If I have a glyph, for example a /quoteleft, that is a rotated component of another (/quoteright), it drives me crazy that raising the original via Transformation panel or filter makes the component sink instead.
Is there a reason why Glyphs doesn’t do the more intuitive matching of the direction of the transformation to the source?
I know this depends on the context in terms of style, but have you thought about using the comma or quotesingle as your component instead of the reflected quote left?
There is not much that I can do about this. in 80% of the cases you like that components just follow their base glyphs. So blindly counter the movement of the base will mess up other things.
maybe the comma is not suitable but quotesinglbase is.
What are some examples of glyphs in that 80% you’d want to move in the opposite direction?
Examples of problems: /schwa, quotation marks, nines, brackets and parentheses (particularly if a slope prevents mere horizontal reflection)… It should be dead simple to raise brackets to make .case variants for example, but it isn’t.
I meant the general case that components do not respond to movement of the base glyph.
Some of the cases you mention can be solved by automatic alignment.
I’m confused. Components do respond to movement of the base glyph. And in testing I’m not seeing a difference in responses to moved sources whether auto alignment is enabled or not.
As an example, if I make a /schwa from a rotated /e component,
All of these happen whether auto-align is enabled or not.
My expectations/preferences would be that (perhaps if auto-align is disabled) for #2 the schwa would either rise or remain unchanged, and for #3 both would rise together.
No, the center of the x-height is the pivotal point for automatic alignment in that case.