In Arabic calligraphic tradition, a dot, or “Nuqta,” is the square (rhombic/standing on its edge) mark drawn by dragging a reed pen, or “Qalam,” across the writing surface (Massoudy, 2010, p. 38). Dots are a quintessential part of the Arabic writing system. Different-sounding letters share the same base shapes, and the dots or “Nuqat”, help differentiate between these similar letters depending on their position around the base character. The dots were originally small strokes placed around letters, introduced in the 9th century to help readers distinguish between individual letters (Milo & Berry, 2002, pp. 114¬–115). These markers contribute not only to the aesthetics of the writing system but also to the legibility and readability of Arabic texts.

In the early stages of the Arabic script’s history, the writing system lacked markers, dots, and diacritics. Nemeth (2023) states that fourteen letters represented thirty phonemes, making one character correspond to multiple intonations (Nemeth et al., 2023, p. 379). However, the system was inefficient; it relied heavily on the reciter’s ability to read contextually. This reliance on the reader’s knowledge of the written content made the Arabic script system ambiguous and inaccessible to many. The introduction of the diacritic system during the time of the Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, first in the form of the small strokes mentioned above, gave each phoneme a distinctive graphic character and reduced the vagueness of written Arabic. Abbot (1939) credits this system to Yaḥyá ibn Yaʿmar and states that the diacritic approach was fully completed in the 2nd century AH [8th century AD] (Abbott, 1939b, p. 39).

Ibn Muqla states that a dot, or “Nuqta,” can take two visual forms: a [rhombic] square or a circle (al-Qalqashandy, 1914, p. 155). However, the most traditional and commonly used shape is the rhombic square.

Circular dots are used sparingly, and for aesthetic reasons, in the Thuluth and Muhaqqaq families. Tabbal (2023) states that circular dots serve as an aesthetic compromise when the written composition demands it or cannot accommodate the proportions and size of the regular rhombic square (Tabbal, personal communication, July 7, 2023). Since circular diacritics occupy less space than their square counterparts, they are employed when the design lacks the space to accommodate a regular Rhombic Square diacritic (Fig. 2).

In contrast to Tabbal’s claim, some manuscript references present fully dotted texts with circular diacritics. One such codex is the illuminated Qur’an of Sultan Baybars, currently held by the British Library, from the fourteenth-century Mamluk period, created by the calligrapher Muhammad ibn al-Wahid and the master illuminator Abu Bakr. The manuscript is in a script akin to Muhaqqaq and fully marked with circular diacritics (Fig. 3). A similar example is a thirteenth-century manuscript folio, attributed to either Egypt or Syria, currently held by The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City (Fig. 4).

Various dots adorn the Arabic writing system; ranging from one to three marks, they define key functional and visual characteristics of legibility, readability, and writing. Different letters in the Arabic writing system share the same base character, or “Rasm.” These letters either have one to three dots above or one or two below them (Fig. 5).

The two-dot group is traditionally two single dots arranged horizontally, with the two opposing vertices facing each other. However, a vertical arrangement is also possible for this diacritic cluster; the two squares sit one on top of the other so that the upper vertex of the lower dot faces the lower point of the upper “Nuqta.” The vertical double dots are a stylistic choice mentioned by Ibn Muqla himself; he stated that a person can either place the two marks on top of each other or horizontally on the same line (al-Qalqashandy, 1914, p. 155) (Fig. 6).

The three-dot diacritic group stands above the “Rasm” and never underneath it in the Arabic writing system. The dot arrangement forms an upward-facing triangle, with two horizontal dots supporting the third mark. Ibn Muqla remarks that some calligraphers draw the three dots in a horizontal format over the letter “Shiin” (ش) (Fig. 7), and that is because the letter can easily fit the dots over it horizontally, in contrast to other characters like the initial form of the letter “Tha’” (ثـ) (al-Qalqashandy, 1914, p.156).

The use of Diacritics in the Arabic script extends beyond the obvious one of legibility. Diacritic dots employed in Arabic writing hold aesthetic value in written text, calligraphic compositions, and artwork, creating balance within textual layouts and compositions. Calligraphers and scribes attributed these idiosyncrasies to the dot as an agency or allowance.

