fontographer vs fontlab?
Armadillo
> I am enjoying fontographer alot but my question is which one do font
designers prefer? I know fontlab is more current than fontographer, but do
font houses still use fontographer or do they use other programs like
fontlab or robofog? -Chuck
Many type designers probably use Fontographer since it has simple powerful
drawing tools. It also has good spacing and kerning tools.
But when it comes to creating the final font files, especially for several
platforms, Fontographer's tools are inadequate. Hinting tools are poor, no
native truetype editing, font naming cannot be done properly. Not to mention
lack of OpenType support.
In other words fonts created in Fontographer need post processing in FontLab
or in some other application. Unfortunately many foundries don't do it.
Jukka
FontMeister
I guess it's all about the what the end product has to be.
Gunnlager Briem (author of Adobe BriemScript) uses Fontographer and does not
convey to me an interest in anything in the way of features he needs -other
than what a bear it is to create Multiple Masters - a problem which exists
no matter which tool you use.
Doyald Young (top designer of logos and fonts since the 1940s) gives me the
impression that he wants to concentrate on shapes and not computer
technicalities. He points out in the intro to his book on logo design that
he had to be grudgingly taught the use of computers. He uses Fontographer
because it gives him the tools he needs to create world-class designs and he
apparently hasn't seen the need for anything else as of yet.
Sumner Stone (author of Adobe StoneSans) - has taught college classes on
Fontographer and has never expressed the need for anything else.
Then we can progress to folks like Agfa, Monotype, Treacyfaces, Linguists
Software, etc. who love Fontographer for its ease of use but have various
projects which require them to post-process a font in FontLab, OTSDK, Apple
Font Tools, etc.
The average person can use Fontographer to make beautiful fonts with no
post-processing required. The font industry is changing and there will be
projects which call for things which Fontographer doesn't do but it still
can't be beat for intuitive glyph design and old-fashioned Type 1 and
Truetype fonts.
Thus, no one can really answer your question without knowing what kind of
font project you are working on and what the parameters are. I will be the
first person to tell you to use something else if Fontographer can't do the
job.
But I will also be the first person to advise you to use Fontographer if
your project doesn't require anything else.
Regards,
Jim Gallagher
Macromedia Tech Support
SartreArt
Well...not if that average person happens to work with Mac OS X!
Fontmeister's defense of Fontographer's antiquated software is like defending the horse and buggy when everyone else is driving a car. It's not that Fontographer WASN'T a good software program when it came out YEARS ago! But defending it's shortcomings in todays software marketplace is insulting.
In reading many of the posts to this forum, I notice that Macromedia has been completely unable to answer the question of when (or if) a possible update will take place. At the very least, an honest answer about the future of Fontographer would allow users to make an educated decision about whether they should jump ship to a more current software program (Fontlab 4.5) or keep rebooting into "a soon to be unsupported" Mac OS 9.
Once I've purchased Fontlab (and I haven't yet, in hopes that some announcement will be made to upgrade Fontographer) the debate will be over for me and what happens at Macromedia/Fontographer will cease to matter. Right now, you still have my attention - once I switch, I'm another lost customer. Ultimately I will have to support the company that continues to support it's software buyers by providing ongoing upgrades and current support (just look at the Fontographer portion of the Macromedia website ---what year is it?).
Give us the information that we need to make an educated decision about which software will continue to support our needs.
Font Guy
years I used Fontographer and swore by its power and flexibility.
Unfortunately, I kept getting the impression that Macromedia
(Fontographer's parent company) was treating Fontographer like an
unpopular step-child.
They had a good product, but at some point, decided not to spend the
money to update or upgrade the product. The issue that forced USA
TODAY to start using FontLab was the euro symbol. The encoding we
needed to use would not generate the euro because it occupied a
"reserved" position.
We bought FontLab and have been very impressed with its features. It
handles every font variation required by anyone.
I now use FontLab as my primary font creation program, but still use
some Fontographer features as part of my font editing toolkit.
If I was starting out from scratch I would get FontLab.
Sorry Jim.
