It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Georg Seifert said:But that is a problem with your tools and not inherent to interpolation.
@John Hudson I'm confused now. If I want 5 accessible weights from my typeface, but not the intermediate spaces, is it doable with 3 masters, or are now 5 masters (delta if I understanding correctly) necessary to do what you describe?
It seems that Pablo missed ybaggar’s contribution here, and my
Why would this happen,
if an avar table would be used to tweak the coordinate space? Perhaps Rob McKaughan can say
something about this.
Discussing ways to
restrict the functionality of a variable font, is discussing proper/new use cases of the
format. (These may not be interesting use cases for people who primarily focus
on the new technical possibilities of the format, and who do not care much
about the marketing of fonts.)
Try to imagine a
future world, in which most customers expect to buy font families packaged in variable
font files. If you don’t want to create a restricted or discrete variable
font—would you then, because of that, force yourself to only sell
variable font families with the maximum possible functionality?
From a marketing perspective—the option to restrict variable fonts (and tools
which support that), may be vital for the success of variable fonts.
Georg Seifert said:
It is interesting that most discussions here are about finding the breaking points of the format, instead of discussing proper/new use cases.
Perhaps I am
overthinking things. I can understand the hesitation to say that a variable
font in which the variation consists of discrete steps, does vary—although I do
not agree with it. Perhaps using a label for discrete variable fonts without “variable”,
might make sense. Perhaps a TTC will prove to be a better way to pack
traditional font families. Perhaps my guesswork about what has market
potential, will prove to be wrong. The future may be far away. No one knows
which scenario will unfold. Let’s wait and see.