ADOBE, WHAT HAPPENED? OTs released without OSFs

[mondoB]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

If you are interested in buying Font Folio, Adobe's complete OpenType library on CD, reading the on-site sales copy might lead you to conclude that, aside from higher tech quality, a new order of glyph options, especially easy access to oldstyle figures, is promised *across the board* in this expensive product. But customers found out otherwise--the hard way. Many fonts/families did indeed sport complete new glyphs and oldstyle figures, but others had only limited glyphs without oldstyle figures, and quite a few offered only the Euro symbol as the new element.

Let's have a moment of silence for glyphs missing in: Mendoza, Giovanni, Galliard, Bell, Berkeley Oldstyle, Esprit, Ehrhardt, Goudy Modern, Guardi, Hadriano, Horley Oldstyle, Italian Oldstyle, Legacy Serif, Minister, Photina, Plantin, Raleigh, Stone Serif, Veljovic, Versailles, Wilke. That's just serif text families; I didn't count the sans text families.

Whatever the reasons, surely it is in Adobe's interest to qualify their sales copy for this product so customers can buy with their eyes open. Because it's difficult to research glyph schedules for over 2,200 fonts, can you specify, in one place, which fonts/families have complete glyphs, which have limited glyphs, and which have only the Euro symbol?

[Bert Vanderveen]

Aren't all those licensed typefaces? In that case your rant should be adressed at Linotype and Monotype and ITC (all under one hood now, as it is).

As far as I know all Adobe Originals OTFs have extensive glyph-sets.

[muzzer]

Mondo mate have you ever even attempted to make a bloody typefacw? I doubt it. It is a bproblem when you get big players like adobe cos all they ever seem to do is suck the whiner s out of the woodowork like maggots. When you spit the dummy about stupid shit like this then you make me spit the dummy!!!

Muzz

[Tim Ahrens]

As I've heard they have only just started planting the trees for the oldstyle figures to grow on.

[mondoB]

"...your rant should be addressed at Linotype and Monotype and ITC."

Monotype and ITC are actually stepping in to fulfill OpenType's potential by converting their type one faces to OT with complete glyph sets. They're part of the solution.

[John Nolan]

I'm pretty sure the presence of osfs has to do with what Adobe had licences for.

Many Adobe fonts do have all the goodies, including some Monotype fonts like Bulmer, Dante and Fournier. It seems if Adobe had the osfs available in their library, they were added.

I note that Adobes' EULA is more liberal than many, and it may be that it was difficult to come to an agreement with the other foundries.

[TBiddy]

I like Adobe, but I have to admit...not including OSF in an OpenType font package is a pretty wicked surprise.

[dan_reynolds]

I think that it is easy to overlook the real, basic beniefits of OpenType fonts. For large foundries, the best thing OT fonts have going for them is their cross-platform compatability. Instead of having the worry about 20,000 fonts, because you have every font in Mac and PC versions, or even worse 40,000 fonts, because you have Mac PS, Mac TT, PC PS, and PC TT, you just have 10,000 OT fonts. And these 10,00 work everywhere (that supports OT…)

Aside from this, OpenType can include lots of other benefits, like typographic features or support for more languages. But a font is still a "real" OpenType font, even if it has neither of them.

There are really already two generations of OT-fonts at most larger foundries. The first generation was just a conversion… cut down on cross-platform issues. The second generation is where the features and the languages came in. Many smaller foundries didn't even come to the OT table until generation 2. Generation 2 fonts are better, without a doubt, but they take time to make. They'll be there, don't worry. Even if all of them aren't there yet.

[crossgrove]

OpenType is a technical standard; it doesn't specify what characters must be present. It's something of a marketing issue: you can't tell by the name 'OpenType' whether the font will have 256 characters or 3400. "Pro" is usually a good indicator there's more included, but foundries should provide showings of the specific character set of a particular design. Otherwise there's no guarantee of small caps or anything else. Producing OpenType Pro (or other advanced, enhanced OT fonts) is much more labor-intensive than simply converting the format of an existing PS or TT font. Check the character set before you buy, and look for a specific designation like "Pro".