Armadillo
> Fontmeister's defense of Fontographer's antiquated software is like
defending the horse and buggy when everyone else is driving a car. It's not
that Fontographer WASN'T a good software program
I tried that approach too but realized that it is not fair to blame a guy
who has been left behind enemy lines without food or ammunition.
> Give us the information that we need to make an educated decision about
which software will continue to support our needs.
That should not be too hard to figure out. ;-)
Jukka
Andreas Höfeld
news:2fdd7c83.03012...@posting.google.com...
> ... The issue that forced USA
> TODAY to start using FontLab was the euro symbol. The encoding we
> needed to use would not generate the euro because it occupied a
> "reserved" position.
Out of curiosity - what format/encoding was that?
I never had any problem with FOG and the Euro symbol.
Andreas
--
www.fontgrube.gmxhome.de/en
mail: fontgrube (at) loop . de
Don't use automatic reply address
Bobby Henderson
wrote in message news:b0pjgk$94h$1...@forums.macromedia.com...
> "The average person can use Fontographer to make beautiful
> fonts with no post-processing required." -Fontmeister
>
> Well...not if that average person happens to work
> with Mac OS X!
>
> Fontmeister's defense of Fontographer's antiquated
> software is like defending the horse and buggy when
> everyone else is driving a car. It's not that Fontographer
> WASN'T a good software program when it came out
> YEARS ago! But defending it's shortcomings in todays
> software marketplace is insulting.
Do you expect Jim to just post something in here like, "yeah, FOG is an old
piece of junk," and risk losing his job just to make you happy?
Everybody knows FOG is outdated. However, I don't expect anyone to fall on
his sword over it. And it is ridiculous for anyone else to have such
destructive expectations.
Need something to blame over this. Blame the webby s**t. "Web design"
applications have brought in a hoard of new no-talent hack amateur artist
wannabes into the graphics arts field and they have helped plumment the
field into another financial depression. When print ruled graphic design,
people with talent fared much better. And apps like Fontographer would be
much more relevant in that situation.
But now, when everyone thinks Arial and Verdana are enough for any and all
graphic design projects (just look how many web pages default to Verdana in
CSS) new fonts aren't in great demand. Further, many businesses just want
to get "free" or "cheap" stuff in stock clip art, junk fonts and stale
templates for everything from letterheads to entire web site designs.
Since I'm not employed by Macromedia, I can level heavy criticism without
worry. Macromedia, by virtue of its web-only marketing outlook, is helping
the screwed up state of graphic design continue in general.
If Macromedia cared at all about graphic design, apps like Fontographer and
Freehand would still be top priorities (although it should be clarified
Freehand once was a Macromedia priority, but FOG has never been). Type and
shape are the elemental things in graphic design and FOG and FH control
those better than any webby crap.
So, I don't really see Macromedia as a creative applications company
anymore. They're more into programming than anything else. Just look at
all the hype on Cold Fusion lately. Programming is NOT graphic design.
Bobby Henderson
Armadillo
> all the hype on Cold Fusion lately. Programming is NOT graphic design.
John Maeda?
Jukka
Fox
> post-processing required. The font industry is changing and there will be
> projects which call for things which Fontographer doesn't do but it still
> can't be beat for intuitive glyph design and old-fashioned Type 1 and
> Truetype fonts.
Let's not forget to mention that Fontographer was also "there" for illustration before Adobe
Illustrator ever hit the streets (by more than a year) and... if all those folks at Adobe, Agfa,
and etc. are using Fontographer when Ikarus was supposed to be the software of choice for
merganthaler/linotype proprietary fonts... that's got to say a lot... [at one time, I had really
wanted to get my hands on MacIkarus -- but that apparently went the way of vaporware]
I got started in 86 with Fontographer 2.0 (I think, maybe, even, an older version), and in all
those years, the gui has remained pretty much the same uncomplicated interface - if anything, it
became easier to use. I tried a demo of FontLab once -- I couldn't imagine how anybody got
anything done in it... the effort to learn it simply did not seem worth it.
Fontographer is simple [perhaps that's over 15 years of familiarity speaking but it seems it has
always been so] and, after adequate practice, it is very fast [in terms of creating glyphs --
not talking about machine performance (which also applies)].
