fonts April 2012

fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org

4 participants
3 discussions

Re: feature proposal for handwriting font realism
by Nick Levinson 22 Apr '12

22 Apr '12

Metrics are not critical to the programming, because the event of auto-assigning would happen only once to a character at a given position in a string and that assignment would not change unless the graphic designer either did so manually or reapplied the whole process. Metrics could be permitted to vary because a graphic designer would likely look at the result (with any character widths, any heights including ascenders and descenders, any variations in x-height, any amount of openness of loops, and so on) and adjust as appropriate by changing glyph assignments or by other means, just as they might adjust leading now, and just as a secretary checks that a memo isn't one page plus only one word on page 2. Someone could design a multiglyph font in which all glyphs for a given Unicode code point would have, say, the same character width and the font marketer could promote the convenience of consistency, but I doubt that that's important even as a perceived selling point. This is not like my spreadsheet with a randomizing function such that whenever I open the spreadsheet it generates new numbers. Instead, a user would command auto-assigning of glyphs to selected text or to input but, by default, once assigned no more auto-assigning would occur, and then the user would inspect for aesthetics, fit, and any other criteria, confident that it wouldn't change unless the user wants to change it. Print would be the main purpose, although the display system should make a reasonable effort at WYSIWYG accuracy of the assigned glyphs, just as displays now distinguish between Garamond and Times even though the distinctions are more precise in print. Definitionally, I assume print includes things like movies shown in theatres or on big-screen TVs, since just the scale of those displays allow more accuracy of rendering. I don't know enough to suggest how to design this within FreeType or Fontconfig or both or neither.