[Christopher Slye]

The licensed (non-Adobe) OpenType fonts in the Adobe Type Library are all produced from the Type 1 versions which preceded them. If you look at a pre-OpenType catalog of the ATL, you'll see that whatever was or wasn't present there is the same for the OpenType versions. Of course we took all the supplemental fonts we had and combined them into a single OTF and made the alternates accessible through layout features as best we could. It was, essentially, a conversion project.

So yes, the OpenType versions of these fonts were not expanded, but neither were they reduced or limited. Licensing issues aside, I assure you we had our hands full expanding the Adobe Originals.

As for why the various expert glyphs (oldstyle figures, smallcaps) weren't available in the first place, that is probably a licensing issue in most cases, and such things are not trivial. That's some history I don't know much about, but maybe Thomas or someone else might have more to say about it.

Thanks for being so obnoxious. We really don't get much of that on the Internet and it is just so refreshing and enjoyable.

[dezcom]

"Thanks for being so obnoxious. We really don’t get much of that on the Internet and it is just so refreshing and enjoyable."

LOL!!! :-)

ChrisL

[Miguel Sousa]

Eheh, it's interesting to see how Adobe has helped raised the typographic bar so much, that now people take all the typographic niceties* for granted in every font :^)

* Small Caps, superiors, inferiors, ligatures, oldstyle figures, alternates, and the list goes on...

[mondoB]

The complaint here is valid; let's talk remedies.

[crossgrove]

John,

Refuge from what? Could it be your thread title? Chris has shared useful information, as have others. If you have a product request, frame it as such. If you want to influence Adobe's actions, I would try a different tone.

[mondoB]

"If you have a product request, frame it as such."

See above.

[Christopher Slye]

It's far more complicated that simply "retrieving" old style figures. The font data you're talking about are owned by someone else, and are not presently (and have never been) part of any licensing agreement with Adobe. It is far from trivial to negotiate such things. Sometime it is not possible. Remember, Adobe and Monotype have their respective businesses to run, and there are perfectly legitimate business reasons why you might never see this material in a font sold by Adobe. I don't know where you got the idea that the supplements for Plantin, et al., are so easily available to Adobe. That's simply not true.

It is even more fantastic to suggest Adobe commission such additions. We are not at liberty to create and sell additions to a typeface we're licensing from another foundry any more than, say, Monotype is at liberty to commission and sell additions for Minion.

I read Chris' post with interest, but it did not seem to answer anything or exhibit much concern. Perhaps that's why we rant.

Amazing. You post a simplistic, insulting message and complain about the quality of the response you get.

[Si_Daniels]

"Amazing"

No, the word is "Trolltastic" :-)

[dezcom]

What I find amazing is the restraint by Christopher in his replies. He remained a gentleman and proceded to be helpful even though the opening volley question from MondoB (and all his others) were insulting and untrue. Christopher should be applauded.

ChrisL

[mondoB]

"You...complain about the quality of the response you get."

Of course I do. Aside from gains in tech quality, one of the key selling points for buying OpenType is that the user's favorite glyphs, which in type one format were placed in expert fonts, will now be accessed more easily if the customer re-buys their favorites in this new format. And then, by my count, 21 serif families fail to deliver that key glyph option, and the user is left in the dark as to why. Monotype Bembo and Dante get full glyph coverage by Adobe in OT, while Bell, Photina, Plantin and others do not. Same company; what's the problem? These are not small discrepancies, but a glaring industrial problem, and I want typophiles to be aware of it in its true scale. With 435 reads the first day, this rant post serves that useful function.