My only long-standing complaint has been that Fontastic+ was discontinued, and I have expressed
(on many occasions) that the basic (complete) "engine" replace the cheezy bitmap editor in
Fontographer.
It would be nice to have a maintenance release (in the short term) that "cleans up" the problems
with the text cursor in dialog boxes. Other than these two things, for me, Fog has reached a
level of perfection which probably shouldn't be messed with. Right now, I don't even care that
it is not OSX native (as I still spend most of my time in OS9 anyway). However, I figure, in
about a year or so, I will probably migrate completely to OSX and would like to have all the
software I use OSX native by that time. I haven't even begun to worry about OpenType -- can't
figure out what it's good for at this point (and I was *invited* by Adobe to test their OTSDK,
on which I passed) -- there is so much legacy involved with PostScript in particular [high end
lasers/Macs (even in OSX)] and TrueType as well [all Windows machines]. I've never been a big
fan of hinting -- I've always felt it was a cheat -- if you really designed your font well, it
wasn't really necessary (and actually, hinting occasionally INTERFERES) -- it was all in
technique [which has been adequately well outlined in Type by Design]. All us oldtimers had to
deal with no hinting in the first few versions of fontographer, anyway -- Type 1 typefaces were
not an option in those days.
The way I see it, Fontographer is an orphan because typography is a specialized skill...it takes
a human to master. Original font designers are a very small percentage of the software buying
population. And, font design is not for your everyday casual user. I don't believe a machine
will ever be able to master such a skill on it's own... however, the *more* you ask a
machine/software to do for you, the less needed you are as an
artist/artisan/craftsman/typographer. I can't see where anyone can be that upset that
Fontographer isn't keeping pace with the changing operating system scene, unless, of course, the
real reason for using the software is to simply be able to knock off work somebody else has
already done.
If Mr. Gallagher keeps saying [till he must be blue in the face] that Fontographer is not dead,
that they are (wisely) waiting for the changing technologies to stabilize (and standardize),
then I, for one, am willing to wait. I have been faithful since it was an Altsys product
(although I "lusted in my heart" after Ikarus). I would NOT like to see Fontographer radically
altered -- I do not want to see it do more automatically (unless the bitmap generation algorithm
could be improved). If, eventually, it will compile OpenType typefaces, well...I'm not even sure
yet that really interests me; but all the more power to it. Importing grayscale (anti-aliased)
scanned templates (with the ability to individually determine their "aspect") would be nice...
Hmmm...I seem to have a very small wishlist... not bad for software that hasn't been upgraded in
quite some time...
Fox
***************
FontMeister
insulting.
>
lots of folks -the highest level professionals and the newbies- who get what
they want out of Fontographer.
Fontographer is obviously not what you want so you don't see this. I have to
work with what I have and to help people who ARE using the product.
> At the very least, an honest answer about the future of Fontographer would
allow users to make an educated decision
I felt that my answer was honest. I showed how profesionals and newbies use
Fontographer and suggested other tools for the things that Fontographer
doesn't do. What part of my mesage was dishonest?
Bobby Henderson
wrote in message news:b0q2rd$4h6$1...@forums.macromedia.com...
> Bobby, you sound MORE than a little bitter!
My "bitterness" is more than justified. Fontographer is a great application
that has been badly neglected by Macromedia in favor of computer programming
tools. Yeah. Computer programming tools. I regard web page editors as
tools built to please computer programmers and not artists. But that's
where Macromedia's marketing direction is pointed.
> Computers are tools, software is a tool, just like pencils and paper,
> T-squares and airbrushes. It's not the tool that makes the artist. Bad
> design, bad type and bad artwork were around for a long time before
> the advent of the computer...
In the days of analog paste-up, it was far more difficult for any amateur to
enter the graphics field in any way. Much of the bad design going on in
those days was coming from businesses who could not afford (or didn't want
to pay) to get the job done right, and therefore tried to slop together
their own things. And in those days, such cases were far more rare than the
things happening today. Like it or not, the computer has made bad design
more prevalent than ever before.
