![Ff chartwell free](https://kumkoniak.com/8.jpg)
![ff chartwell free ff chartwell free](https://i0.wp.com/designsync.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Creating-Vector-Graphs-Design-Sync-01.jpg)
![ff chartwell free ff chartwell free](https://www.free-fonts.com/images/myfonts/ff_chartwell_pies_60250404.gif)
There is a lot of opportunity to optimise these processes - and I would wager that having a font full of glyphs required to construct a UI paradigm, having those primitive elements processed by the OS in a simple way, and giving those elements to the end-user (who admittedly would need to learn something new for it to be productive), may indeed produced a "simpler" interaction method for future users. And I shudder at all of the complexity added to our glyph systems to support efforts at making "one true language" that can do everything.Ĭertainly a valid concern, and I acknowledge your conservatism, but I think you might want to look at the cyclomatic complexity of the work required to splash a modern GUI up on the screen, and compare it with the cyclomatic complexity required to render a human-readable string of glyphs. >Some things are simply more easily done outside of the standard glyphs we use for words. Perhaps you're familiar with the wonderful and super-crazy TempleOS? There are some great things about the way the UI is expressed there. Oh, no question there is abuse going on here - this thought experiment is really reaching and extending beyond a certain horizon, which may or may not be idiotic. when we could nevertheless be doing it in <128k. which I would argue is where we are heading, with our multiple-gigabyte OS updates, anyway. I mean, WIMP has its thing, and touch and mobile too, but I do wonder if there isn't something to a pure graphemes and symbols based mode of interaction. Not, compiling, hacking, code, transmogrifying, mutating, extending, abstraction, tool-pushing, etc., but rather "describe this in glyphs/ligatures like every language ever, or GTFO>." My affinity for this approach is that it is tied to human symbol-making in an intrinsic, self-describing way whereas a technical GUI system might consists of a multi-variate collection of abstractions, putting it all into glyphs and ligatures ties it into our most basic of operational agilities, reading and writing. Well, in fact Chartwell "is" programming, or at least coding (not Turing.) of information in a reproducible way - and the fact that we use the language of glyphs as a GUI metaphor, is also appealing.
![ff chartwell free ff chartwell free](https://fontshop-prod-responsive-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/content_image/attachment/292619/mini_magick20160215-18416-15ncz3a.jpg)
![ff chartwell free ff chartwell free](https://fontshop-prod-responsive-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/content_image/attachment/292613/mini_magick20160215-18416-1193o0y.png)
The thing about the ligature trick, and fonts in general, and more specifically the packing of known functional GUI elements into a broader ligature description, is that its human readable/comprehendible without also requiring a great deal of 'programming'. Yeah, I'm quite familiar with these toolkits.
![Ff chartwell free](https://kumkoniak.com/8.jpg)