Bringing about completions through collaboration is not a fantasy but rather a business opportunity not to be scoffed at. Take, for instance, Guardi, designed by Reinhard Haus of Linotype in 1986 before oldstyle figures became as prominent as they are now. This stylish Venetian face would get a completely new lease on life, in coordinated OT release, by being completed with OSFs and other glyphs in partnership with the licensor. Would the original designer and Linotype simply say no to that? We would love some answers, but more important, we would love creative, collaborative action to bring full glyphs to every text family where it is possible, particularly when each remedy means a fresh opportunity to sell. You feel insulted...what about the Adobe customers who still want to roll out Plantin with loaded OSFs?

[John Nolan]

For Plantin Pro see:
http://www.fonts.com/findfonts/detail.htm?pid=433209

and

http://www.fonts.com/findfonts/detail.htm?pid=433194

[paul d hunt]

and the user is left in the dark about it.

i don't think this is true. i believe adobe and many reseller sites enumerate which features are available in which fonts. it take doing your homework to see if the options you want are available, but i think this is going to be inevitable with new OpenType Pro fonts: you have to check the list of ingredients.
now on another note. John, i think we've all gotten your memo about the importance of OSFs. can you stop harping on it for a while? it's kind of like listening to a one-note piano concerto.

[mondoB]

Thanks John Nolan...exactly what I mean...those who bought the Adobe OT library thinking they would get Plantin with OSFs discovered they have now to RE-BUY elsewhere to get the complete glyph coverage they thought Adobe would offer as a matter of course. Older example: Stone Serif, released thru both Adobe and ITC in the early 90s...ITC offered OSFs for it years ago, but when Adobe converted Stone Serif to OT, OSFs were still missing. Why?

The status quo is hardly in Adobe's interest. Competitors are now plugging the gaps in their library for them. Why buy Adobe's incomplete Plantin (or others) when Monotype or ITC offer complete versions?

[k.l.]

Why buy Adobe’s incomplete Plantin

Adobe's Plantin?
I think Mr Slye made it clear that Adobe's library consists of different typefaces from different sources. Adobe is originator of some, but kind of distributor of others.* (I hope this is plain enough yet still not too far from the truth.)
When complaining about "Adobe's" "incomplete" OT fonts, please remember that other foundries/resellers, including LT, MT and ITC, came out with their first OT fonts very late; MT and ITC were the last ones if I remember correctly. So there's a certain irony to it if you put all blame on Adobe ...

Indeed it is wise to compare different versions before licensing a particular one, or to find out which foundry is the originator of a typeface because they may offer the most complete family or latest version or whatever else. At least this is what I do.

[Miguel Sousa]

@ John Stahle (a.k.a. mondoB)

How many times it needs to be said that ADOBE DOES _NOT_ HAVE THE LICENSE/AUTHORIZATION TO INCLUDE ANY ADDITIONAL GLYPHS IN THE FONTS YOU'VE MENTIONED.

[mondoB]

We know that, Miguel...instead of waiting for licensors to update their faces at their own pace, Adobe could collaborate to complete glyphs on a typeface, then market the result jointly, exactly as two opera houses might co-produce an opera. So if Guardi, languishing with only lining figures, becomes Guardi Pro with OSFs and other glyphs, it might attract new well-merited attention it never got before.

We're also raising the far more intriguing possibility of concerted action, across the industry, whereby every font released in OT by anybody has uniformly complete glyph coverage as a new industrial standard of benefit to everyone. That way, stubborn holdouts like Monotype's Horley Oldstyle might find new popularity when given complete glyphs, esp the OSFs implied in the name.

But in the meantime, smart shoppers, as KL mentions, can find what they want elsewhere--Monotype's complete OT version of Plantin is sold on their site right alongside Adobe's incomplete version, which of course is also acquired from Monotype. And yes, they distinguish each by its "source" exactly that way: in their view, it IS "Adobe's Plantin."

Well, we've had a lovely visit to the Adobe suggestion box...my sincere thanks to Typophile for letting me air my heretical views in some detail...everybody, enjoy your holiday bird--served with oldstyle figures!!