(9 hours ago)quimqu wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The space I measure is the one in front of the q, and that one is a bit shorter than the space in front of a bare o. Anyway, I'd love to see what your spaces say, mine come from aligning glyphs on the scans and they are surely not perfect.
So this case should be confirmed statistically:
This example is LSS in my system: width is visually assessed, not measured, it is relative to the width of the previous glyph and the space before it: I record whether the space is extra small (XS), small (S), medium (M), large (L), extra large (XL). If I had actual measurements in pixels I would categorize it according to what is closest to a ratio of 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2.
A plausible explanation could be that q is so strongly word-initial that a space is not really needed to know that it is there, so the scribe would unconsciously make it smaller.