Howdy, Stranger!

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

Thomas Phinney

About

Username
Thomas Phinney
Joined
Visits
1,184
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
755
Invited by
Admin James Puckett
Posts
850
  • Re: Romanée – New Release?

    This University of California Davis law review article, from 2009, offers a pretty good overview of U.S. copyright law in regard to fonts and typeface design, as well as other aspects of U.S. law that bear upon it: https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/43/1/articles/43-1_Lipton.pdf. The 1988 decision  of U.S. Copyright Office on the copyrightability of digital typefaces can be read here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Policy_Decision_on_Copyrightability_of_Digitized_Typefaces.

    Please, never cite the 1988 decision of the US copyright office without highlighting even more that they dramatically revised that decision in 1992 (arguably reversed it, in effect, for modern digital fonts), just three years and four months later.
  • Re: Ordinal/superscript feature for French

    ® Should almost always be superscript. (And © should always be full-size.)
  • Re: Are we heading towards a "VariableFontCloud"?

    Tons of good responses already in this thread. I agree with almost all of them.

    We have had these capabilities repeatedly over the years. Infinifont, FontChameleon. Etcetera.

    Early versions of such tech required that the fonts be manually adapted into the system. Still, you could make a FontChameleon "descriptor" for a single style of a font in about a day. Maybe a couple of days to a week depending on how precise you needed to be.

    Once you had that, you could blend to your heart’s content.

    But you know what? Designers/users did not go gaga over this technology. It just didn't change the world. Maybe that's because Adobe bought FontChameleon to use as a ROM font compression tech so it didn't have full opportunity in the marketplace. But I don't think that's the only reason. Unless you had a particular need, it was just a nice toy.

    FontLab VI allows you to blend nearly arbitrary fonts, too, as long as they are structurally compatible. It does this without the same amount of setup it used to require, which is a neat feature, and will come in super handy. But at the end of the day, that is just a tool. Better than the previous blend tool, but not a revolution in and of itself.
  • Re: EULAs: No Modifications Clauses.

    Why NOT allow mods:

    1) Support issues. Support calls. If you allow mods, you have to deal with more users who may have been the authors of their own troubles by messing something up while modifying the font.

    2) Purity. The type designer doesn't want others messing up their glyphs or spacing.

    Why ALLOW mods:

    1) You have to deal with modified fonts anyway, and ask about them. Just warn that you don't support the modified fonts, and you are no worse off than if you didn't allow mods at all.

    2) Sometimes users have a perfectly good reason. Their company is named "FreeValve" and you didn't kern the "eV" combo and they want to kern it. Or any number of oddball things. Easier to just allow mods in general, rather than make users contact you every time.
  • Re: Weapon of choice

    Although the Anker vertical mouse may be great for some folks, it is not for me. Maybe a different model would be better... or maybe not. Some of the issues seem to be more general, some specific to this model.

    If somebody wants me to bring it to an event, I'm happy to give it away in exchange for a drink or a good coffee.  :)  Maybe I'll give it one more try before then, but I'm not optimistic.

    What I found was that with a normal mouse, gravity helps you with clicking the button. The mouse doesn't try to move away. With this vertical mouse, the mouse wants to move sideways when you click, because, well, you're clicking sideways! (Probably also why the mouse is so heavy, but that's still not enough.) So I have to exert extra pressure with my thumb to hold it steady, while clicking.

    Less pressure to do a click would help.

    Also, with my old MS mouse button, the whole button area depresses. Thus I can exert pressure from about half my finger, getting more weight of the whole finger into it. With this mouse, the button clicks from the far end of the button only. So I *must* click with more of the tip of my finger. This requires more effort, requires resistance from the end of my thumb, and overall involves a lot more muscle tension and tenses up a tendon I normally don't noticeably use at all with my mouse.

    So, while the initial hand position may be slightly more natural and relaxed, I basically gave up on this device after less than a day as exhausting to use.

    I suspect a different model might be better, but I also see that the "fighting against sideways pressure" might be hard to avoid.  https://www.amazon.com/Anker-Ergonomic-Optical-Vertical-Buttons/dp/B00FPAVUHC