That’s some impressive marketing. I like that they’re able to make the case for both a silly display type gimmick and for something that solves real technical problems.
Looks really nice. Sorry if this sounds like a silly question, but would the extension and interface they have created work with any variable font or just the Flex ones?
To clarify my post above: I was referring to the typeface itself, and especially the first time I saw it, where it struck me how much better it would work if the widths didn't change:
I admit uniwidth is a pet like of mine, but I don't see how anybody can deny its relevance to dynamic typography in general, and a "torch effect" in particular. I'd like to encourage Underware and anybody else working on variable fonts to take uniwidth to heart.
This is certainly a poster child for uniwidth weight variation having a use.
If somebody wants to put both uniwidth and variable-width glyphs in their font, more power to them. But taking your weight variation axis and making it only uniwidth is a Really Bad utility-reducing idea.
@Thomas Phinney As I recently professed elsewhere a unwidth toggle is indeed the ideal. That said, it's only at extremes of weight that uniwidth does more harm than good (and for those I recommend what I call the "fixed-offset" strategy).
Comments
(I don't know that they document this new custom format—has anybody seen such docs?)
I was referring to the typeface itself, and especially the first time I saw it, where it struck me how much better it would work if the widths didn't change:
I admit uniwidth is a pet like of mine, but I don't see how anybody can deny its relevance to dynamic typography in general, and a "torch effect" in particular. I'd like to encourage Underware and anybody else working on variable fonts to take uniwidth to heart.
If somebody wants to put both uniwidth and variable-width glyphs in their font, more power to them. But taking your weight variation axis and making it only uniwidth is a Really Bad utility-reducing idea.