In that respect, the FontStudio hints representation, thanks to a sober use of colors, is remarkable. Still more remarkable is maybe FontLab (see Figure 19; about the advanced editing of the" hints ", Figure 20; about the checking of the character, Figure 21). Not only the two controlled points are connected by the hint line, different color according to whether the stem is vertical or horizontal, but limits of the "stems" are marked by a line with the same color, but in a sober manner. Note also alignment zones in blue clear.
 |
In the Figure 19 (FontLab 2.5), you can observe that the stems controlling curve parts of the uppercase B overlap.
 |
The Figure 20 (advanced editing of" hints "in FontLab 2.5) shows how FontLab edits as well the "hint replacement" (The N on green background), the "alignment zones" (the "BlueValues" in blue clear, and the "OtherBlues" in deeper blue; see, about that, Adobe Type 1 format specification). Note also that FontLab implement the "flex" technique (appropriated to fonts like Garamond or Palatino).
 |
FontLab can check a character and indicate possible defects, represented by a red arrow on yellow background. In the Figure 21, the uppercase B has three defects: the inferior arrow indicates that the tangent is not horizontal (see, about that constraint, Adobe specification), the two others signal that the right limit of the "stem" coincides exactly with points that the "hint" would have to control. It suffices to click on these arrows in order that FontLab displays a message that specify the defect.
 |
Fontographer is on the other hand not very adapted to custom encodings. Type-Designer allows to create custom encodings, and to save them into encoding files. In fact, Fontographer allows, with a normal use of the software, to customize the encoding only for the current edited font. The encoding can not however be saved, and loaded for an other font.
There is however, on Macintosh, a way to skirt the difficulty, that is explained in the help file "4.1ÊAddendum.dp" delivered with the software. We will not indicate here the details of this method. Remember only that you will modify 'STR#' resources of the software, for example with the help of ResEdit! Simpler surely would be better. Note also that updates proposed by Macromedia on the web will not work with a modified version of the software.Some besides, if you don't use only standard encodings, you can encounter difficulties, minor indeed, by using the software.
We signal rapidly, in Fontographer metric data handling, the automatic calculation, that can however be set, of spacings and kerning pairs, the remarkable facilities brought by the metric assistance, that allows to link characters, in order that metric modifications of one character entails proportional or identical modifications for the other characters of the even group that the user will have defined. But it will not always perfectly work: see below.
All these assistance windows aren't however as useful as the intuitive metric window, that allows to visualize not only isolated characters or pairs, but also of words or strings. Metric data (spacings and kerning pairs) can be very easily modified. The user moves the displayed characters, or changes numeral data indicated at bottom. The result appears immediately in characters, words or strings that you will have chosen in order to display them.
See Figure 22: it suffices to click on a character to select it, in order that appear three lines which represent the left border (L), the kerning (K) and the right border (R), that you can move to modify the corresponding data. You can of course also type directly exact values.
 |
Note also the precious possibility to export or import text files, that contain data, according to Fontographer own syntax (the software recognizes of course also *.AFM and *.PFM files), containing either spacings or kerning pairs or a list of words that one wishes to see in the metric window.
Fontographer has several bugs in the metric data handling, if the most usual options aren't accepted. Remember that the automatic creation of spacings or kerning pairs can be set. Thus, Fontographer can handle all characters, or you can indicate the number or kerning pairs you want to create at the most, or specify which characters have to be kerned. In this last case, Fontographer proposes default parameters: characters 0-9, A-Z, a-z. It is surely the best choice. If you don't that, it is desirable that you import a text file with the list of kerning pairs you want to consider, in order to avoid unpredictable results. The use of custom encodings (or even, in general, an encoding that doesn't correspond to the encoding of the current operating system, for instance Macintosh or Windows) can entail some surprises in the metric assistance. You would do better to create yourself text files that respect Fontographer own syntax, and to import them. When one loads a list of words, Fontographer consider first, for character indentification, the name (example: "ampersand"), or, if the character is not found, the decimal code (c38). But there are confusions: on Macintosh, in the case of a Greek font, for example, whose mu character has decimal code c109 (namely m own code in standard encodings), the metric window will display effectively a mu when the imported text file will contain a character c109,... and again a mu with the character c181 (namely the mu character in the Macintosh encoding). Why doesn't Fontographer only consider for instance the decimal code, and not the character name? What would have been a better solution.
In general, Fontographer imposes some constraints, that can be disagreeable.You have therefore to observe these steps for the font creation:
On that head, Type-Designer can not however be considered as superior to Fontographer. Type-Designer can not have these bugs, because Type-Designer ignores many features among those ones that are buggy in Fontographer. Fontographer seems therefore to be the best software in font metrics.
