MS Word outlining one of my fonts

Hi there,

I am having an issue with some versions of MS Word outlining one of my fonts and I can't find the reason or how to prevent this from happening.

The problem only happens with the Thin weight of the family. The other bolder weights are rendered fine.
The top sample is how it looks in Word and below is how it should look.

Any idea?


  • Ramiro EspinozaRamiro Espinoza Posts: 766
    edited April 2019
    Yes! Problem solved. Somehow when I was using Fontlab I always had this weight class problem present in my mind but now that I mostly use Glyphs I tend to forget about the hack.
    A Weight Class custom parameter of 250 solved the problem. Thanks!
  • Thomas PhinneyThomas Phinney Posts: 1,929
    Yup, standard GDI problem.  :/
  • Jens KutilekJens Kutilek Posts: 258
    edited April 2019
    Which version of Word is that? Looks pretty ancient in the screenshot. The ribbon interface was introduced in Office 2007, so it must be pre-2007?

    Is weight code < 250 still a problem in current versions?
  • @Jens Kutilek I have some old PCs I use for testing. I think it's 2002 running on Vista
  • AbrahamLeeAbrahamLee Posts: 251
    Actually, I still use Office 2003 on my personal computer and it uses the ribbon.
  • Paul van der LaanPaul van der Laan Posts: 206
    edited April 2019
    @Ramiro Espinoza Is that OTF or TTF? I always recommend TTF fonts to Office users.

    @Jens Kutilek Word 2010 (and higher) on Windows 7 has no rendering problems with TTF fonts with OS/2 usWeight values < 250.

  • Artur SchmalArtur Schmal Posts: 72
    edited April 2019
    I always recommend TTF fonts to Office users.
    Another reason for for Office users on Windows to use TTF is that OTF's will be rasterised in pdf's while TTF's will be embedded.
  • Cory MaylettCory Maylett Posts: 155
    edited April 2019
    This MS GDI problem and the 250 weight workaround is new to me, so I have questions.

    Is the workaround to design the actual 200 weight class glyphs, but simply designate the font they're in as 250. What if there's a 100 weight in the family? Would it have a parameter of 250 with the actual 200 weight being what, 260, maybe?

    Could this cause potential problems for web fonts made from fonts including this workaround where a web coder specs a font with a weight attribute value of 100 or 200 only to find it doesn't work because the font has a weight parameter of 250? This workaround wouldn't — unless I'm missing something — work in variable fonts. Then again, I suppose variable fonts are unlikely to ever be an issue with Windows GDI products. But still, does this workaround hack risk introducing issues that, going forward, might cause as many problems as it solves when looking backwards?
  • The OT WeightValue has nothing to do with the CSS weight number. So a Thin weight with a WeightValue of 300 can be assigned a css value of 100.
  • Cory MaylettCory Maylett Posts: 155
    edited April 2019
    Just drawing out a little more information to lessen my ignorance.

    When a CSS weight is specified, it it just the name of the font that is used as the determiner of which web font the browser will display — not a parameter within the font itself?

    When uploading fonts to online distributors they, at least from my experience, create the web fonts themselves and seemingly use the internal weight parameters as a basis for the WOFF font names. If the CSS weight determiner is just a file naming convention issue, it wouldn't seem like a big deal just to change the name, but any out-of-the-ordinary thing when working with online distributors, from my experience, is a potential problem best avoided.

    I'm just trying to understand all this, but, in general, I do have a preference for sticking to standards and favoring attempts at future compatibility over loading down software with workarounds for shrinking minorities of users who, for whatever reason, do not upgrade and who are likely experiencing (and seeming willing to put up with) various glitches anyway.

    I suppose lots what is appropriate depends on one's anticipated users. The typefaces I'm designing are probably geared more toward other graphic designers and not so much Microsoft Office users. If there's no downside to a small hack, like the 250 workaround, fine, I don't see a big problem, but my first inclination is to avoid it since it's an issue those who I anticipate using my fonts are unlikely to encounter.

    I could be wildly off-base in both my knowledge and opinions, which is exactly why I'm asking and hoping to find out. 
  • Belleve InvisBelleve Invis Posts: 269
    I think recent Word (in O365) have already fixed that?

    The problem is that Word is requesting “YourFamily Thin” with “weight = 400”, but the font said its weight is very thin (like <200), so DWrite (yes Word in O365 uses DWrite only) made a faux bold.
Sign In or Register to comment.