OT features' hierarchy.

Eimantas Paškonis
Posts: 91
Sure, both OT code and hierarchy is simple if font is lightweight, but it gets confusing real fast when there's locl, case, calt, liga, dlig, smcp, c2sc, swsh, frac, ss01-07, sinf/sups/subs, numr/dnom, lnum/onum, pnum/tnum etc. to work with.
I know that everyone's have different methods and it varies from font to font, but what's your usual strategy? Do you put most common features at the top or vice versa? The ones that affect the most glyphs?
I know that everyone's have different methods and it varies from font to font, but what's your usual strategy? Do you put most common features at the top or vice versa? The ones that affect the most glyphs?
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
I mainly look out for possible interactions when multiple features are applied. For instance, I put smcp before liga. If I didn't, I'd have to figure out a way to transform fi, fl, ffi, ffl, etc. into small caps in the smcp feature. Similarly, I place frac and sinf/sups/subs before figure style transformations.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 46 Introductions
- 3.8K Typeface Design
- 478 Type Design Critiques
- 558 Type Design Software
- 1.1K Type Design Technique & Theory
- 645 Type Business
- 836 Font Technology
- 29 Punchcutting
- 512 Typography
- 119 Type Education
- 318 Type History
- 75 Type Resources
- 110 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 31 Lettering Critiques
- 79 Lettering Technique & Theory
- 538 Announcements
- 87 Events
- 111 Job Postings
- 168 Type Releases
- 171 Miscellaneous News
- 274 About TypeDrawers
- 53 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 119 Suggestions and Bug Reports