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
- 491 Type Design Critiques
- 572 Type Design Software
- 1.1K Type Design Technique & Theory
- 666 Type Business
- 878 Font Technology
- 29 Punchcutting
- 532 Typography
- 121 Type Education
- 330 Type History
- 81 Type Resources
- 111 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 32 Lettering Critiques
- 79 Lettering Technique & Theory
- 563 Announcements
- 97 Events
- 116 Job Postings
- 169 Type Releases
- 180 Miscellaneous News
- 270 About TypeDrawers
- 54 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 114 Suggestions and Bug Reports
