Yes, it is about the custom tables for manipulating kerning pairs in QuarkXpress that it seems many users would love to see in InDesign. It's an old and common feature request. Nothing i care for but of course I would call the solutions, that exist instead, less intuitive.
As I thought about it, I wondered if maybe there was a specific reason Adobe didn't want an implementation like that. Some people are guessing font licensing as an explanation, but does copying kerning values from a font count as piracy?
Comments
Back in the day, it was a great feature due, I think, too even of letter spacing, whether too loose or, less often, too tight. While I still use the feature once in a blue moon with newer fonts, it's rare as manual kerning takes care of the odd need.
For instance, a custom kerning table for Palatino (sorry, Hermann!)
Also custom tracking/letterspacing—good for size-specific setting, as you can plot letterspacing against size.
BTW, the reason I dropped Quark was its lack of OpenType support.
It might be a design decission. Adobe aims not exclusively at professionals and tools for a higher degree of control dont offer their full potential without using scripts. Maybe they dont want to make it look too technical.