[split] Jorge's Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings

[Jorge_Stolfi]

I see no evidence of retracing anywhere in this image (no double strokes)

What about the leg of the p?

Why not retrace the legs in full, if both their upper and their lower part needed fixing?

Retracingtext or drawing is much slower and tiring than tracing it the first time.

The original Scribe could "let his hands do the writing".  The Retracer had to look constantly at the original trace and move slowly in order to follow exactly the same path.  So it makes sense that the Retracer would redo only those parts of the glyphs that really needed it.

You can see that in @nablator's example from f4r, line 3: why did the Retracer (who you claim is the Scribe himself) retrace only the C of that Ch, in the middle of a line?  Why not retrace the whole Ch?

(The only talk about user interface design that I watched and was actually useful explained that the feedback loop from eye to muscles to hand takes (IIRC) about 100-200 milliseconds, even though it takes only 10-20 milliseconds for the brain to process what the eyes see.  From that fact one can deduce, among other things, that the time it takes for someone to click a button that pops up on the screen is proportional to the log of distance from cursor to button divided by the size of the button -- and one can estimate the constant factor too.  

One simple experiment to confirm that 100 ms time is to draw two parallel lines and then try to draw a zigzag line between them, as fast and wide as one can, without crossing the lines.  Drawing the zigzag itself does not depend on the eyes, so it can be very fast; but adjusting the width of the zigzag depends on feedback through the eye, so the envelope of the zigzag ends up being a wavy line whose period is those 100 ms.)

All the best, --stolfi