Calligraphers manipulated the dots adorning Arabic letters, managing their placement. They moved the marks around, managing the micro-levels of writing and overall textual and textural design. The flexibility of diacritic placement is possible because dotting happens after the whole “Rasm” of a word is complete, making it easier for the calligrapher to decide where and how to place the marks. Nemeth (2023) writes that Arabic marks and diacritics, unlike Latin ones, remain independent of the Rasm to which they correspond. The positioning of the dots around the base characters allows significant liberties, depending on the letters surrounding the mark (Fig. 8) (Fig. 9). That level of agency did not carry over to mainstream Arabic typography. This lack of command exists due to the limitations of time-bound Western technologies used to design typefaces (check the subsection titled “The Bounding Box” in Technological Limitations).

Currently, only MaryamSoft lets users manipulate diacritic positioning. However, this software and its typefaces are not available outside the Republic of Iran. This research conducted diacritic experiments with MaryamSoft and QalamBartar, documented in the “MaryamSoft” section of this chapter.

Beyond aiding readability and legibility, Arabic diacritics are naturally ornamental. These dots are a defining visual aspect of the script. However, not all dots used in Arabic script aid reading; some can function as ornamental accessories, a feature restricted to the Diwani Jeli script. These embellishments are smaller than their counterparts associated with specific letters. The calligrapher generally adds the Jeli dots after finishing the written calligraphic composition (Fig. 10).

Jeli markers accentuate or highlight the neighbouring negative, unfilled spaces constructed by the calligraphic composition (Massoudy, 2010, p. 49). The miniature marks and the negative spaces, created by their absence, create rhythm, movement, and dynamic arrangements within the artwork.

Although colouring dots is not the norm, dyed dots appear in Arabic Manuscripts. An example appears in the Sultan Baybars Qur’an: the Rasm was executed in gold. In contrast, the diacritics were executed in a different colour (Fig. 11). This feature adds another layer of ornamentation and playfulness to the written text.

The laborious development of the calligraphic script was not mirrored in its typographic evolution; many of its features were abandoned, forgotten, or unknown to modern typographers, graphic designers, digital artists, and practitioners. Modulating the Arabic script stripped it of its dynamic nature. In his dissertation, Nemeth (2017) states that modifications and simplifications to the manuscript Arabic script were necessary to adapt it to movable-type technology. Nemeth notes that the changes administered to the Arabic script stripped it of its dynamic fluidity (Nemeth, 2017, p. 22). The shift from written to typed Arabic meant losing the agency and immediacy calligraphers had enjoyed for centuries.

Arabic diacritics and marks maintained their independence from the Rasm, or body, characters to which they belong. Calligraphers exercised agency over these floating characters, deciding whether to position them above or below the letters depending on the surrounding environment. Scribes used them to create rhythm, compensate for the negative spaces left by the letters, and add movement to calligraphic layouts. Texts benefited from the calligrapher’s immediacy, reacting and morphing depending on the writer’s aesthetic preferences or textual limitations, a license of privilege granted to scribes to freely modify things like diacritics in the moment of writing, depending on what they, the text, or the composition required. Metal type limited this immediacy and agency. Each letter was cased with its corresponding diacritic, creating a rigid and unyielding typographic system void of agency and fluidity, contrary to the notions and values held by its calligraphic ancestor (Fig. 12). This inheritance trickled down to the inner workings of modern typographic design and practices, in the form of the digital bounding box. Nemeth (2017) states that type-building tools are inadequate and cannot provide comprehensive means for Arabic font building, making specific script characteristics, including the control of diacritics and marks, inadequately addressed (Nemeth, 2017, p. 470).

Current Arabic type designers, using commercial type-making tools, build typefaces with little consideration for the manuscript and calligraphic legacy of Arabic diacritics. These rigid outcomes make diacritics static, with their colours, textures, and dimensions predefined by the type designer, limiting the creative and artistic expression of the graphic designer and typographer. Therefore, the room for the modern typesetter’s, analogue or digital, expression only happens at the macro level of the layout, while the individual letters and their dots that make up the text block remain untouched.

