Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Adam Ladd

About

Username
Adam Ladd
Joined
Visits
44
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
7
Posts
18
  • Re: Private Use Area for ligatures and alternates

    Thanks much for your feedback and experiences, all, I can still see a case for both sides... and @Thomas Phinney , I appreciate the candor and insight.

    I think @Ray Larabie 's example and points about including PUA codes for these glyphs is a selling point for those buyers using lower end software (who are knowledgable enough about it)—and their subsequent requests for PUA to be added to the alternate glyphs after purchasing a font—is on point with that side of the argument, and why one might lean towards adding the PUA codes. (And, I will say, this is for a display typeface, as noted.)

    Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the best nor purest practice, but without the codes, the concern indeed is customers who bought the fonts but can't use fully... PUA codes seemingly would help alleviate that—at least for display type it may be less problematic.

    The challenge, it appears in current day, is there is such a large range of buyers to consider (from hobbyists to pro designers), software sophistication (or lack thereof) being used, and knowledge base (what to look for and how to use fonts with features).
  • Re: Private Use Area for ligatures and alternates

    If the intended use of the font is things people will never open again after the job goes to print then PUA encoding should be fine. If this is a complex renaissance text face with quaint ligatures then definitely not.
    Perhaps a good distillation for when it may be more appropriate add the PUAs than not. Display fonts can be more accommodating. But a heavy-lifting type family would be more of a concern because of the broken functionality.