1 0

feature proposal for handwriting font realism
by Nick Levinson 21 Apr '12

21 Apr '12

Many advertisements have headlines in script fonts in which a given character is identical throughout the document. Real handwriting, however, has slight variations between "e" and "e" or between "n" and "n", for example. Try it yourself, especially by writing at your normal speed, not slower or more meticulously than usually. Less frequent uses include mimicking stone-cut fonts. But this realism of variation disappears in computer graphics. One could change text to several similar fonts, but most of us don't install several scripts that are graphically coordinated as if they're from the same hand, if such fonts even exist. Character-by-character substitution would be laborious anyway. Bitmap art programs are a kludge at most, largely impracticable. The solution I propose is automatic font-swapping within a subset of fonts. A user would designate several fonts as being mutually swappable by the running executable. The principal functionality could be performable mostly by the operating system at an application's call commanded by the user. Text, either selected or during input, would be manually assigned one set of fonts, the same way a user normally selects a single font. Each character in the selection or input stream would then be automatically assigned a font from that mutually-swappable set, a font swapset. Size and style would be unaffected, although size could be reconsidered for an enhancement, because an approximately ten-percent size variation is likely to be more realistic than pure consistency. The sequence of auto-assignment of fonts and the first-character assignment would default to random, with saving of the document preserving assignments as with traditional fonts. Alternatively, the user could specify a sequence. In a hypothetical list of three fonts, specifying 1,2,3,2,2 would cause the second font to be auto-assigned to 60 percent of the characters. All characters would be affected in a simpler implementation, but better would be to assign to whitespace and control characters whichever font the prior nonwhitespace graphical character had, with an arbitrary assignment to the first character if it's whitespace or nongraphical. Since the same or similar glyphs are what human viewers are most sensitive to on this issue, it would be better to override the sequence when the same or a similar glyph is next encountered. That could be done by applying a clone of the sequence. Thus, for the sequence 1,2,3 and the string she said he said the assignments (ignoring whitespace [in between]) would be 123 2123 12 3231 not 123 1231 23 1231 The former is better because each "s" would be unique and so would each "h", each "e", each "a", each "i", and each "d". Glyph similarity with nonidenticality would be specified by the user with a default specification offered for each alphabet or glyph set. A specification could be in a text file line with spaces as separators (e.g., in part, "LEF Il1 bh ij mn bp vw O0 RPp Ss cou GCOU"), as user-editable. Most of the programming should be in one place in or near the OS, with apps slightly rewritten to take the advantage. Kernel growth should be minimized. Arguably, usually only graphic designers will care. Therefore, a runtime-loadable user-loadable module or daemon should contain most of the intelligence for handling this solution. Permanent OS hooks should be written to impose the least overhead when the functionality is not needed during a boot or login session. End-use applications should have little programming to support this facility, having just enough to take advantage of it, just as end-use apps have little programming in support of various kinds of printer features, but can use many kinds. Users may come to expect this facility in several major applications on one machine, so it would be more efficient to place the intelligence in one piece of software callable by all font-using applications or callable by the OS at any font-using application's behest. Application designers may have to expand the user interface a little. An app's UI offering a choice of fonts should also offer a choice of swappable font sets, perhaps in a font menu submenu that's dynamic. Near where fonts are stored on disk, a directory should be dedicated to storing text files designating swappable font sets. Multiple text files could support multiple font swapsets, useful as different graphic designers have different artistic judgments about which fonts should be in a given set, which nonidentical glyphs are similar, and how much size variation should be tolerated. The file should be a text file. From a hash to an end-of-line would be a comment. Lines would be counted, each line implicitly numbered except for comment-only lines. The following variables [(without equals signs)] should be supported, with one variable per line: version= menuitem= menuitemaltcmd= menuitemctlcmd= sequence= font= On either side of the equals sign, inline whitespace should be ignored. The values of the above vars would be as follows: * "version" would be the version of support for this file, to support future expansion, with backwards compatibility supported. Edits to the file would not require editing the version value. If a user wants versioning of the user's edits to the file, a comment will do. * "menuitem" could be read by an application and potentially assigned to naming a menu item or any comparable functionality. Ordinarily, the filename would be the same, but it needn't be, especially useful if a user wants to include in the menu item a character that can't be in a filename, such as a slash, or include in the filename a character that can't be in the menu item, such as an ampersand. This risks having two menu items that are erroneously identical, but an application optionally could present an error message to the user when starting the app and trying to populate a dynamic menu, and the user could then edit the menuitem value in one file to uniqueness or both files would be ignored for the menu. * "menuitemaltcmd" could be read by an application and potentially assigned to the first matching string in the menuitem value, so that a user could access the menu item by keyboarding it with the alt key, as is typical for many menus. The default value would be none and a failure to match would be treated like finding no match. * "menuitemctlcmd" could be read by an application and potentially assigned to the first matching string in the menuitem value, so that a user could access the menu item by keyboarding it with the control key, as is typical for many menus. The default value would be none and a failure to match would be treated like finding no match. * "sequence" would default to random unless a value of random or a space-, tab-, or comma-separated one-line list of numbers is specified. The numbers, which would not need zero-padding, would correspond to font variables in order of appearance in the text file. * "font" would name one font, optionally with a full or partial path. If no path is supplied, the default would be the path recognized for fonts by the OS. Multiple font variables would normally be present. If no font was installed for a given font variable, that variable would be ignored. If no font was installed for any font variable, the font set would appear in the font menu only as unavailable (thus dimmed). After fonts were thus assigned, the text file would no longer be needed for the document's fonts. Any fonts would be technologically compatible, but, to get full value, this would encourage developing sets of closely similar fonts that plausibly could represent one hand. Not many sets would be needed for designers to apply the system to graphic design. For backward compatibility, each of the new (latter) fonts would work as single