> ...come to think of it we all made fun of
> Helvetica over-useage by non-professionals long before computers
> were in use. You can complain endlessly about what the digital world
> has or hasn't done for the world of graphic design, but computer useage
> by design professionals and everyday hacks, is likely here to stay.
My problem is not with the computer itself. It is a great tool. My problem
is with key people driving the graphics applications industry into very
destructive areas. And the general business problem where companies don't
want to pay for any quality design or illustration anymore since they think
they can get it for free now.
You have to agree with the general problem that many in the business world
regard computer graphics as something that is not "real art" or even "real
graphic design."
The general public is constantly shown lies in the media, such as the movie
cliché where some geek just rattles away some gibberish on the keyboard and
instantly does something graphically which in reality would have taken weeks
to complete. I actually get customers walking into my business expecting me
to hit a few keys and --pow-- the job is just instantly done. This is a
chronic mindset. With that perception going on, businesses don't want to
pay a fair price for what they feel isn't any kind of work at all.
Then you have the bigger problem of many people thinking the computer itself
is creating the art and not the person using it. With that kind of
thinking, many many people with little or no artistic talent suddenly think
they can be an artist just by purchasing a Mac and downloading warez
Photoshop, Illustrator and Dreamweaver apps off of KaZaa. They'll produce
terrible looking product, but sell it for a lot less than what a
professional would demand. And when the customer says, "that's doesn't look
all that great," the hack can reply, "yes it does, it's automatically good
because I did with these apps."
I know I might sound like a hard ass about this stuff. But this is a real
crisis situation in the graphics and illustration industry. It is one thing
for a person with little or no talent to tinker with graphics apps at home
as a hobby. But these days, many of those folks who otherwise would not
dare enter the graphics field are getting into it. Some are doing it as a
glamour thing. Others think they are going to get rich with it. But the
two things they are dependably doing is making the graphic environment on
the whole look like shit and greatly depress the wages of real, talented,
professional graphic artists.
> As for the "falling on sword" thing...do you think I REALLY expect
> anyone at Macromedia to be honest about the company's plans for
> Fontographer.
It sounded like you had those expectations from Fontmeister when you flamed
his earlier post. So I felt like posting something for participants here to
get a more realistic perspective. The Usenet is a very impersonal thing and
there are many people who get into anonymous flame fests. They forget they
are corresponding with living, breathing people who have lives and jobs on
the other end of the line. I'm not saying that's you. But constant flaming
and trolling are persistent conditions in the Usenet. And they shouldn't
be. People in general should have better manners.
> I'm not that naive. Obviously it would be difficult for them to continue
> to sell a product and call it a "dead" at the same time. Nor do I have
> "destructive expections", I have REAL, PROFESSIONAL,
> CONSUMER EXPECTATIONS. This forum is one of the only
> places (certainly not customer support) I have found to vent my
> rational frustrations at a company that gives little or no information
> about the future of their product.
I agree about the customer support problem. And, yes, this is the place to
vent out the frustrations. But I just wouldn't vent them directly at
Fontmeister. He has been a part of the Fontographer team since the app was
owned by Altsys. And I imagine he is probably tore up with more maddening
frustration than you or I on how FOG has been left to rot for over six years
in favor of all the webby bullshit.
My personal hope is that the HTML paradigm of the Internet dies a very
painful tortured death and something more graphically sensible comes along.
Type, line and shape have been greatly ignored in the boring, stale,
programmers-only-need-apply world of the Internet. There might be some nice
things happening here or there. But much of it has the same old look.
Creative freedom is not as free in the Internet as it is in print or even
video.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
wrote in message news:b1474e$eoh$1...@forums.macromedia.com...
> Bobby,
>
> While I agree with you about too many websites using verdana,
> I feel I must step in and defend my web design brethren.
>
> Using verdana is not a cop out - believe me, I would love to
> have the myriad of options available to the average print
> designer. The problem is (at least with HTML sites) if the
> person viewing the website you have designed does not have
> the font you chose for the text on your site, their browser will
> simply choose the next closest font (imagine jumping from
> Garamond to Georgia). Verdana is a common font (Windows
> PC's come with the font installed) and easy to read. Making it
> the lead choice.