The concepts and logic that govern modern typesetting and typography standards are rooted in the norms of their letterpress ancestry. Letterpress characters are housed in individual metal boxes; these metal type boxes allowed the typesetter to move, replace, and set individual letters to produce words, sentences, and typographic layouts. The idea of metal or glyph boxes survived the evolution of typographic technology. These confines laid the foundation for modern type creation. At present, type designers develop their letters in what is known as a bounding box (Fig. 13), the modern digital offspring of the analogue metal type box (Fig. 12). Hence, just like Arabic type in the letterpress era, diacritics are locked within the bounding boxes with the letters they belong to, making their manipulation unnecessarily laborious or even unattainable.

Unlike Arabic diacritics, short vowels retained independence throughout the evolution of Arabic typography (Fig. 14). Punch-cutters and typecasters approached these characters as individual characters in their own right. Each mark existed in its metal box and could then be positioned over its corresponding letter by the typesetter. The same procedure trickled down into modern font building. Presently, short vowels exist within their own bounding boxes that appear when prompted by typists and typesetters.

Open-type Arabic typefaces currently lack diacritic manipulation features in long texts. Therefore, a designer or typesetter has to resort to alternative, damaging measures to manipulate or control the dots. The apparent solution would be to outline the desired text and individually select and adjust the diacritics that require modification.

Outlining type can cause multiple problems and setbacks for the designer. First, the approach is laborious and slow because contemporary typesetting software that supports text outlining, such as Adobe InDesign, vectorises text as an inflexible, cohesive entity or compound path, making micro-letter modification extremely difficult. Secondly, these approaches damage the letters and render them uneditable or final once the change is made, making this working method unsustainable. The following instructions demonstrate how to manipulate diacritics by outlining text blocks.

1. Start by selecting the text block and outlining the type by selecting “Type” and then “Create Outlines.”
2. Next, select the shape you want to edit using the Direct Selection Tool.
3. Cut the dot by clicking on “Edit”, then “Cut”, or by right-clicking and selecting “Cut.”
4. Paste the character back in place by clicking on “Edit” then “Paste In Place” or by right-clicking and selecting “Paste In Place.”

Following the above steps will allow the designer to detach the dot from the rest of the text, allowing them to change it freely (Fig. 15). To manipulate additional marks, the designer has to follow the same steps throughout the text diacritics, individually changing the dots they wish to edit to achieve their required result.

The following actions allow the designer to modify the diacritics of only one letter throughout a text.

1. Transfer the text block to vector editing software, such as Adobe Illustrator.
2. Outline the text by clicking on “Object,” then “Expand…” Or by selecting “Type” and then “Create Outlines.”
3. Click the chosen diacritic group twice to enter the individual selection mode—this step is valid if the designer requires the global modification of diacritics of one specific letter.
4. Start a global edit by clicking “Select” and then “Start Global Edit.”
5. Click the diacritic you want to change again and alter it. The changes will be automatically applied to the rest.

This method lets the designer make global diacritic changes by navigating multiple compound paths to reach the desired diacritic group and adjusting it throughout the text.

To globally change all the diacritics in a text, the typographer needs to stop after the second step mentioned above and follow the following instructions:

1. Select “Object,” then “Compound Path,” and then “Release,” making every element in the text an individual component—but also damaging the closed counters of the typeface (Fig. 16).
2. Select the diacritic group you wish to alter and start a global edit by clicking “Select” and then “Start Global Edit.”
3. Make the modifications necessary—The changes will be automatically applied to the rest.
4. Repair the damage from the first step by going through the whole text and subtracting the closed counters from their characters.

Global Diacritic changes in long texts are nearly impossible without intricate, involved methods. The drawback is that these methods are irreversible. Once the text is vectorised, you can no longer edit its content.

Maryam Soft was founded in 1982 in response to the lack of software support for Persian. Maryam Soft developed QalamBartar, a software that hosts modern and calligraphic fonts by Iranian designers. The software functions as a plug-in across typesetting environments such as InDesign and Microsoft Word. All QalamBartar fonts allow typographic agency through the movement of diacritics, short vowels, and letters. Some fonts also include larger diacritics that designers can substitute into typographic compositions.

