Apple font tools updated

[ktinkel]

Apple has updated some of its tools (most of them command-line) for working with font files. Some of these are highly technical, but others can be used by serious amateurs.

They also provide a quick-reference guide, a manual, tutorial, and tutorial examples to support these arcane programs.

For Text & Font Tools (http://developer.apple.com/textfonts/Fonttools/Index.html) for Macs, this is the place.

[Howard White]

They also provide a quick-reference guide, a manual, tutorial, and tutorial examples to support these arcane programs.

Odd font in the manual. What is it (out of idlest curiosity)?

HW

[ktinkel]

Odd font in the manual. What is it (out of idlest curiosity)?Cochin. The version included with Mac OS X, pretty sure.

Just for fun, I set some of the funny letters and words in that file and show them in the attachment.

[iamback]

Cochin. The version included with Mac OS X, pretty sure.

Just for fun, I set some of the funny letters and words in that file and show them in the attachment.That (lowercase) j is really weird, with its serif lower than that of the neighboring u. The curve of the s makes it seem to "lean backwards" - the total effect (at least in these few words) is curiously unbalanced. I wonder how it behaves in body text - I suspect it might look rather "busy".

[ktinkel]

That (lowercase) j is really weird, with its serif lower than that of the neighboring u. The curve of the s makes it seem to "lean backwards" - the total effect (at least in these few words) is curiously unbalanced. I wonder how it behaves in body text - I suspect it might look rather "busy".Take a look at the document attached to Howard’s message — one of your favorites, a one-page PDF with no particular formatting! But you will see how it works in text.

Cochin is a French face, quirky and stylish. Usually seen in French menus and restaurant cards, music programs, ads, pseudo-formal invites from corporations, that sort of things. Actually quite charming, but not too useful.

[iamback]

Actually quite charming, but not too useful.Worse than I thought. ;) Looks like it's never heard of a baseline, letters jumping all about... definitely quirky but I can't imagine it as even half-formal.

[ktinkel]

Worse than I thought. ;) Looks like it's never heard of a baseline, letters jumping all about... definitely quirky but I can't imagine it as even half-formal.You have a seriously orderly mind. :)

[iamback]

You have a seriously orderly mind. :)<chuckle/> Most parts of it are... others try to compensate and sometimes threaten to win.

[Howard White]

Worse than I thought. ;) Looks like it's never heard of a baseline, letters jumping all about... definitely quirky but I can't imagine it as even half-formal.

Well, here are four Cochins. I drew in some baselines. Odd to see what glyphs go below or slightly above; also odd x-heights.

It seems an odd face for a technical manual, even one about fonts.

HW

[donmcc]

I see the odd baseline problems too, when looking at the PDF at 100%. When you look at it enlarged, then it is clear that this is a screen thing due to low resolution.

I also noticed Cochin used in TV/movie titles a lot a few years back. The italic d is very distinctive, and seemed to be everywhere for a few years.

[iamback]

I see the odd baseline problems too, when looking at the PDF at 100%. When you look at it enlarged, then it is clear that this is a screen thing due to low resolution.I looked at it at 200% - my default of 125% is too fuzzy to read. And at 200% the baseline problems are quite evident to me - in some cases three consecutive letters "moving up" from below the (assumed) baseline to above it... Too tiring to read more than a few sentences.

I thought a major point of a serif font was that the serifs form an imaginary horizontal line improving legibility by guiding the eye along the line. This font seems to make a joke of that by making sure the serifs don't line up.

[ktinkel]

I. . . letters "moving up" from below the (assumed) baseline to above it.I have specimens of Cochin at several sizes, and have used it: it does not have a bouncing baseline. The italics, though eccentric, also sit upon the baseline. But it has extremely curvaceous round characters, and they do violate the baseline occasionally. And some letters (the b, for example) do not have a left baseline serif, so it appears to sit above the baseline. This face is very curvy compared to most regular text faces. Add to that the heavy horizontals on some of the caps, E especially — these make the eye very aware of the baseline. (See the attachment.)

I thought a major point of a serif font was that the serifs form an imaginary horizontal line improving legibility by guiding the eye along the line.That is but one theory about how serifs arose, and it does work that way in some faces, but not all by any means.