If there was a better method for using and embedding fonts in HTML pages (or
just something better than HTML itself) the Internet would stand a chance of
looking quite a bit better --at least on those sites where the designers
know how to use type properly.
> Yes, you can embed the font you want to use, but then you
> run the risk of losing a part of your audience due to the
> extended time required to download the font.
>
> So, before you refer to us as a "hoard of new no-talent hack
> amateur artist wannabes" maybe you should learn a little
> about our discipline.
You're assuming I don't do any web design, which is a mistake.
I do a lot of web work, but prefer to confine much of that to graphics jobs
rather than maintaining someone else's site. And yes, I know all too well
about the limits of font embedding and things like that. That's also one of
my reasons for teeing off on the current school of what it thought to be
proper web design: less than 30K to 50K of graphics per page with a
predominance on text only, make it fit 800 X 600 displays or even down to
640 X 480. You don't have as much creative freedom under those constraints
as one does in print or video. But companies like Macromedia are simply
downgrading everything in their roster that is not web related. What
Macromedia is doing to Fontographer is should be considered criminal. FOG
deserves much better than this.
Now when it comes to web designers, there are some folks out there who are
very talented when it comes to creating great looking web sites. But I am
right in saying those fellows are clearly in the minority --and they are
likely not getting paid what they deserve thanks to so many others doing the
job for far less.
I'm also right to be critical of many of the people jumping into the graphic
arts field without having any real credentials for doing so. What I mean by
credentials are: A: Talent, B: A good portfolio of work, C: Some
professional qualification such as formal art education or solid work
experience and D: actually owning registered licenses of their applications.
I have people trying to under bid me on a variety of art jobs that meet none
of those four requirements. And I'm sure you know taste is subjective.
Even the most talented folks out there are going to lose jobs to hacks.
I'll work hard coming up with an intelligently designed billboard concept,
and a good amount of the time I'll lose out to some low bid idiot who uses
the same display to squeeze and distort the crap out of Arial Bold.
Many other professions require some sort of qualification to get work.
That's not really so with many fields of graphic design. The real insulting
thing is how some in this industry will bust their butt doing truly great
work only to have the respect for their trade lessened by screwups who jump
into the same business who couldn't hack it with a "regular" job. Their bad
work ends up taking away much respect from this industry on the whole.
Bobby Henderson
Armadillo
> If there was a better method for using and embedding fonts in HTML pages
(or
> just something better than HTML itself) the Internet would stand a chance
of
> looking quite a bit better --at least on those sites where the designers
No, the problem is that type cannot be spaced and placed properly. It is not
about fonts at all.
> know how to use type properly.
Which is to master all the propotions and the (empty) space on a page.
Jukka
Chris Moore
post-processing required." -Fontmeister
>Well...not if that average person happens to work with Mac OS X! -SartreArt
Which brings me to the reason I'm here - I'm a computer tech at a college and
we're upgrading a Mac lab this July with new machines and will of course start
running OS X. We currently just use Fontographer for a single Typography 2
class. Would the students be better off just using Fontograher in Classic mode
for its ease of use so they can concentrate on design principles, or would they
be better served if we got FontLab? In Fontographer's favor is we already own
it and the teachers are familiar with it. FontLab runs natively in OS X. If I had
to make my report today to IS and Academics I'd recommend staying with
Fontographer since nothing being done is for production, just to learn design
principles. They actually begin by making type in Illustrator, so they don't even
use Fontographer the entire semester. Or, being a tech and not a graphics
person, have I overlooked the obvious?
SartreArt
My concern is that we won't always have Classic mode around to rely on for those products that choose not to upgrade to OS X. When that day happens software developers who haven't upgraded will be selling dead products. I personally wouldn't want to have a dead product being taught in a school I was attending. And why should you have to downgrade to run a product for which Macromedia has been so negligent about suppling ongoing upgrades. What gaurantee do you have that Fontographer will be around 6 months from now to teach...except as a frozen history lesson is how fonts USED to be created! My feeling is that at some point, without an OS X upgrade to Fontographer, Fontlab (or some other compnay) will become the software of choice - out of necessity!