I had the privilege of using QalamBartar by MaryamSoft and the typeface Dabir by Amir Mahdi Moslehi for this research. Experimenting with the software yielded many positive and successful results. Typographic agency at the level of letter diacritics is relatively possible with QalamBartar and its respective fonts.

Maryam Soft achieved strides in Arabic and Persian typography. Their software reflects their dedication to advancing the field, and their achievements go beyond the scope of diacritic agencies limited to this research. However, because of geopolitical sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran, Maryam Soft’s technology and the fonts that work with it are limited to designers and users in Iran. They are not accessible to many working in Arabic typography and graphic design.

This research primarily** addresses the loss of the dots in the agencies. However, one cannot study or work on the Nuqat without examining the typographic flexibilities of the short vowels. Short vowels, like the Diacritics, are floating marks positioned above or below Arabic letters. This section mainly follows the structure of the previous one. It starts with the historical development of the marks, their assigned agencies, and possible ways to simulate their immediacy in mainstream typesetting environments.

Arabic is a semi-Abjad or partially consonantal writing system. Unlike an alphabetic scheme, an abjad system represents only consonants in writing. The Arabic Writing system includes short (Fig. 17) and long vowels (Fig. 18). Still, only the latter are inscribed as regular letters in the skeletal foundation of a word, making it a partial abjad rather than a full alphabet. On the other hand, short vowels or Harakat, are either inferred by the reader depending on the context of the text they are reciting or inscribed as small markings above the letters they phonetically follow.

Arabic had no vowel marks in its early stages of writing. Short-vowel pronunciation depended on the reader’s interpretation, making reading prone to error and subjective renditions. Al-Kurdy (1939) states that introducing vowel marks helped maintain proper pronunciation and convey the intended meaning in accordance with proper Arabic. The Syriacs first developed this feature after embracing Christianity, vocalising their texts when copying the Holly texts (al-Kurdy, 1939, p. 75).

The first century of the Hijri calendar [Circa seventh century AD] saw the introduction of short-vowel marks to the Arabic script by Abou Al Aswad Al Douali (Massoudy, 2010, p. 47). The marks took the form and appearance of circular red orbs drawn above or below the letters they followed (Fig. 19). A dot above the baseline indicated a Fatha, a mark at the baseline’s level was Damma, and a sphere below the baseline marked a Kasra (Nemeth et al., 2023, p. 380).

In the second century of the Hijri calendar [Circa eighth century AD], Alkhalil bin Ahmed Al-Farahidi abandoned the circular short-vowel system in favour of the marks used today (Fig. 20) (Massoudy, 2010, p. 48). Al-Farahidi’s marks transcended their intended use for vocalisation and assumed an additional ornamental role in scripts such as Naskh, Thuluth, and Diwani (Al-Ḥusayny, 2003, p. 24). (refer to the Ornaments and space fillers section in this chapter)

Currently, Harakat are not placed on every letter in Arabic texts. Fully vocalised Arabic texts are rare (outside religious texts); partial vocalisation is more common, and marks appear sparingly in long texts, used only when necessary for readability and pronunciation. The unmarked short vowels are left for the reader to infer from the text’s context.

Much like the agencies for diacritics, calligraphers had specific allowances for short-vowel marks. Scribes managed the marks’ positions, colours, and sizes. This immediacy created rhythm, contrast, and liveliness. This feature is available but not completely functional in mainstream Arabic fonts and typesetting tools.

Calligraphers maintained control over the placement of the short vowels. The agency associated with the vowel marks is similar to that of the diacritics. The positional relationship between a mark and its base letter is flexible, depending on the form and size of the character it adjusts; surrounding letters can also affect positioning (Nemeth et al., 2023, p. 381). Scribes used the Harakat to create harmony and rhythm in written texts and manage the space around the words (Fig. 21). This agency, especially in larger scripts, may reflect the Harakat’s inscription with a different pen than the main letters, giving the scribe the freedom and immediacy to position them freely and independently in ways that balance negative space and produce a dynamic composition after the writing is complete.

