Noone would have written like that. That is a printing typeface. Handwritten fraktur is very different. Anyway the writing in OPs picture is medieval, while the printing typeface is obviously early modern, 17th-19th cenutry.
I know, but it’s hard to find a good example with exactly that text. And I have no clue where I’ve hidden my calligraphy stuff. At least it doesn’t contain a lowercase s, so it should be somewhat fine.
And I have no clue where I’ve hidden my calligraphy stuf
Le excuse maxima
What’d you need “calligraphy stuff” for?
I really haven’t written jack shit in years except on digital so excuse the shittiness but I think that shittiness makes it a rather good example of casual writing.
Now what exactly does this prove? That a non historic writing utensil in a completely different typeface doesn’t look at all like Fraktur? I mean, yes, you’re right.
Since the typeface is standardised it highlights the issue, whereas when you write manually, you can use slightly different spacing (like making the u wider) so it’s more easily legible.
No harm done. I was just trying to make clear that people a long time ago weren’t complete idiots trying to write as unintelligible as possible. The examples further above were intentionally made to be as hard as possible to read, but not because people back then didn’t figure out how not to be knobs yet.
![[FossilFools] Artistry](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ce2a782a-551d-4607-ab9d-3e506737a482.png){kind=link}
Also actual gothic script provides tiny clues, ligatures, that make it slightly easier to read.
miuinunu?
thats actually kinda crazy how much more readable that makes it
…still not super easy tho lol
Also helps that they connected their letters properly. The op is not actually a real word it’s just a bunch of undotted i’s
As the other user said, my example is (still) not a written one.
I think gothic script developed because of the writing implements they used, but the wirter had lots of possibilities to make it unambiguous.
That’s not really how people wrote, that’s still made to confuse the reader.
https://fonts.google.com/specimen/UnifrakturMaguntia?preview.text=minimum+&categoryFilters=Feeling%3A%2FExpressive%2FVintage%3BAppearance%3A%2FTheme%2FBlackletter
here’s an example
Noone would have written like that. That is a printing typeface. Handwritten fraktur is very different. Anyway the writing in OPs picture is medieval, while the printing typeface is obviously early modern, 17th-19th cenutry.
I know, but it’s hard to find a good example with exactly that text. And I have no clue where I’ve hidden my calligraphy stuff. At least it doesn’t contain a lowercase s, so it should be somewhat fine.
Le excuse maxima
What’d you need “calligraphy stuff” for?
I really haven’t written jack shit in years except on digital so excuse the shittiness but I think that shittiness makes it a rather good example of casual writing.
Now what exactly does this prove? That a non historic writing utensil in a completely different typeface doesn’t look at all like Fraktur? I mean, yes, you’re right.
https://youtube.com/watch/5UPC60e3Lsw
I thought the discussion was about legibility in general, not the exact typeface. My bad.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minim_(palaeography)
Since the typeface is standardised it highlights the issue, whereas when you write manually, you can use slightly different spacing (like making the u wider) so it’s more easily legible.
No harm done. I was just trying to make clear that people a long time ago weren’t complete idiots trying to write as unintelligible as possible. The examples further above were intentionally made to be as hard as possible to read, but not because people back then didn’t figure out how not to be knobs yet.