[donmcc]

Try it at 400%. That is the size that relates to good 300 dpi printing. Looks pretty good there. I realized that the 125% size that came up as default when I opened the file was where the bouncing baselines really looked bad. It must be a rendering problem.

At the least this has shown me that Cochin will have to join Optima and a few other fonts in the "only for print, not web" category.

[iamback]

I have specimens of Cochin at several sizes, and have used it: it does not have a bouncing baseline. The italics, though eccentric, also sit upon the baseline. But it has extremely curvaceous round characters, and they do violate the baseline occasionally. And some letters (the b, for example) do not have a left baseline serif, so it appears to sit above the baseline. This face is very curvy compared to most regular text faces. Add to that the heavy horizontals on some of the caps, E especially — these make the eye very aware of the baseline. (See the attachment.)See my attachments: the first shows a bit of text with visually clearly bouncing baseline, the second much different and better aligned. The only difference is that the first was rendered at 200% (usually already too large to be able to read a document without considerable horizontal scrolling), the second at 400%. And I didn't even look at any italics. Having to print an online document or blow it up to 400% in order to (maybe) get some legible text is just one of the reasons why I hate PDF for that: either it's too tiring to read (fuzzy and -in this case- not properly aligned) or I need to spend a lot of time scrolling and miss overview, or I need to waste paper. (I only print stuff that I need for an archive (say an online order) or to take with me away from the computer.)
Edit:The difference is even evident in the thumbnails!

No such problems with HTML - browsers do a much better job of rendering text clearly than Acrobat Reader, it seems.

That is but one theory about how serifs arose, and it does work that way in some faces, but not all by any means.I wasn't referring to how serifs arose but how they work to aid legibility - it's not how they arose but why they persisted.

[iamback]

Try it at 400%. That is the size that relates to good 300 dpi printing. Looks pretty good there. I realized that the 125% size that came up as default when I opened the file was where the bouncing baselines really looked bad. It must be a rendering problem.Clearly. But 400% is not an option for reading online documents.

[ktinkel]

browsers do a much better job of rendering text clearly than Acrobat Reader, it seems.Seems so. Or maybe that PDF was not well made somehow.

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

Are you talking about the face Cochin or the even quirkier face Nicholas Cochin? Neither seems to wander above or below the baseline when viewed on the Linotype site (the Adobe site was down at the time I was viewing. The real test is how they look when printed on paper, but I haven't got either font to see. When Cochin first came out, the italic must have made a beautiful ink trap, which wouldn't have encouraged its use.

[fhaber]

I'm with Marjolein here. On PC, and especially at odd magnifications like 139 and 171%, I haven't seen a more snaggletooth font since a case of Davy's New Yorker Caslon fell off the top of the Conde' Nast building. Or am I just hallucinating that font (g).

Embedded fonts aren't supposed to DO that in Acrobat.

[ktinkel]

Embedded fonts aren't supposed to DO that in Acrobat.Seems odd to me, too. Wonder what those Apple software guys used to make the PDF — some Apple hack? <g>

How do the samples I attached to one of those messages — also snaggly? (Not PDFs, of course.)

[Michael Rowley]

KT:

Wonder what those Apple software guys used to make the PDF — some Apple hack?

I shouldn't venture to comment on an Apple program, but Adobe Reader tells me that the 'producer' was 'Mac OS X 10.4.6 Quartz PDFContent'; the 'application' was Word [presumably Word 2004 (for the Mac)].

Perhaps they couldn't afford Adobe Acrobat. The fonts, incidentally, are all TTF, embedded, or supposed to be.

[iamback]

Seems odd to me, too. Wonder what those Apple software guys used to make the PDF — some Apple hack? <g>

How do the samples I attached to one of those messages — also snaggly? (Not PDFs, of course.)Not here, when I look at them. It seems the problem is exactly with PDFs - illustrating the fuzzyness I've been referring to before, but the jumpiness making it a whole lot worse. What I can't tell is is that's a function of the PDF-making process, or of the font (made for printing, not PDF? not good for small sizes?), or the combination of font and PDF-making process. Something's out of whack more seriously than with most PDFs (though many are fuzzy - at least on-screen).