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
- 3.9K Typeface Design
- 487 Type Design Critiques
- 567 Type Design Software
- 1.1K Type Design Technique & Theory
- 658 Type Business
- 862 Font Technology
- 29 Punchcutting
- 522 Typography
- 120 Type Education
- 325 Type History
- 77 Type Resources
- 112 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 33 Lettering Critiques
- 79 Lettering Technique & Theory
- 559 Announcements
- 94 Events
- 114 Job Postings
- 170 Type Releases
- 180 Miscellaneous News
- 276 About TypeDrawers
- 54 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 120 Suggestions and Bug Reports