I would prefer to stay with Fontographer, since I have made the investment in the software, however I already find that I rarely have to downgrade to "Classic" mode for the software that I use and I have become increasingly resentful of programs that make me leave OS X.
All I was trying to say is that there are
lots of folks -the highest level professionals and the newbies- who get what
they want out of Fontographer.
Fontographer is obviously not what you want so you don't see this. I have to
work with what I have and to help people who ARE using the product. - Fontmeister
When Fontographer becomes a dead-end program, how long will those "highest level profesionals" choose to stick around when all their new incoming computer systems are loaded and running OS X? I might feel differently if there had been even a couple of minor upgrades to the user interface that made me feel that I was working with software that still had the interest of it's management...unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case.
What makes you think I don't continue to use the product? Can't I be critical of Macromedia's negligence and still use the product, even if begrudgingly? Well...maybe not for long, anyway. This forum is really helping me realize how little interest Macromedia has in Fontographer and it's users.
Markus Ernst
> No, the problem is that type cannot be spaced and placed properly. It is
not
> about fonts at all.
Exactly. Even more, there are not many fonts out there which are designed
and hinted in a way that they are legible on screens in all different sizes
from, let's say, 9 pixels upwards. Verdana is just the best one. So it is a
sign of competence for a web designer to use verdana, specially in small
sizes.
Now really, make a screen shot of a 10 point Bodoni, blow it up by 600
percent and compare it to a 60 point Bodoni. That shows that the screen
reference of a small font size has _nothing_ to do with the original font
shape. So it is a sign of no understanding about screens, if somebody uses
corporate identity fonts for body text in web design (even if there would be
reasonable embedding options).
Unfortunately, most font authors do not care about hinting. On the other
hand, the common font utilities do not provide tools for it either.
That brings me back to the actual discussion topic: If you want to create a
true type font file which works perfectly not only in print but also on
screens, you can forget Fontographer. But still I prefer it's drawing
interface to the one in FontLab, so I use both.
--
Markus
Andreas Höfeld
news:b1li42$3c5$1...@forums.macromedia.com...
> ... Verdana is just the best one. So it is a
> sign of competence for a web designer to use verdana, specially in small
> sizes.
LOL! Arial - if you are into sans fonts - has the same quality of scren
hinting and forms better lines because it is not so wide as Verdana.
And given the faulty typographical quotes in it, it is rather a sign of
typographical ignorance, especially for a German web designer, to
use Verdana.
Andreas
Mike
webfor...@macromedia.com wrote on 2/1/03 9:20 AM:
> Would the students be better off just using Fontograher in Classic mode
> for its ease of use so they can concentrate on design principles...
If everyone is happy with the program and knows the program just use it in
the "Classic mode" of the OS ... it works fine.
--
Mike
€ Logo Design €
Put some fun in your next logo!
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
Art M
"Markus Ernst" <dere...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b1li42$3c5$1...@forums.macromedia.com...
But this non-proportionality between the small point sizes and the larger is
precisely what good hinting and grid-fitting is all about. If the letter "m"
is to be displayed at a small point size one of the legs will invariably
fall between pixels and dropout unless the rasterizer is smart enough to
modify the shape (usually widening the letter) to make legs fall on the
pixel grid. If Verdana shows less difference it wouldn't be due to hinting,
but to the care in the design of the glyphs and placement of its points at
multiples of common small font sizes so that when reduced the legs might be
on or near the pixel grid before fitting.
--Art
Bobby Henderson
news:b1lmkm$u8p$01$2...@news.t-online.com...
I, for one, happen to HATE Arial.
First, I don't like the letterform designs and consider it to be a bland
attempt of serving several needs at once. That's just my taste. IMHO,
Arial tries to copy many of the same functions as Helvetica yet grab some of
the stylistic cues from Univers and Akzidenz Grotesk.
My primary job is designing large electrical signs and billboard displays.
And this gets into the area on why I hate Arial. The worst imagineable
signage being erected these days commonly has "font murder" via Arial.