fonts do now. This facility may require that printers have more memory, because a page having many fonts can cause some printers to choke. But this general swapfont feature would be effective even with only two to four fonts representing handwriting, and many printers handle that already. If the number of fonts (each of which must be fully loaded into a printer's memory) is a concern, I propose the multiglyph font (or another name if this is already taken). In it, each character would be available in several glyphs. Those appearing more often in running natural language (e.g., in English, the "e", or the letters in the phrase "a sin to err", which appear more than others) could be rendered with more glyphs in a single multiglyph font. Lower-case letters would need more glyphs than do capitals, although capitals would need more than one glyph per character for all-capital headlines. Such a multiglyph font should work like ordinary fonts for backwards compatibility, by drawing only one glyph per character [(and always the same glyph)] except where used as a multiglyph font. Thus, the multiglyph font-aware OS or program would recognize an ordinary font as really a multiglyph font and unleash the multfont's power. Various multiglyph fonts could be designed, but only one need be installed for graphic designers to start using the technology. To give graphic designers even more specific control, each glyph for a character would have a unique identifier, so the designer could pick the glyph desired. The default operation, however, would be for the designer to pick a multiglyph font and let the OS or program assign glyphs just as it would from a font swapset. The above was the first or original post to the like-named thread in a FedoraForum.org forum (originally Rawhide until moved to Wibble). The post was by me, was posted there April 9, 2012, and is copied here unedited except as bracketed and except that what I originally called the multifont I now call the multiglyph font. The 2d post (first reply) was about my choice of forum and is not relevant here (similar discussions from other posts are also omitted, _infra_). The 3d post was by sonoran, was posted the same day, and is quoted here in full: "That daemon would make the Maytag repair man look like a hyperactive third grader. "The glyph variation itself is a neat idea. But realistically it belongs in a scribus or libreoffice plugin. You could accomplish the same thing using unicode and special purpose script fonts with multiple glyphs per letter, and not have to alter apps or the os at all." The 4th post was by Gareth Jones, was posted April 10, 2012, and is quoted here in full: "I only skim-read the original post, but isn't that what the alternate-glyphs feature of modern fonts is intended for? As far as I know, the Linux font-rendering libraries (FreeType, Pango etc.) are already aware of alternate glyphs, and use them when needed systematically (e.g. character-sets where a glyph's rendering depends on its context), but need explicit glyph instructions from higher-level software for more artistic uses, as sonoran suggests. The developers of such programs are who to contact if you want to request that feature. "Actually, I remember reading something that suggested that XeTeX might already support such things." The 5th post was by me, was posted April 12, 2012, and is quoted here: "I've seen titling capitals and maybe a few other same-character choices in a font, but not for all characters in a font. Even if all-character-choice fonts exist, those would still require manually assigning the character in the font to one character in the string or input at a time, and that's very laborious. If the fonts I'm proposing already exist, they're not being used in obvious contexts, probably because of the labor. Computers are good at automation, and advantage should be taken of the technology. "Putting it into LibreOffice or some such would make the feature unavailable to users of other applications, such as Gimp and graphics apps, and users use many apps to get their work done. It should be available wherever text is typed and even moderately manipulable for visual effect. A plugin for a particular app is probably not portable to most apps on a user's machine, thus limiting. Putting it in one app would also make font development less likely (there was a time when fonts were in apps but that design model was abandoned). Putting the feature support where any font-using app can gain the advantage is what will get it used the most. "Unicode wouldn't work, since there's only one Unicode character for the lower-case 'a', for example. Indeed, you'd want to rely on there being only one Unicode designation to allow for the font design variations to be assigned to the repeated single character. "XeTeX does not seem to have that feature, according to the official website cited in the Wikipedia article, but maybe I missed something. ". . . . I'm not concerned with the feature being in a specific [future] version [of Fedora] . . . ." The 6th post was by bob, was posted the same day, and is quoted here: "Nick, . . . if [the thread is] . . . multi-OS (as you seem to indicate) . . . . ." The 7th and 8th posts were by Dan, were apparently identical, and were posted the same day and the seventh is quoted here: "Afternoon, Nick. ". . . . [T]his is . . . an idea which is probably best expressed over on the fedora project communication page. (developer's mailing list) "Here it won't get a whole lot of attention by the folks who can actually do something about it. . . . ." The 9th post was by sonoran, was posted the same day, and is quoted here, including quotations from my post/s: "Originally Posted by Nick Levinson . . . "'Even if all-character-choice fonts exist, those would still require manually assigning the character in the font to one character in the string or input at a time, and that's very laborious.' "It would be done by the plugin and the logic would be straightforward. You could for example base it on the most-recently-used form of the glyph, so that you would not have identical glyphs appearing close together. "Or you could base it on the adjoining or preceding glyphs - which would probably most closely resemble actual handwriting. In other words, letter x assumes one form when it follows letters a,f,t,h, and another form when it follows s,d, ... etc. "Then for added realism you could combine the two heuristics, so that letter x following letter a would not always be exactly the same. "Quote: "'Putting it into LibreOffice or some such would make the feature unavailable to users of other applications' "Not sure I understand what you mean. It is true that the plugin would be necessary to compose the text, but if they had the font, then any app that can display unicode text could properly display the script output the same way they display any other text. "Quote: "'Unicode wouldn't work, since there's only one Unicode character for the lower-case "a", for example.' "You would have multiple glyphs for lower-case 'a', as many variations as necessary to achieve the desired realism. The plugin - having decided which variation of 'a' to use for best visual results - would output that variation's code in the text. When the display software encountered that character code it would simply draw that glyph the same way it draws any other character. "The reason I'm arguing for this type of implementation is that it simply isn't realistic to expect changes to the kernel and new text-file directories in every os installation, just to achieve more realistic script display. You should take the existing text display system and work from there - especially since what you want to accomplish is achievable that way. Unicode is very powerful." The 10th post was by DBelton, was posted April 13, 2012, and is quoted here (suspension points & capitalization so in original & I think the original had a smiley not shown here): "Or a novel approach.... "IF you wish to have a realistic handwriting font you could... <*GASP*> pick up a pencil and paper and write it." The 11th post was by me, was posted April 14, 2012, and is quoted here: "Which OS: I wasn't specific but it could start in the Fedora distro or any distro. I happen to like and use Fedora (10 now and likely 15 soon) so I proposed it here. Its functionality could be inspiring to any other distro or OS; Macintosh comes to mind. "I didn't get the Maytag/hyperactivity comment. If the concern is that my proposed feature would be too sluggish, it's only a design concept, and speeding it up would be fine. As it is, it shouldn't noticeably slow Fedora down, since it should run only when commanded by a user and most users would not use it for most documents or for most parts of a document. Since font menus are dynamic already and populate quickly even from large font lists, this need not add any significant delay to an application at that stage. It'll be slower to use when the user weighs aesthetics and makes visual judgments, but so is using Gimp instead of physical paintbrushes and scissors; and quality work is often worth the care. "Plugins work and I don't doubt the ability to design one, but I question how useful a one-app plugin is for users of other apps. But if I misunderstand and one plugin (not just a ports collection) could be available to any app, then a plugin is fine. "Choosing a glyph according to its neighbors is a good idea that will probably require more research into writing styles and is likely culturally specific. If either approach leaves room for the other, that's good. "While these new or regular fonts would be available to any application, the system of choosing which of alternative glyphs in a font would apply to a particular Unicode code point should be available to users of other apps. Thus, that logic needs to be where any app can access it, in addition to the fonts themselves being available to where any font-using app can access them. "In response to 'it simply isn't realistic to expect changes to the kernel and new text-file directories in every os installation, just to achieve more realistic script display. You should take the existing text display system and work from there - especially since what you want to accomplish is achievable that way. Unicode is very powerful.': Not every OS installation, just in new ones with the feature; I wasn't thinking of backporting and this should not interfere with normal use for users who don't seek the feature. Nor replacing directories; backward compatibility with existing fonts is good. Nor choosing a favorite glyph for 'x' but rather varying it without having to vary by manually commanding a new variant with every letter, which is what a user would have to do now (and which they don't do). Logic should be added to allow automation of variation. Unicode is a set of characters that are each understood by the public as being distinct in more than visual senses, usually as having different meanings or belonging to different contexts, so expanding Unicode to encompass half a dozen ways of handwriting each character would require reconceptualizing Unicode itself and maybe enlarging the number of bytes needed to express each Unicode character and I don't think either is necessary. If one font offers three glyphs for 't' and another font offers five, the logic could take advantage of either without inserting missing-character or missing-glyph symbols or ignoring available glyphs and without expanding or redefining Unicode. "I think we agree on a lot and that we're about half way to agreement on the concept. "I categorize the 'pencil' idea with general principles of Luddites. Great idea that applies to nearly everything done on computers. As to advertising headlines, so many people have unappealing handwriting that the likelihood is that the noncomputer solution would be to hire a painter for about the price of a Microsoft software package, and the painter wouldn't be reusable for the fee." The above is quoted from the forum as it stood on April 14 and the following is likewise but as of April 21. The 12th post was by Dan, was posted April 14, 2012, and is quoted here: "Good deal, Nick. Give 'em the devil on their own doorstep, and something really nice may come out of it. "I look forward to seeing the concept in execution." The 13th and, so far, last post was by sonoran, was posted April 16, 2012, and is quoted here: "Quote: "Originally Posted by Nick Levinson . . . "'I didn't get the Maytag/hyperactivity comment.' "It was an old ad campaign featuring Jesse White - the idea was that Maytag appliances were so good the repairman seldom had anything to do. "Quote: "'the system of choosing which of alternative glyphs in a font would apply to a particular Unicode code point should be available to users of other apps. Thus, that logic needs to be where any app can access it' "My thought was that the logic to determine which glyph to use only needs to be available when the text is first laid out, at which time the appropriate character code is selected. When the time comes for any app to display that text it wouldn't need anything but the font. So the plugin would only be required by apps like word processors and page layout programs, and would not be necessary just to display the text. "But it's your idea - you should run with it however you think best. "(another variation occurred to me - the location of a glyph in a word. Most handwriting fonts contain connectors at the bottom so that letters appear continuous when displayed. This always looks wrong for a lowercase letter at the start of a word, people just don't write that way. "So the heuristic would check whether a glyph was lowercase at the start of a word and use the appropriate variant if so. Something similar could be done for the last letter in a word because people don't write glyphs with trailing connectors there, either.)" My reply to the last post (a new reply, not at the forum): I agree, with one exception, that the logic is not necessary for text display (and therefore it's not necessary for printing). If several fonts of today's font types are available, then all that's needed is the assigning of a font to a character, and that will exclusively determine a single glyph for the character. The exception is if special fonts are designed using a new technology supported by this feature, a multiglyph font, in which the "e" would have several glyphs in the one font, then, once a glyph has been assigned, the only logic needed is that determining which glyph belongs to a particular character at a particular position in a string, and even then the rest of the logic, controlling the assignment process, would not be needed once the glyph has been assigned. Further, even for the last case, the document could store the glyph selector with the font identification that is with the character, in which case no logic is needed outside of the multiglyph font and the document. Positional adaptation is also a good idea; thank you, sonoran. In my observations, connected-script fonts always put the point of connection at a constant height above the base line and almost no one ordinarily writes that way.

2 1

autohinter in f18
by Akira TAGOH 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

Hi, just for suggestion according to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708525#c18 that may be worth trying enabling autohint by default in f18 and see how it looks better. if there are less fonts not working properly, we could disable it in the fontconfig config file in the specific font packages perhaps. Any comments? -- Akira TAGOH

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts April 2012