The independence of the marks survived the transition from calligraphy to analogue and then digital typesetting. Currently, every mark and vowel has a Unicode, which assigns it an individual glyph or bounding box (Fig. 14). The third chapter, Solution and Process, explains the bounding box in a subsection with the same name. Software such as InDesign recognises the independent nature of marks in Arabic typography and allows you to modify their positions (Fig. 22)

Short vowels were originally written in coloured inks. Red (Fig. 43) denoted vocalisations until the fifth and sixth centuries of the Hijri calendar, the eleventh and twelfth centuries AD; this practice survived longer in the Muslim West (Déroche et al., 2006, p. 224). The colouring of the Harakat was not limited to red but appeared in multiple other colours and tints (Fig. 23) (Fig. 24) (Gacek, 2009, p. 290).

Colouring vowel marks is possible in modern typographic text. This agency’s survival stems from the fact that every short vowel has its own Unicode and is considered a letter. Refer to the Limitations and Possibilities in Type and Typography section of this dissertation for more information on how to achieve diacritic colouring.

Visual references indicate that short vowels in large scripts were written in a thinner pen than the Qalamus used to transcribe letters. This statement is particularly true for scripts such as Thuluth and Muhaqqaq. This visual reference (Fig. 25) showcases two script styles in the same calligraphic layout. The first line, executed in the Thuluth script, a form of writing typically reserved for display pieces of text, hosts vowel marks written in a thinner nib than the nib used to write the text. This section features very large, extended Fathas, a feature analysed in the Sizing and Scaling Short Vowels section of this passage.

The second, or bottom, part of the artwork is composed in the Naskh script (Fig. 25). Naskh is considered the book hand of the Islamic East (Gacek, 2009, p. 162). The provided visual reference, among many others, presents this hand adorned with Harakat written in the same Qalamus as the main letters. However, the marks are not given the same weight as the main letters. The Harakat, or Tashkiil, are written with the side of the Qalamus, whose thickness can range from one-third to two-thirds the width of the pen’s nib (Ja’far, 1987, p. 131). The Fathas of the Naskhi composition came in multiple lengths, a feature analysed in the Sizing and Scaling Short Vowels section of this passage.

Modern Arabic-type design conventions follow the calligraphic norms for short-vowel rendering. The Harakat adorning modern fonts are rendered in a thinner “virtual nib.” This feature reduces noise and creates harmony and visual balance (Fig. 14).

Certain marks enjoy specific visual treatments that others do not. As mentioned in the previous section, Fathas in the Thuluth and Naskh scripts enjoy the occasional extension, a statement verified by Nemeth (2023), noting the optional modification of Arabic marks, like enlarging the Fatha, that can present an impressive visual instrument (Nemeth et al., 2023, p. 381). This feature creates visual balance and compensates for the negative space left by the main letters, bringing life to a text and reducing its static monotony (Fig. 26).

In the Thuluth style, the Fathas (◌َ) and Dammas (ُ◌) can appear executed with the main pen. The bold, long Fatha is a remarkable testament to the calligrapher’s agency in composing a text; the scribe could instantly add dynamic movement and richness by rendering the short vowel with the pen reserved for the words.

Modern typographic practice lacks agency for scaling and resizing short vowels. Some fonts include longer Fathas as predefined alternate glyphs; however, few designers know they exist. As for the precise scaling and control over this mark, it does not exist for the designer or typographer setting it.

The Harakat added a layer of visual noise over the main letters. This change gave the marks an additional visual and decorative role beyond their initial function of easing legibility. Short vowels hold an ornamental role meant to embellish the writing. Al-Ḥusayny (2003) notes that the cosmetic function of the Harakat, particularly in larger scripts, [Thuluth], is to compensate for the negative space left by the hefty characters. The short vowels balance the white spaces, give aesthetic form and structure to the writing, and help maintain coherence between its different components (Al-Ḥusayny, 2003, p. 69) (Fig. 21).