Arial is a standard Windows OS font. The worst amateur, hack, wannabe sign
designers are often very lazy and simply grab Arial Bold or Black and just
cram the copy in how ever it can fit. Arial Black looks damned funny when
it is horizontally squeezed to less than 50% of its normal width. Such
people who do this need to "have their crayons taken away."
My comments sound heated in terms of sign design, but though they are angry,
they are well appropriate. Applications like CASmate, FlexiSign Pro and
Gerber's GraphixAdvantage commonly include many well designed fonts licensed
from respectable foundries. So there's little excuse at all for a sign
designer to just grab Arial and squeeze it when he has Compacta or Helvetica
Extra Compressed in his font menu. It is just horrid laziness and it keeps
the outdoor advertising industry from garnering much of any respect in
design circles.
I'm not really all that big a fan of Verdana either, but it does seem to
have a little more of its own "identity" than the anonymous Arial. I would
agree with the judgment that Verdana is not well suited to body copy. But
it can be attractive in some headlines if it is kerned correctly.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
> and hinted in a way that they are legible on screens in all different
sizes
> from, let's say, 9 pixels upwards. Verdana is just the best one. So it is
a
> sign of competence for a web designer to use verdana, specially in small
> sizes.
> Unfortunately, most font authors do not care about hinting. On the other
> hand, the common font utilities do not provide tools for it either.
To be quite honest, it is very unprofitable for a foundry these days to
spend time manually coming up with font bitmaps or even spend a lot of time
on hinting. Heck, it seems tough to find many fonts with an ample number of
well spaced kerning pairs. Certain font managers and even some applications
disregard embedded font bitmaps and just come up with their own stuff based
on the outlines.
But the real killer is how 99.9999999% of all web users are not going to
spend any money on fonts. So the default collections in Netscape and
Internet Explorer are the only things that will be compatible. Most people
who buy fonts do so for purposes of print or other high resolution purposes.
Fonts don't seem to matter much for web purposes.
I suppose IE and NN include more "standard" fonts, then they'll have to be
well hinted to compete with Verdana.
Bobby Henderson
Andreas Höfeld
news:b1m1nj$51n$1...@forums.macromedia.com...
> I, for one, happen to HATE Arial.
Me too ;-) At least printed on paper, which is where Verdana/Tahoma
also makes me sick.
> First, I don't like the letterform designs and consider it to be a bland
> attempt of serving several needs at once. That's just my taste. IMHO,
> Arial tries to copy many of the same functions as Helvetica yet grab some
of
> the stylistic cues from Univers and Akzidenz Grotesk.
Now I don't see what point this makes in reference to bulk text on
screen with stems usually not wider than one pixel.
Armadillo
> > I, for one, happen to HATE Arial.
>
> Me too ;-) At least printed on paper, which is where Verdana/Tahoma
> also makes me sick.
How about using Fontographer (or FontLab) a bit and making a few better
typefaces - you whiners. :-)
Jukka
Bobby Henderson
wrote in message news:b1msj5$s4t$1...@forums.macromedia.com...
Hehe, it depends on the purpose being served.
When it concerns the dislike over Arial or Helvetica, there are many well
established and very well designed grotesk faces available as an
alternative. Same thing goes for Verdana and Tahoma.
And then you have to consider how practical coming up with a "better
alternative" may be. A complete type family to serve as a worthy
alternative to Helvetica, Arial, Univers, etc. would take a monumental
amount of work. That's not to say coming up with an alternative is
impossible. But it is one giant task to plop onto someone's plate,
requiring possibly years of development (especially if you did it on your
own without any help).
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
wrote in message news:b1mjld$8lg$02$4...@news.t-online.com...
> "Bobby Henderson" <arow...@mail.sirinet.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:b1m1nj$51n$1...@forums.macromedia.com...
>
> > I, for one, happen to HATE Arial.
>
> Me too ;-) At least printed on paper, which is where Verdana/Tahoma
> also makes me sick.
>
> > First, I don't like the letterform designs and consider it to be a bland
> > attempt of serving several needs at once. That's just my taste. IMHO,
> > Arial tries to copy many of the same functions as Helvetica yet grab
> > some of the stylistic cues from Univers and Akzidenz Grotesk.
