What is your practice regarding releasing variable fonts and static flat static instances of the same family together?
1. Do you stack "Variable", "VF", or any suffix to the family name? (Or style name?) Or just leave it the same as the static flat static family? For the purpose of adding both to the same family (aka product page) on MyFonts, I suppose I'm better off adding a suffix? Which would also allow to use both formats in apps at the same time, if anyone should need to. As well as give a hint to the user that they're dealing with a variable font.
2. MyFonts only allows OTF (PS, I suppose) or TTF exclusively. Does it allow PS instances + TT variable?
3. Price scheme. I suppose variable fonts could be packaged with the full family (being its extension and counterpart) and not offered separately, contrary to single styles?
Edits: I'm very impressionable, within the first four hours. Anyone feel like touching on the actual topic?
Comments
Note: To whoever disagreed, I edited my post for clarity. It's not a matter for debate, "static" is in common use to describe any font use that comports with a more modern concept of "print". This covers the universe of printed and digital use where the font is rendered as an image and isn't present as software.
Static font has been used to distinguish non-variable fonts from variable for a long time, possibly since MM and GX days in the 1990s.
No.
“Static fonts” is not a new term with reference to variable fonts; it has been in use for years. It is in the OpenType spec, as well as the Wikipedia article on variable fonts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_fonts
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/opentype/spec/otvaroverview
https://www.lambdatest.com/blog/variable-fonts-cross-browser-compatibility/
etcetera
I might agree that it is not a matter for debate—only I would have the opposite conclusion as to what the “common use” is. Mine is backed up by search engines, though.
EDIT/ADD
I see that a summary of the Darden Studio EULA terms refers to “static display of fonts.” This isn’t even a conflicting usage of the term! And the word “static” does not even occur in the Darden EULA. I am now curious as to where exactly this other usage of the phrase “static fonts” has occurred? In a presentation or talk, perhaps?
Like John, my first thought is that our usage of “static” might date back to the MM days of 20+ years ago. But I can’t easily locate any evidence to support that.
1) If both versions exist, then I will stick VF at the end of the family name for the variable version. I am inclined to do something to keep the static fonts from name-colliding with the variable fonts.
That said, on further thought, as long as the static fonts are pretty much “the same” and built off of the instances, I suppose that isn’t necessary—as long as you tell people that they can’t have both installed at once. I could be down with that.
3) Like most people, I am inclined to give a discount if somebody wants to buy the family. I would then also ... simply include the variable font in the family package. Not raising the price. What I am really doing in my head is selling them the variable font and throwing in the static fonts as a workaround for dealing with old apps and buggy apps.
I sometimes use “instance font” to mean that latter, but if somebody has a better name for that, I would switch.
I agree that constant, static and fixed are ~ synonymous. It’s just that static is the standard term for this and has been for years. I don’t think there is an advantage to using a bunch of synonyms for a single technical thing.
That in turn points out one of the things I hate about no-modifications EULAs, btw. I would have done that a lot more, if more EULAs allowed it. Adobe was good for that. But having the whole Monotype library was definitely less exciting because of that.
So, although the OpenType variable font format is directly descended from GX variations technology, use of the term GX isn't a good idea unless you're talking specifically about a legacy GX variations font that isn't conformant with the modern OT variations spec.
And yes, “font”, although it has become a popular, generic synonym for "typeface", it is rather alluding to the technical aspects. I find satisfying the historically aware definition borrowed by Wikipedia which states «In both traditional typesetting and modern usage, the word "font" refers to the delivery mechanism of the typeface design. In traditional typesetting, the font would be made from metal or wood. Today, the font is a digital file.»
So, since we want just to distinguish between the software representing the typeface in its actual behavior, I would say any suffix could be good (VF or whatever), provided it’s enough clear to make the user aware of the fact that the file is a set of instances as opposed to a single weight/style of the family.
Since anyone buying a variable font is, essentially, buying the entire family, I just toss in the variable fonts when someone buys the whole family. Likewise, when someone buys the variable font, they also get all the non-variable fonts in the family.
As for MyFonts only allowing standard OTF & TTF, I have variable fonts listed there. Same with FontSpring. I remember there being a small hassle about including them, but it was quickly resolved — so quickly, in fact, that I don't remember the details.