We have insisted on advantages of Type-Designer, a little more than on Fontographer ones. Several reports are sometimes unjust to Fontographer (see for example Kendrick Digital Typography, namely Laurence Penney, TrueType Typography, http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/, or in a few press-cuttings you can read in text files included in the Type-Designer demo package, namely an article on PC Magazine). However most of computer magazines for the general public know only Fontographer among the font editors.
Let us therefore speak about Type-Designer defects. With this software, it isn't really possible to create, whatever you can read in the manual, composite characters. Each part has to be redefined (and doesn't merely refer to a basis character), what is easy to do by copying and pasting (but Type-Designer can't copy only a reference, unlike FontStudio, Fontographer and FontLab). That entails differences after rasterization in nevertheless identical character parts, and a useless memory waste during the font loading.
Type-Designer emphasizes sometimes contrasts, in fonts with high contrast, what can be very disagreeable by displaying, and entails a coexistence, in smaller sizes, of one pixel and two pixels lines. While Type-Designer thickens rather horizontal and vertical lines, Fontographer emphasizes rather diagonals, as if the software tries to avoid pixels that would touch only by their corner. The effect is not always very good, but the disadvantage is lesser.
In the dialog box InfoFonte, Type-Designer has an option that would increase the weight even in smaller sizes. Similarly, among the parameters, it is possible to define the thickness of principal stems. But all that does not seem to be very efficient for TrueType fonts. In smaller sizes (for example 12), it is not then possible to distinguish bold and normal styles of the same font. On the contrary, Fontographer proposes several rasterization options ("dropout prevention"), during the TrueType file generation. Moreover, in Fontographer, the boldface can easily be distinguished from the normal style, when indeed are been created both styles (the weight that adds automatically the rasterizer of the operating system, when the font contains only one variant, has not obviously to be considered). On the other hand, with Type-Designer, a serif controlled by a "hint" is always a visible serif on the screen, what isn't unfortunately always the case with Fontographer. With this last software, it is also often difficult to realize the alignment of the inferior character part for the v and the w, despite "hints" and alignment zones.
As for Type 1 fonts, Type-Designer knows the "hint replacement", but ignores, contrarily to Fontographer, the "flex" technique (that allow to suppress, in smaller sizes where such a nuance can not be correctly rendered, the incurvation of serifs in fonts like Garamond or Palatino), as well as (to see supra) composite characters.
All in all, Fontographer is a complete solution superior to Type-Designer, what is nevertheless normal, if you consider the price difference. Fontographer is (what is surely important in font creation) an excellent outline drawing software. Moreover, since Altsys was bought by Macromedia, Fontographer benefits by Freehand experience. It is really an advantage, but also maybe a disadvantage.
In that respect, no doubt that Fontographer and Type-Designer are in a way alike. Their destiny seems linked to an other more important software. It is indubitable that for Macromedia, Freehand counts far more than Fontographer. It's a long time since people are waiting for "Fog5". Rumor had it that Fontographer will stop. It has been denied. However Macromedia is very discrete about the future of Fontographer. Moreover what means the recent appearance of RoboFog, created outside Macromedia, but with the agreement of this last, with the code of Fontographer 3.5? In short, we hope Fontographer will do important changes in the next versions, relating to the font file generation itself, and not only add a few outline drawing features of Freehand.
Similarly, Type-Designer, in many ways, look like FontLab, with which however it can not rival. The two softwares confine themselves to the PC world. They take both a great care of the Type 1 files generation, but FontLab has got a great advantage over Type-Designer. The Macintosh version of FontLab 3.0, that had been sometime announced, seems now very doubtful. The agreement concluded by Pyrus and DTP Software, for the distribution of their current softwares as well as for the development of the next softwares, show well the difference between respective pretensions of Type-Designer and FontLab.
The great problem for typographers, when they have to choose among font editors, is that those softwares, except a few tools that are not complete solutions, contrarily for instance to html editors, destroy data that they don't recognize. Fontographer and Type-Designer, that have both great features, but not the same, can not therefore be complementary. It is necessary therefore to have a flawless software.
Pyrus maybe announces, with FontLab 3.0, such a software. The problem is that one can read since six month on Pyrus site "FontLab 3.0 coming soon!" However, the day when this software appear, it will still be a superb software for Type 1 fonts that it was already in the version 2.5, and will be, finally, the first great native TrueType fonts editor. It is however a pity that the simplest drawings can not be realized with the same facility than with Fontographer. What will count FontLab 3.0 "Vector Painting tools" ("as easy to use as a paint program", says DTP Software, http://www.dtpsoft.de/flvpe.htm)? But thanks to its global effects, macros language, and also the assistance to the typographer precise work, FontLab, already in its version 2.5, is absolutely remarkable.