CompuServe Thread

Richard: You got it! However, I think even that 800 kerning pairs is still not as many as some fonts need. The problem with kerning is that it's pretty much a subjective thing. You might think that an "V" and "a" in a font look fine unkerned but I would find it intolerable. To this end, Mirror Image will be including (hopefully!) a kerning table editor in our next package which will allow you to adjust kerning on-screen (using character outlines of course) and then save that information to any of the file formats that currently contain kerning (PPage .metric, PDraw fonts, AFMs, PFMs, etc.). Since this information is independant of the actual printer fonts and is used only by DTP programs creating documents, it shouldn't create yet another situation like the "my Adobe Garamod printer font is different than the one my output bureau uses and my curly quotes aren't showing up!" one that's popping up due to programs like MetaPro converting Mac Type 1's into IBM Type 1's and scrambling the character names and order and so on (Yeesh!). Anyway… Gary – Mirror Image Prod. (416) 495-7469, via WHAP!

Micheal: Yes, the kerning information for Mac fonts IS hiding in the screen font file (very cleverly hidden, I might add). And of course, it's in the AFM as well. And now there's this .PFB thing for IBM fonts (must look into that…) Gary – Mirror Image Prod. (416) 495-7469, via WHAP!

Gary, Didn't realize that DTPForum doesn't have any AFMs. I think we should all go over and ask for them. 🙂 Malcolm

I'm afraid you are in error about the width information in a Type 1 font. The first entry for a character's outline code (the Type 1 commands "sbw" or "hsbw", which ever the font is using) states the character's width implicitly. "sbw", for example, states the character width in the operator's second argument (the first arguement is the character's left sidebearing). As well, all the ASCII header information (such as Bounding Box, Underline Width & Thickness, etc.) is contained at the top of both AFM and Type 1. All that remains is the kerning information, which is what the Type 1 does NOT contain. Currently, the only places I know of to get the kerning information for a font are: a) from within Mac screen fonts (this information of course, pertains to the Mac character set only), b) from (I think) .PFM files, which probably pertains to IBM fonts only, and c) from AFM files, which pertain to all fonts, across all systems or should, anyway, since that was how they were designed). I guess you can get the kerning info from our MIfont-converted .metric files or our MIoutline-converted PDraw fonts too, if you wanted… 🙂 You're right about the slipping of standards: it's getting not only confusing but kind of depressing. Maybe I should have gone into selling used cars like my Mom wanted! 🙂

Neil: Alot of people (mostly professional typographers and typeface designers) will simply laugh if you mention DTP. One reason is the kerning pair problem I was mentioning earlier. Another is the fact that people will output to laser and tell you "this is the finished art; what do you think?" (When I used to work for a large printing firm here in Toronto, I had a customer come in with a line of type and tell me that it was the art I was to reproduce. I said it looked like a photocopy. He said "Oh no, it's a LASER PRINT!" and I said, "I don't care if it was hand lettered by monks; it LOOKS like a photocopy! Get me some real art!"). And of course, the worst thing about desktop is that it places the tools for creating professional artwork into the hands of people who are not necessarily prepared to use them, much like inexpensive music equipment has caused a glut a fairly terrible music. It's not that I think this stuff should be the exclusive domain of professionals; it's that I think that too much incompetant product will result in a lowering of standards to the point where no one will KNOW what quality is. Just take a look at many modern publications where the word spacing on justified columns results in huge gaps between words on one line and very little on the next. And line after line of hyphenated breaks. And shoddy kerning. Not to mention pages with a half dozen fonts or more ("They were there so I used 'em!"). All these things are so prevelant, that after a time, no one will realize they're bad form. I'm ranting. You get the point…

Neil … personally, I never did like TeX … it was just too cumbersome. I used to edit/set a magazine which I took great pride in … I spent many happy hours making sure that the pages looked good … I tried to ensure that hyphenation was not overdone, that widows and orphans were not hanging around looking clumsy, that rivers were avoided and that the balance of the pages looked just right. I am certainly no type-setting pro, and found that Professional Page was just perfect to allow me to do the little tweaks to achieve my goal (which, in the end, received many accolades from some professionals who I greatl respected!). I a _minor_ adjustment to tracking, or a little manual intervention in kerning didn't pull that final two letter word back into the paragraph, then a quick recast of a sentence here or there was performed. The results were there on screen almost instantly. I tried PageStream and TeX at various points of my work, and found neither gave me the rapid feedback I demanded. I was also very unhappy with the way that PageStream would distribute white-space and I seemed to be forever trying to lose ugly rivers down the columns. PageStream is also so _very_ slow compared with ProPage, that I couldn't (and still can't) bear to use it except for very small things. TeX, on the other hand, produced very nice output (provided I didn't use Computer Modern, which is a type-face I personally detest) … but was _so_ cumbersome to use. It does have a place, and I can understand how many people like to use it … but I really don't want the "system" to get in the way of what I'm trying to do and the idea of having to embed strange commands and macros in my text seems very alien to me. However, I _would_ use TeX if I needed to set something small, but intricate, and then import it into ProPage … just as, if I wanted to use an unusual type-face, I might pop into PageStream. I would certainly agree that what is appearing in print in many places nowadays is [ MORE ]

[ continuation ] very shoddy … but it is not PStream, ProPage or TeX that are to blame .. it is the lack of training in the user. We now have professional tools in the amateurs' hands, and they do not have the skills to use it. You put a $2000 Hasselbad in the hands of a snap-shotter and all you will get are snapshots … put a cheap compact camera in the hands of a good photographer and you will get great photos. Give a self-taught, one-finger-at-a-time keyboard player a keyboard and a sequencer and you will get multi-layered one-finger-at-a-time music (just listen to all that garbage that is around!) Mike (Whapping from the UK)

Gary, -> [font piracy] That's what Adobe gets for charging $50 bucks a pop Recognize that the font companies (and traditional typesetters) consider $50 to be a steal! I met with a bunch of DTPForum folks last fall during MacWorld. Kathleen Tinkel made the point that one used to have to buy a box of lead when one bought a font and it cost a lot more than $50. And it was one face, one size, one style. If you wanted italics, you had to buy another box of lead. The decreased revenue and the spectre of font piracy are serious concerns for the font companies. You and I know that font designers can spend a vast amount of time on a face but I don't think that a lot of hobbyist users realize that. Font designers are artists with a lot of expertise and I want them to reap the rewards of their work, just as a want to benefit from my own. Personally, I don't think fonts are too expensive or that the arrangement we have now is a bad thing; i.e. available screen fonts with the printer fonts at SBs. In many ways, it's much better – your comments about lowered standards notwithstanding. I'm much more concerned about paper than about fonts. Malcolm

Well, I need the outlines to proof on my laser. I have to modem my files to the service bureau, so I can't afford to make a mistake in the finished version. Then again, I work for a company selling 600 Type 1 fonts. 🙂 FON files are Windows screen fonts. You think if they were going to call the AFM files PFM, then they would have called the screen fonts something like WXB to be consistent. 🙂 There is only one FON file per font, I believe. SL

Gary, " . . . I've got 1000 Adobe screen fonts on my poor old 2000 that I can use any time with PPage . . .All it costs is a buck . . . to proof it at my output service (who have the printer fonts). And I get to choose the whole library . . . Yes. Agreed. But _someone_ (a service bureau) has to buy the printer fonts. AND you have bit maps (screen fonts) available only for small sizes. The inability to use the fonts in large sizes in smooth outline form is _very_ limiting. Besides which, there is a very hard rule of graphic design which states that the need for a specific type face (in display sizes, natch) is inversely proportional to the chance that you have that typeface in your posession (sic).