Thanks for the bug reports @Botio Nikoltchev, and sorry for not confirming per your email - I did get them They are now on the to-do list, feel free to open issues right there on Github if you are using that site. A smaller bug fix update will soon be shipped. About standard ligatures: I think by default browsers have them activated - I agree the checkbox state not being selected is a bug, but would keep that standard behaviour (i.e. active by default).
@James Montalbano yea, sure they are. That's just the nature of webfonts. The "feature request" to make the fonts served in the sampler be somehow secured comes up over and over again. I just think it's a philosophical mismatch that one the one hand folks want users to be able to test their fonts on their website, but on the other do not want to serve the font as a webfont. I'm open for suggestions! Also, what I have been suggesting is that folks use only subset fonts for the samplers, to mitigate the harm from anybody in fact ripping those webfonts used in the sampler. If you sell webfonts, anybody can rip those fonts from wherever those (legally licensed and payed for) webfonts are used, but of course I appreciate the foundry's or designer's own site is a different story.
At any rate, thanks to the people that have been using the plugin and sharing their feedback to make it better
I am actively developing the plugin for my own use and it will be used on two sites I'm building (one for a type designer friend, one for myself). While nothing speaks against making it available to others in one form or another, the current implementation is rather "hacked together" and specific to those site's needs, so I assume it won't work out of the box without some more integration and testing.
It's indeed rather a specific niche, so I doubt that making it publicly available "as is" would result in happy admin users, or useful code contributions for that matter (happy to be surprised, if someone is interested in pitching in). One option would be to do an assessment on what's needed to make it a little more generally applicable or integrate with your specific site and needs. This would have to be further down the line, though, after those two projects I mentioned are launched. I'll post back here once I got something more substantial to share with any interested designers. Feel free to share how your sites and plans are developing in this regard
After four years of dormancy this topic seems to take the turn from discussing nomenclature to discussing marketing, and rightly so. If anything this thread shows that the various terms are largely up for interpretation, especially so when you ask your average buyer. The real issue is ab/using the ambivalence of said terms as a means to sell type. Designers are desperate to appeal to potential users with terms they presumably identify as marks of quality. All in all, this is the same issue that brings families with 64 styles and 5000 glyphs each to the market, no matter if the design calls for it or not. More is not less, in type design?
Would be curious to hear how other people have tackled this. My basic problem with WooCommerce was that I didn't find a way to dynamically generate differently priced products that share everything else (i.e. files, descriptions, why not even SKU's). Things like Product Variations are terribly unmanageable, unless there's something I am missing?
So far I've created a Custom WooCommerce "typeface" product type as plugin. With it you can define and feed licence types (you can define them yourself, so say "desktop", "web", etc.) and options (like 1-5 users, 100% price, 6-10 users, 150% price, etc.), and associate those licence types with any uploaded downloadables from the product, which then become available selectively to based on what licences the customer based purchased. The prices can be set percentually or absolute, and each product can use defaults or overwrite them. Since it modifies a lot of price related things via hooks "along the way" I am not sure how generally applicable it is to other scenarios, but with some work it could be made to work more universally. Still somewhat work in progress at the moment, though.
Also, this is interesting (singular rather than plural on the book search)
You can combine those hits by appending wildcard * or _INF.
Also, comparing the decrease in "font" and simultaneous increase in "typeface" to their combined total shows that it might be the terminology shifting from the DTP age "font" to the more distinguished "typeface" term, without an actual decline in the volume of the results.
While it does inform to the purchase timing, all in all this says little about the industry as a whole.