readers will probably assume they're for reference.

[nina]

Great point Don! Need to keep this in mind.

Kent, so I take it this sequence isn't very much in use (and hence generally known) in the US now? FWIW, it is in any case culturally/regionally specific. For German, Forssmann / de Jong's "Detailtypografie" (which is a bit of a typesetting "bible") refers to a slightly different "traditional sequence" – asterisk; 2 asterisks*; dagger; double dagger; section sign; pilcrow; parallels – but adds this is only one possibility. For up to 3 notes they simply recommend asterisks.
* Only used if more than 6 symbols total needed.

I'm not sure such fading conventions should have to be reasons to stop wondering about new/better characters. Like you say, this style of annotation isn't very popular nowadays (I wonder why?), maybe new symbols could be a cool way to breathe fresh life into the idea.

[Si_Daniels]

Also related...

https://typography.guru/forums/topic/40176-forwarding

[hrant]

Don, good idea. And in a work with both footnotes and endnotes the former would pretty much require a set of non-numeric annotation symbols. But I find the Chicago MS recommendations problematic because beyond the double-dagger they're all ugly (and some ambiguous).

hhp

[Beauclair]

The combined system with foot- and endnotes as mentioned by Don is actually used quite often in academic books. One prominent example which uses asterisk, dagger, double-dagger etc. for footnotes and numbers for endnotes is Ari Rafaeli’s »Book Typography«.

[John Hudson]

Don: Yes, but wouldn’t it be nice if there were both? I get annoyed with scholarly works, where 90% of the notes are reference information, while the other 10% provide additional background information that I find useful. Wouldn’t it be great if the background information could be done with footnotes at the base of the page, easily accessible, and the reference information placed in endnotes where the scholars who need it could access it there.

When I've seen the notes split between footnotes and endnotes, it is typically the other way round. Citations tend not to take up too much space, so can be put at the bottom of the page; whereas informational notes tend to be longer (sometimes a taking up several pages in their own right). The editorial and design decision needs to be made based on the content and size of the notes.

A lot of books my clients deal with have at least three kinds of annotation to deal with: critical apparatus, citations and commentary.

[Riccardo Sartori]

Between endnotes and footnotes, I prefer sidenotes! ;-)

[nina]

"A lot of books my clients deal with have at least three kinds of annotation to deal with"
Well there you go: numbers, alphabetics, and symbols. :-)

[William Berkson]

By far the most common way to cite things in academic works now is in the text, with reference to a bibliography. So you get a reference like: (Freud 1900a, p. 56), and in the bibliography you have the details on the book referred to by Freud 1900a. That's assuming you have more than one publication by Freud that year which you want to refer to.

This is so much cleaner than past methods that I don't think they can compete.

Explanatory notes are a different matter, and where to put these depends on the book or article as to what is best.

And yes, side notes can be charming, and are under-used in books. Pull quotes and side bars are common in magazines.

[Riccardo Sartori]

Returning to the task at hand, why not borrow from chinese numerals/nautical flags?