>
> Now I don't see what point this makes in reference to bulk text on
> screen with stems usually not wider than one pixel.
In terms of 10px or 12px type, Verdana does look better. Arial seems to be
a little more plain by comparison. Again, this is my opinion.
But the area where I feel Arial is especially bland is in the areas I most
commonly see it: murdered on large billboard and electrical sign displays.
Arial is not a very good font for large, title making purposes. I can name
lots of other fonts that do a more attractive job --even a font as "plain"
and hated as Helvetica.
Perhaps a more specific judgment on Arial would be that I am "sick of seeing
it." I know others who can't stand Antique Olive anymore simply because
Wal-Mart uses it on their signs. Many people design web pages with CSS and
the common Verdana default because they are just plain tired of seeing Times
New Roman.
Still, I can't stand Arial. I'd rather load up Akzidenz Grotesk BE,
Interstate, Univers or even Helvetica before incorporating Arial into a
large format design.
Bobby Henderson
Bobby Henderson
wrote in message news:b1mifv$aad$1...@forums.macromedia.com...
> I guess I should clarify things. I am producing my first font.
> The font is a casual pointed brush script.My intentions are to
> produce this as a sellable font. Would producing this on
> fontographer be all that i need to make this font or would i
> be better off purchasing fontlab and relearning the software.
One critical factor would be the format you want to use in holding the font
design. Fontographer will do a great job in creating Postscript Type 1 and
True Type faces. If you are on a Mac and using the classic OS 9.x, then you
can use FOG to create Type 1 Multiple Master faces as well. But bear in
mind Type 1 MM fonts cannot be directly installed in Windows XP, unlike
standard Type 1 fonts that are compatible. Adobe plans to phase out the
format.
I think it is a little easier to edit font outlines from within Fontographer
than it is in FontLab. But then I am more used to the Fontographer
interface, which bears a close resemblence to early versions of Illustrator.
It seems to be a pretty standardized approach. FontLab's interface is quite
a bit different.
The thing on the side of FontLab is that it is a product that is still being
maintained and developed. Fontographer's code has remain untouched since
October of 1996 --over six years ago. In that space of time, FontLab has
adopted newer font creation technologies like OpenType.
You might have a better chance of selling a font if it is well crafted and
features an extended OpenType character set. OpenType fonts are cross
platform compatible, which can ease some of the headaches of trading
graphics and page layout files across Mac and PC platforms. Adobe is in the
process of converting its entire type library to OpenType.
Bobby Henderson
Odysseus
>
> Still, I can't stand Arial. I'd rather load up Akzidenz Grotesk BE,
> Interstate, Univers or even Helvetica before incorporating Arial into a
> large format design.
>
<http://www.ms-studio.com/articles.html> ?
It's a must-read for Arial-haters everywhere, explaining why Arial is
so ugly: in short one of the Monotype Grotesque designs was
'shoehorned' into Helvetica's metrics. It seems Monotype thought they
were taking the high ground by resisting the temptation to make yet
another Helvetica clone, but they ended up producing something that's
"neither fish nor fowl".
--Odysseus
Bobby Henderson
Armadillo <jukka.de...@armadillographics.fi>
wrote in message news:b1rdgv$s6$1...@forums.macromedia.com...
>
> > 'shoehorned' into Helvetica's metrics. It seems Monotype
> > thought they
>
> Helvetica sure don't.
Which version of Helvetica are you using? The standard Adobe version? That
one is okay, but not great. Linotype's Helvetica Neue series is pretty
nice. I prefer that over Arial by a great degree.
Bobby Henderson
Armadillo
> 'shoehorned' into Helvetica's metrics. It seems Monotype thought they
Finally a typeface which works with Helvetica metrics because Helvetica sure
don't.
Jukka
Armadillo
> Which version of Helvetica are you using? The standard Adobe version?
That
> one is okay, but not great. Linotype's Helvetica Neue series is pretty
> nice. I prefer that over Arial by a great degree.
Neue is OK but spacing in 'standard' Helvetica is too tight and uneven.
Especially vertical stems have too little space and combinations like 'lik'
or 'lli' look too dark.
Jukka