The transition of short vowels from calligraphy to typography did not mirror that of diacritics. These two elements of the Arabic language system fundamentally differ in function and visual representation. Therefore, it is logical that the treatment of the Harakat differed from that of the dots in typographic application.

Harakat are essentially miniature letters in their own right. Metal type respected this property, as short vowels were cast as independent type units and later positioned by the typesetter over the characters they followed. This method of producing short vowels as singular entities is used in current digital type-making and typesetting, with each mark having its own bounding box. The marks’ autonomy allows modifications unavailable to Arabic diacritics. Advanced typesetting software that recognises the distinct Unicode of Arabic short vowels can handle them, giving designers more agency.

The following experiments showcase the possible agencies in Adobe InDesign, a mainstream typesetting software. The following investigations attempt to move, scale, and colour Sound Marks using Adobe InDesign. The experiments generated positive outcomes. However, modern software limitations can pose obstacles in certain cases.

The following typographic experiments were conducted on Adobe InDesign. The text used is a selection of the Arabic preamble of The Declaration of Human Rights, typeset with Lyon Arabic, designed by Khajag Apelian and Wael Morcos for Commercial Type.

For the following experiments to succeed, you need an Arabic-supporting version of Adobe InDesign. Furthermore, the Harakat throughout the text were added to the original copy using Mishkal, an online tool hosted at the following website: https: //tahadz.com/mishkal.

Select the desired mark in the given text.
Modify the mark’s coordinates to the desired location in the Character window (Fig. 22).

1. Go to “Edit”, then “Find / Change” and type the desired mark, in this case the Shadda (ّ◌), in both the “Find what” and “Change to” tabs.
2. Click on “Change Format,” go to “Middle East Character Formats.” Under “Diacritic Positioning,” in “Additional Adjustment,” enter the desired Horizontal and Vertical coordinates; in this case, 400 units vertically (Fig. 27), then click “OK.”
3. The “Find / Change” window will now show the format changes in the “Change Format” tab. Click on “Change All”—This will apply the new mark position to the entire text block (Fig. 28).

Note that with a Shadda and a vowel above or below it, the mark cluster does not seem to move in unison. The Shadda moves only when no other vowel or mark accompanies it.

Modifying the size of the Short vowels, in this case the Fathas, was difficult to reproduce. However, with some math, we can produce a Fatha that is identical in size to the base character proportions (Fig. 29).

1. Go to “Edit”, then “Find / Change” and type the Fatha (◌َ) in both the “Find what” and “Change to” tabs.
2. Click on “Change Format,” then “Character Colour.” Set the fill colour (in this case, left black), then click “OK.”
3. Click on “Change Format,” go to “Advanced Character Formats,” and type in a new size increment in the “Horizontal Scale” and “Vertical Scale” tabs. In this experiment’s case, type 400%, then click “OK.”
4. The “Find / Change” window will now show the format changes in the “Change Format” tab. Click on “Change All”—This will apply the new Fatha size and colour to the entire text block.
5. The downside is that it may break some contextual alternates and ligatures throughout the text. Example underlined in blue (Fig. 30).

Note that another way to modify the Harakat, specifically the extension of the Fatha, is to use the outlining method described in the “Limitations In Modern Typography” section of the Chapter dedicated to the Diacritics. However, current OpenType technology gives Short Vowels more agency than Diacritics. Hence, applying outlining methods would be counterintuitive.

1. Go to “Edit”, then “Find / Change”, and type the desired mark, in this case the Damma (ُ◌), in both the “Find what” and “Change to” tabs.
2. Click on “Change Format,” then “Character Colour.” Define the stroke and fill colours, in this case, a red fill and a yellow stroke, then click “OK.”
3. The “Find / Change” window will now show the format changes in the “Change Format” tab. Click on “Change All”—This will apply the new mark colours to the entire text block (Fig. 31).

Note that the Dammas that are paired with the Shaddas were not altered in the process. This is because of the same Unicode system discussed in the previous set of instructions.

The history of the short vowels differs from that of the dots. The Harakat always retained independence from their host Rasms. For this reason, designers and type users can manipulate them in ways that do not translate to dots.